Stosh

Because of the area I live in, there are a ton of freebie events that are available just for the price of gas to get there. Hundreds of miles of nature trails, major bike trail runs through the area, kayaking and canoeing options, camping on an undeveloped island for a bit of high adventure is 1/4 mile off a major boat landing. If gas it too expensive, one can always walk there for free, too. Dutch oven cookout/cookoff, can be held in city parks. Orienteering, rocketry, and a dozen other activities can be done in a farmer's hayfield. We live in a society that strongly believes unless it costs a ton of money, it isn't going to be fun. Good thing I'm old fashioned (and as my wife points out - CHEAP) Stosh

The philosophy of the basis of their thinking is rooted in the creation of the world without God's intervention, i.e. evolution. According to them, everything we have and are simply evolved from natural causes. No problem with this, except it is diametrically opposite to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, one God created it. They have shed their various mythology stories along the way, but the dynamics of their beliefs have remained constant throughout history. Yes, there are people of these three religious beliefs that believe in evolution, but the struggle against heresies has always been there as well especially when it is packaged as pretty tempting philosophy. Looks good on the surface, but once you peel back a couple of layers, things fall apart pretty quickly. AZMike, you are never going to convince people who do such things that they are doing anything wrong, they are masters of working within and manipulating the "systems" of this world. They are of this world because they have no God. Jews, Christians and Muslims have been persecuted over the years starting right from the very beginning. You are seeing a pretty mild form of persecution compared to what these heresies and human idolatry have done in the past. I have to admit, I admire the religious tenacity of the Jews and Muslims, who have hung on to their faith a lot stronger than Christians have. Of course they have been persecuted a lot more and that may be the reason for it. Christianity was a lot stronger when it was persecuted, so what you are describing in your post doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't concern me much either. It's just a matter of time before they find some new de jour to complain about. Tolerance is not their strong point. For a Christian, it is a virtue. Once you Name the enemy, it looses its power over you. Ask your Jewish friends that that means, they'll know. Stosh

This is why I have problems with term elections. It's kinda like being elected to advance, especially when the scout is popular. On the other hand, electing someone because they need a POR for advancement is another whole arena of abuse. Pigeon hole requirements are pretty much an adult attempt to quantify a subjective subject. Really can't be done gracefully. Rules for being responsible -> 1) Show up for X% of the meetings, activities and outings. That's the one "measurement" that can be used for any POR's. Other rules would be position specific. But simply showing up is not doing the job. Why is it even there in the first place? And every adult will say, "Because!" It's a kinda feel good thingy on the part of the adults. Scout: "I showed up for the meetings, I delegated responsibility to others, I kept notes on what didn't get done." SM: "Yes, but nothing got done." Scout: "Yes, I know, but I still get credit for the POR. You can't penalize me just because the other boys didn't do what I told them to do." So being responsible has nothing to do with leadership. I can fill that position and demonstrate NO leadership and I still get credit. And THAT is why I don't put POR patches on my scouts' uniforms. SM: "Hey, what are you guys doing over there, you're not supposed to be doing that!" Scout: "Yeah, but this job has to be done before we go on the campout next weekend." SM: "Did the QM tell you to do that?" Scout: "No, but I was worried it wasn't going to get done, so I asked John, Pete, Fred to help me make sure the troop was ready to go." SM: "Well, I'm telling you to get away from there. That's the QM's job and if he isn't going to do it, the adults will handle it at the next BOR." So where's the real leadership? It surely isn't with the SM and QM. And the next time real leadership is needed, where is it going to come from? Stosh

As I have said all along, neither theory is provable, both based on a belief system, and both are subject to interpretation. No conclusive evidence has been proven either way, that's why it has and will until some future time it remains myth, theory, hypothesis, philosophy, theology, or whatever one wishes to define it. The only thing everyone has determined, it has not been proven by empirical science. If it had, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Stosh

Skeptic, I'm completely comfortable with the fact that I know very little about religion. But Stosh, he seems to think he does know something about science. And I disagree. -- I never stated I knew that much about science. But I do know about theology. Evolution is a philosophical/theological issue wrapped up in pseudo-scientific terminology. Thus I don't have to know all that much about science. Stosh, you didn't provide any qualification to your use of 'new world order'. Here's what you wrote: "Individual freedoms have no place in the New World Order..." -- Yep, civilization are the laws based on morality for the community of people. Morality are the norms for the betterment of all, not just a few who feel they are better or above the law. Yet I have no problem with people expressing their individuality within that community, especially when the results have a positive effect on others around them. When their individuality has a negative effect, I have problems with that. If a person figures out how to make a bazillion dollars so that a bazillion others can make a living. No problem. I just noted that Bush also had a New World Order. In fact, it's the last one I've heard anyone speak of. I didn't criticize him. If anything Bush's version seemed to conflict with what you wrote...but of course, as I mentioned, you provided no qualification. I didn't pass judgment. Perhaps there was no conflict in your alternate universe. -- No conflict of thought in my universe. I do credit the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Egyptians, many others with the wonderful ideas that led to modern science. Of course, just like today, they had some very wrong ideas along with the ones that have stood the test. Some of the wrong ones were part of religious faiths and since you mention the term that I am not allowed to mention, some of those incorrect ideas that were once matters of faith are ones that you seem to view as 'myths'. -- There are plenty of atheist and religious scientists on both sides promoting science. Some on both sides were wrong. It would seem that science has no relevant correlation to pure science which seeks answers to the natural world. Toss in religion to the mix and science seems to take a back seat in the process. Regardless, if malarial fever, or ergot-infected grain stored in Middle Eastern granaries caused hallucinations that inspired new ideas, I'm good with it whether those ideas are supernatural forces doing supernatural things to people, or if they're merely new insights that can be tested in science. But while the entirety of the historical pageant of man leads in different ways to where we are now, only one of those two sources of inspiration is related to science. I guess the supernatural IS a sort of alternate universe. -- phi·los·o·phy n. pl. phi·los·o·phies 1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. 2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. 3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. 4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. 5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. 6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. 7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising. 8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life. Whoever and however a bit of wisdom comes to mankind is irrelevant. It's there, it's hypothetical and it is up science to validate. However, based on logical reasoning is definitely not the same as pure scientific empirical methods. It would seem that all 8 rely on a belief system in one form of another rather than empirical proofs. That puts it more in the theological arena rather than scientific. To say evolution which is based on ancient philosophies is scientific is simply bogus. Scientists do great at providing empirical proofs of many once philosophical ideas. That's their job. They have been working on the natural world since day one. Great strides in science have resulted in a ton of beneficial things for mankind. However, touting philosophical or theological ideas as science just doesn't cut it in my universe. Using such destructive techniques, claiming scientific proof, to harm other is really not my cup of tea either. Stosh

I'm sure Ted Key and Jay Ward have the issue well in hand. After all, they are the only ones who can sue on their copyright infringement. I'm sure if they did, the media would have picked it up by now.

Wallace wrote his letter to Darwin in February of 1858, Darwin wrote ORIGIN in 1859 and Spencer in 1864. Henry Fairfield Osborn, longtime director of the American Museum of Natural History, said, "When I began to the search for anticipations of the evolutionary theory... I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventy century B.C." (Osborn, FROM THE GREEKS TO DARWIN, p. xi) So, the Greek idea of tyrannically ruling the world had it's basis well established well before social-Darwinism raised it's ugly head up yet again in the 20th century. Sounds like a lot of plagiarism going on for a long time. And to plagiarize Greek philosophy and mythology for scientific purposes has always left me skeptical of any form of "scientific" Darwinianism. "I was then [February 1858] living at Ternate in the Moluccas, and was suffering from a rather severe attack of intermittent fever, which prostrated me every day during the cold and succeeding hot fits. During one of these fits, while again considering the problem of the origin of species, something led me to think of Malthus' Essay on Population...." (Alfred Russel Wallace, THE WONDERFUL CENTURY: ITS SUCCESSES AND ITS FAILURES (New York, 1898), p. 139. A fit of malarial fever produced the concept? Quite a scientifically based breakthrough wouldn't you say? Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/demotrans/malbox.htm So, what I see we have here is a mixture of Greek mythology and philosophers, theologians and atheists battling it out over what we are led to believe is a "scientific theory". And I'm the one that lives in an alternative universe? So while we debate who said what first, it doesn't answer the question of Bush's comments. Was the New World Order alluded to by Bush, one of independent free nations where rule of Law supplants the rule of the jungle where the strong protect the weak? or one where one government rules over all and as Marxian/Malthusian ideology goes with survival of the fittest, (Bush's rule of the jungle) where the weak are exterminated and one country is free to attack the weak? Sorry, but coming from a different universe than yours, it is difficult to buy into such an obvious butchering of scientific protocol and it's abuse on the world of civilization. I still kinda like Bush's New World Order over that of Darwin's creation. Nothing out there convincing me of ever changing my mind. I kinda like my universe where people cooperate, tolerate, and build a better world order over wars, destruction and the quest of the fittest to rule over or exterminate the less fortunate. Sorry, I still think the ideals of Judeo, Christian and Muslim principles still hold sway over mythology, pantheism and Darwinism. Must be my professional theological and semi-professional historical backgrounds holding me back. Stosh

"Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain -- that is, the fittest would survive. Then at once I seemed to see the whole effect of this..." Alfred Russel Wallace, MY LIFE, (London, 1905), p. 362 "...the whole method of species modification became clear to me, and in the two hours of my fit I had thought out the main points of the theory. That same evening I sketch out the draft of a paper; and in the two succeeding evenings I wrote it out, and sent it by the next post to Mr. Darwin." Wallace, THE WONDERFUL CENTURY, p 140 "Suddenly it occurred to the feverish naturalist in a lightning flash of insight that Malthus' checks to human increase... must, in similar or analogous way, operate in the natural world as well... It was Darwin's unpublished conception down to the last detail, independently duplicated by a man sitting in a hut at the world's end." Eiseley, "ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE", p. 80. My universe has libraries, that have books. Stosh http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-constitution-and-slavery

The Founding Fathers knew full well the hypocrisy of the document at the time, but sold out to the southern states insisting on slavery or they wouldn't have backed the revolution. I believe it was Jefferson who said something about having a wolf by the ears in reference to the problem. Prior to Darwin? Heck, he stole every one eles's ideas for his book. Wallace came up with the idea and coined it survival of the fittest to explain why the superior species were able to progress and not be "set back" by the inferiors. The concepts of evolution go way back to the Greek and Roman times in some form or another. Most of the ideas that philosophically formulated about evolution appeared in the time period between 500 BC and BC. Darwin took/stole credit for a lot of other people's philosophies. Aristotle, Plato and Socrates all philosophized on the subject. `We are united in the belief that Iraq's aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors.'' - One can't express anti-Darwinism any better than that. Quote taken from the Bush speech you are referring to. "Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the Earth." Tyrannical Darwinism once more cited. "We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come." One one puts the comment back into the context it was taken out of, one can see it is very anti-Darwinian. Karl Marx was the one who wrote in Das Kapital about how to "speed up" evolution through revolution and anarchy. (Class-Darwinism) Hitler, simply put it into practice with his whole premise of how superior the Aryan Nation was above all others. (Racial-Darwinism) The new world order Bush is referring to is not the one you are suggesting. Instead it's based on the Judeao/Christian dynamics of world peace through cooperation and welfare for all, not the imperialism and conquest of one's weaker neighbors. The principles promoted by Darwin are also the same ones promoted by Rome as it, too, tried to rule the world by militaristic imperialism. Greeks with Aristotle, Plato and Socrates also had the same ideals. Just doesn't work, "The meek shall inherit the world", and it's interesting, the meek are still around in spite of the destructive philosophy of survival of the fittest. Stosh

That's what you get when you don't read the fine print, or any print for that matter. Stosh

I wouldn't argue the point that the elected boy isn't capable of working his butt off for the position. But what happens when he doesn't. He goes into this BOR and the board asks, "What did you do for your POR requirement?" The boy can answer, "I was elected PL for 6 months." Okay, what's he got to brag about concerning his tenure? And he answers, "I was elected PL for 6 months, and I did PL things for 6 months." One isn't getting much traction here. "Like what?" "I showed up for all meetings, I attended every activity, and I was at all PLC meetings." It still doesn't tell you whether or not he did one iota of work, but he did serve in a position of responsibility. Can't really argue the point, it's true. But if the Board asks, "What did you do for POR for 6 months?" and he answers back with a litany of brags as long as his arm, it kinda puts out a pretty convincing argument. And the Board, being stickler for rules, says, "But what POR were you elected/selected to?" He says, "I didn't get elected or selected this time around, but I inventoried the troop equipment because the QM didn't have time, and I signed up the troop for summer camp because the Scribe was busy, and I am a trumpet player in school, so I worked as Bugler at the last two camporee. And the SPL and ASPL both took the high adventure program at summer camp and with the PL's busy with their patrols, I went to the SPL meetings and brought back the information for them", etc. and the Board comes back with, "But you weren't elected to any of these POR's, right? Maybe we ought to postpone this Board until you get elected." The elected boy in your troop that can show he worked his butt off is great. I have no problem with that especially when his litany of accomplishments is as long as his arm. As you point out, yes, the work is subjective to adult judgments, but that applies whether the boy was elected or not. But the boy has the onus of evidence of work when he isn't simply elected to serve in a certain role. Or how about the APL of a patrol who has a slacker PL that carries the load for the patrol. Because the requirement says he can't get credit for it does that automatically disqualify his efforts? If he was selected as APL and had to do all the work because of the absent PL, in my book he gets credit for it! "The PL was absent, so I did this." "The PL was not around so I did that." "The PL was in sports for 2 months so I....." etc. I guess I'm not ready to tell that boy he just wasted 6 months of some really good leadership in the patrol. Stosh

If it is the goal or Scouting to provide men of good character that can take care of themselves and care for others, and the parents aren't doing their job, it makes it a greater task for Scouting to address these issues. Programs that don't assume this responsibility aren't following BSA goals. If BP said take the houligan and turn him into a good citizen, then that's what we are to do. Yes, the world around has changed, but the goal hasn't. Stosh

???? Day care gets them up to pre-school. Then pre-school gets them up to school Then the schools work their magic. And voila, you have a well-adjusted 18 year old that's ready to go out in the world. Now all you have to do is work the next 18 years getting him out of the house. You can send them off to college, but like any stray, they're going to be back soon sitting on your stoop. What's there really for the parents to do until they're 18+? Stosh

What some often miss is that the scout can serve in more than one POR during the time period. That doesn't restrict it to PL AND TG, but can also be PL or TG. If he has to show evidence of his work as PL for two months and then show evidence of his work as TG for two months, he has met the requirements. These "6-month" terms between elections is pretty bogus in my books. It definitely encourages abuse. I was elected as PL and that makes it official for 6 months regardless of what I actually do. Just enough is okay and the boys tend to push that envelop to the extreme, but they always have the "I was elected for 6 month" argument to fall back on. During SMC's I would simply ask the boy to give evidence of his functionality as POR that totaled up to 6 months worth of effort. The onus is on the boy. If he says he did PL work, served at SPL at a camporee, worked as QM on the big outing, organized getting the boys to summer camp as Scribe, and then taught 4 classes for the younger boys as an Instructor, it sounds pretty good to me. Now, compare that to the boy elected PL. He showed up for all activities and sat on his hands. He showed up for all outings and sat on his hands. He showed up for all PLC meeting and sat on his hands. Now your Attendance Rule is useless and so is your PL. Stosh

I know it's a disappointment, but the adventure of bending rules just doesn't apply in this case. Stosh

Everything our Founding Fathers created was good for freedom for all people, they put in the US Constitution. It made America different than any other country in the world. Small federal government, states and local governments of the people, doing the heavy lifting. The US became a leading world leader. Now that that document has been discarded, we're pretty much just like everyone else and the freedoms we once felt necessary are rather quickly eroding. The New World Order Government dream has now replaced the American dream. How much clout has the UN been gaining in recent years? They are on the verge of being able to tell everyone in the world what they can and can't do. Recourse for dissent rests in the World Court. It doesn't take a political scientist to see what's happening. Survival of the Fittest (Social-Darwinism) is the catch phrase of every tyrant. Every tyrant looking for world dominance has done so with Militarism, Imperialism, and enslavement or extermination of the "unfit". Individual freedoms have no place in the New World Order, only the "Fittest". If individual freedoms are to be preserved, I'm hoping we don't have to repeat the process that got them originally. Those that don't learn from history are destined to relive it. Stosh

I'm in the amateur camp when it come to history, but even highly documented historical evidence can be suspect. Take a look at old photographs of people back in the 1860's. That is NOT how they dressed every day. They wear the "Sunday-go-to-meetin'" clothes for the photographs. Unless one takes that into consideration, it can skew history quite a bit. Even then the expression "The whole 9 yards" has 3 or 4 different historical basis attached to it. Even in my family there was family-lore about one of my relatives getting lost at Ellis Island when the family immigrated to the US. Well, extensive research on my part shows that they immigrated into the Port of Milwaukee and was never in New York. Nobody got lost either. A good historian will rely on 2-3 different sources of information and even then remain skeptic on it's validity. Of course we don't know the details of Custer's Last Stand. There were no survivors. Yeah sure, anyone bother to ask the thousands of warriors what happened? Yep, they did, but their accounts of the events were discredited because they weren't white. Mrs. Custer made sure of that. A lot of time it's an issue of not remembering correctly and then there's the issue of purposeful distorting. Both skew the results of any issue. Stosh

I'm thinking every boy should be able to sew a button on, patch torn uniform pants, hem them up, sew on a patch and sew a torn tent/pack. Besides sewing, basic kitchen skills, laundry skills, plumbing and electrical are all useful skills. But so are scout craft skills. Anyone that can cook on an open fire or camp stove, can cook at a kitchen stove. Menus in camp can be the same at home. Of course it's a lot easier to do it at home, and that seems to be the elephant in the room. Making a bed in the woods is not the same as making a bed at home. Yep, Parlour Scout is a fitting definition. Of course there's not much adventure in kitchen cooking no matter how much Julia Childs says differently. Stosh

Yep, there's always someone else out there to point your finger at hoping to take the spotlight off your favorite. Like my pappy used to say, "You had to be crooked in order to be a politician." What he didn't say was that some are better at it than others. Stosh

Well Basement and I'll will both be in the back of the room along with Baden-Powell. I do believe it was BP who coined the phrase "Parlour Scout". He could tell the difference regardless of the patch on the shirt. Stosh

Basement, You might need to be a bit older to understand the comment. Stosh

I'm thinking that what we see today would make Nixon blush. A robbery break-in hardly affected anyone except the Democratic party. Fast/Furious not only got people killed, but the tally hasn't been taken on what loss Obama"Care" will be able to accomplish in the next few months. Millions with insurance no longer have it. Hardly a apples to apples comparison to Scooter and the gang. Stosh

Awww, com' on, you can't really believe the media would actually get anything correct? Seriously, there's just too much evidence to sweep it under the rug, but that doesn't mean they are still trying. It worked for Fast 'n' Furious, Benghazi, ObamaCare, and a bazillion other shell games they've been playing. This administration is going to go down in history as the most corrupt of all time! Stosh

It is interesting to conclude that there were two-sides here. If they were totally impartial the issue would never have come up. They knew there were two-sides and acted in a questionable manner. Stosh

I took Greek and Latin in seminary. Next time I meet up with a 2,000 year old Greek or Roman, I'll be able to chat all afternoon. Took French in high school, but am not proficient at all, but I can order off the menu and find the right bathroom. Same for Spanish that I speak with my conversant daughters. But I do wear the Sign Language strip in that I am proficient with that. Sometimes on this forum, I have often wondered how my English is faring. Stosh