Merlyn_LeRoy

Oh yeah, Investors Business Daily, they really do their homework, like when they said "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." IBD is essentially worthless.

Some interesting discussions here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7716.20 The gist is, some people say that CAP membership overrules the BSA membership requirements in a joint charter, while others say members have to meet the requirements of both. Since CAP is part of the US government, they can't discriminate against atheists, so either joint charters have to allow atheists, or they all have to go. I'll be checking into this.

I think politicians should hit each other with sticks more often. Like a live Punch & Judy show.

Goofus and Gallant to the rescue: http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/09/08/tomo/story.jpg

Well vol_scouter, that doesn't sound like a miracle to me. If his vision really was that bad, he was incredibly reckless in driving a van down a mountain with other people's children as passengers. Since there were two vans and another driver, if any of them really thought he couldn't see well enough to drive, the obvious solution would be to make two trips with one van instead of needlessly endangering people. So I can only conclude that he and the others figured he really could see well enough to drive, no miracles needed. It's also possible that it was getting dark when he finally reached his own home and like many older people his vision is much worse at night. But anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. The story as you relate it would imply that everyone was OK with someone nearly blind driving a van down a mountain -- the supposed "miracle" didn't happen until he started driving the van. It seems much more likely to me that he couldn't see well, but he could still see well enough to drive. It's illegal for me to drive without my glasses, but if I had to, I could. I wouldn't recommend it, and it would help a lot if I was following another van (as presumably Duff was, with the better-sighted driver leading the way).

Even if you yourself don't put some information out there, it could still be out there: http://law.fordham.edu/newsroom/7424.htm ... This spring, the students of an elective course on Internet privacy at Fordham Law School experienced a number of fascinating teaching moments during an assignment meant to demonstrate how much personal information is floating around online. The assignment from the class's professor, Joel R. Reidenberg, was, admittedly, a bit provocative: create a dossier about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia from what can be found on the Internet. Why Justice Scalia? Well, the class had been discussing his recent dismissive comments about Internet privacy concerns at a conference. His summation, as reported by The Associated Press: "Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly." ... Yet the class managed to create a dossier of 15 pages, Professor Reidenberg reported to a conference on privacy at Fordham, that included the justice's home address and home phone number, his wife's personal e-mail address and the TV shows and food he prefers. ...

I'd be more uncomfortable with an organization which tells children that they ought to change their religious views.

To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promiscuous

I know all of you want an atheist's take on the position of salvation outside the Catholic Church... For centuries, the RCC did teach that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This raised a lot of problems, such as the direct implication that millions of people in far corners of the world with no opportunity of becoming Catholic, and children of non-Catholic parents who died before reaching their "age of reason," were doomed to hell from the start, with zero hope of making it to heaven. But the RCC couldn't change what they had taught for centuries - people would think they were just making it all up. So they "fixed" it by saying some people could be members of the Catholic Church without they, or the Catholic Church, knowing. Seriously. http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp (fixed typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

GernBlansten writes: well, isn't religion the sole reason to keep homosexuals from leadership roles in the BSA? I mean, there is no factual basis that homosexuals pose any greater real threat to our youth than heterosexuals. As far as I've been able to determine, the BSA has never argued in court that gays are excluded because they are considered more of a threat to youth. This is only brought up outside of court, such as when Mazzuca was asked about gays in the BSA, and his reply was about molestation.

John (or anyone); does a no-fee member still need to meet the same membership requirements?

Kahuna writes: But, without a religious reference, how does one determine morality? The same way as with a religious reference, but without the fallacious argument-from-authority.

"The only way that I think letting CO's determine the gay issue is to allow them to be more stringent as well as less. So that a CO could say no gays and only certain religious views." I don't actually have a problem with that. In fact they probably have that authority now. They do: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/23/us/scout-troop-denies-high-post-to-muslim.html A man who served nearly three years as a Cub Scout leader has been rejected for a higher Scout post because he is a Muslim. ... Officials of Boy Scouts of America said the church was within its rights. A charter agreement essentially makes the Scout troop a program of Haven Reformed, giving the church the authority to select leaders. ...

Kahuna writes: She's [Pelosi] clearly connecting the demonstrators with Nazis or skinheads. She's clearly stating that some demonstrators are comparing Obama to nazis, as shown by the link you yourself posted earlier: http://tinyurl.com/ns44zx Pelosi didn't create that swastika, a demonstrator did. That's what she's referring to.

See? I was right!

Pelosi said "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." I'd say Pelosi is pointing out that some of the people at these town meetings are playing the fascist card, not that she's saying some of these people are actual fascists. It's pretty easy to find wingnuts comparing Obama to Hitler and babbling about "socialism."

Four words are not "more than four words"...

Hal, you limited it to "Nobel PEACE prize," but if you just go with Nobel and Oscar, George Bernard Shaw won both.

I'd like to defend the proper use of the word "troll." A "troll" is not someone who merely disagrees with you; anyone who responds to your arguments is NOT a troll, by definition. A "troll" is a hit-and-run poster who posts something deliberately inflammatory or outrageous, in order to produce a flamewar. People who respond are said to have "bitten" (which is where "troll" comes from - "trolling" is a fishing metaphor).

While it is still nascent, and a long shot, I will not be overly surprised if the drive for a rewritten constitution comes to fruition. Well, THAT would probably be a complete disaster. some kind of control on judges that make politically skewed decisions against the will of the people and not based on solid law. I'm sure this would be a complete disaster also. The Lovings would be in prison, for one thing.

But why is it strange that Obama was voted in after saying he'd raise taxes? That's how governments pay for things. Looks to me like a kneejerk "no" to raising taxes isn't exactly making life better in your state right now.

I think it's a little strange that he was voted in when he stated that he was going to raise taxes. What on earth is strange about that?

Scouter760 writes: Yeah, Merlyn_LeRoy, what I said before is that the GSUSA has not taken a stand and you replied "I think they took a stand on moral issues by not excluding people..." Now you are quoting them where they say they take "no position". We seem to be going around in circles. No, you're just comparing apples & oranges. They've taken a stand on not excluding gays and atheists; it's perfectly consistent for them to take positions on admitting gays and atheists, yet have no position on sex education or abortion. What I am trying to say is that they take no official position on the national level which then allows the Councils to do whatever they want. Some BSA councils would also like a local option.

Scouter760 writes: Merlyn_LeRoy, How I feel about liberals and their political agendas is not the issue, is it? No, but I didn't ask you that. Obviously the projects that these girls did was a big part of why they were chosen for this award, because that's all it says about them other than their age and where they are from. Probably, but I doubt they were selected solely on their gold award projects, either. Also, I did not criticize the project in question, but I'm pointing out where the GSUSA's priorities evidently fall in contrast to your statement that they keep sexual issues out of the program. I don't see where a gold award project by a youth member somehow shows where the GSUSA's priorities fall. Clearly they do not, because they are approving gold award projects which center on these issues and then holding them up on their web site as an example for other girls to follow. I'd say that particular project centers on discrimination and prejudice, not sex, just as a similar project on racial discrimination and prejudice wouldn't be a good example of the GSUSA stirring up racial issues. There are lots of web pages on the planned parenthood sex-ed for girl scouts. Try this one from msnbc: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4441006/ Where in that story does it say that the GSUSA is "using Planned Parenthood to provide sex education"? There's this part: ... And they were disturbed to find out that the Girl Scout organization has been giving its endorsement for years to a Planned Parenthood sex-ed program in which girls and boys are given literature on homosexuality, masturbation and condoms. ... But that isn't a GS program, nor does it take place during GS meetings: ... The Waco-area Girl Scout organization has been putting its name and logo on brochures for the Planned Parenthood sex-education programs but said it does not contribute any money and does not send girls to attend. ... And there's this: ... The Girl Scouts national organization, which is based in New York and has 2.9 million girl members and 986,000 adult members, takes no position on sex education or abortion and has no national relationship with Planned Parenthood, according to the Bluebonnet Council. ... So it doesn't look like your statement applies to the GSUSA; it might apply to this council, but even that looks weak.

Scouter760 writes: A simple google search will turn up many conservative web sites that mention the connection between the GSUSA and Planned Parenthood. But you originally said: "using Planned Parenthood to provide sex education" Where is the GSUSA using PP to provide sex education? This is one of 12 girls so named. What does it say about the priorities of the GSUSA if this is one of 12 projects named as the best of the best? I don't see where it says the PROJECTS are the best of the best; they are the top 13 GS gold award recipients of 2007. What does your criticism of a gay-oriented gold award project say about you, anyway? Do you think gays should be treated with complete contempt?