packsaddle

I'm with Gern on this. I show that video to students in my course, "Environment, Energy, and Society". Excellent documentary. I'm particularly struck by the profound symbolism of Reagan removing the solar panels. The entire country did the same thing, figuratively speaking. I just spent a few weeks in a country where the annual per capita income is about $3000. Gasoline is about $8 per gallon. When I returned (after doing my Mr. Bean thing of attempting to drive on the wrong side of the road ), I reacted to the gas prices with amazement at how cheap it is in the States. A matter of perspective I guess, but I suggest that wetting the bed about prices here will get little sympathy elsewhere in the world. The infant mortality of that country is a little more than twice ours but once that is factored out, their life expectancy is about the same as ours. If there is a morbidly obese person in that country, I never saw them (this, of course, neglects the people waddling off the cruise ships and venturing maybe 200 feet into the town to buy cheap Chinese souvenirs, returning quickly to air-conditioned comfort). The island people are among the most fit people I have ever met. They walk most places, buses are readily available, and they are truly peaceful and happy. Paradise. As soon as I set foot in San Juan on the return trip, I observed anger, impatience, and conspicuous consumption. We turned away from conservation in 1980 and embraced the unseen hand and the magic of the free market. Isn't it fair to receive the consequences of the market that we created and embraced? Without all the whining and complaining? Like Gern, I also own a gas guzzler. Actually two of them. I knew that prices would increase (who didn't?). They don't consume any fuel whatsoever if I don't drive them. So I use them for the times when they are truly needed. If it costs too much to do that long commute (whatever), then don't do it. Otherwise be content in the fact that the market is operating the way it is supposed to and prepare to pay the price. Just don't pretend to be surprised or outraged at the inevitable.

OK guys, I'm outta here. Time to drive to the airport and fly away. For the next little while I'll be splashing in the waters on the nature island of the Caribbean. And I'll be thinking about all of you. OK, maybe not that much. But I'll hoist a few Kubulis for you. TTFN

Beavah wrote, Nah, that's the classic atheist false argument, eh? "Look - there are people who came up with a religious theory based on religious evidence that turned out to be incorrect, therefore all religion is bunk!" OK, I'm not sure who it is that you just quoted. Please identify. If an auto mechanic makes scores of attempts at a repair and continuously fails, is it a false argument to be suspicious of the accuracy of his understanding of the system? How about if we applied that to your doctor? Would you tend to doubt the doctor's understanding of medicine? For most of us the answer is, 'yes'. For those who agree with you, there is Theodoric of York. And perhaps scientology. Actually losing some blood can help cure some ailments, at least in some men. But that aside, each failed idea that you can identify has been tested, found to fail, and subsequently corrected by...science. This self-critical and self-correcting aspect is a huge difference from religious faith which has no such mechanisms of test and correction. Another thing I find ironic (but not good enough to go into my collection of delicious ironies) is that on one hand you seem to minimize science and then in the same paragraph you expect science to deliver a higher sense of ethics to the world. And if that's not ironic enough, by making that statement you imply that religion evidently has not been sufficiently up to the task, eh? To that I might agree.

Of course we can also look at this from the other end of the time scale. And based on biblical evidence, we have known scores of times when the end of the earth is supposed to happen. So far all of them have been wrong. Applying that test to biblical evidence doesn't say much for its accuracy. But there is that pesky matter of the rapture of 1996. It seems that most of us missed that boat. Ed, face it - you're stuck here, left behind with the rest of us. Might as well enjoy it.

Hi Ed, "And with all the knowledge scientists have, they still don't have all the answers." Whew! Man, I was beginning to worry I soon wouldn't have anything to do. But seriously, here are some made-up stories, just a few: Almost anything from the Book of Mormon, especially the space-alien thing...I consider this to be made-up. Yeah, you're right, I still can't prove a negative so it's just my opinion. It's a fact, though, that there's no physical evidence whatsoever to support their claims. Here's another: I attended a church a few years back and the sermon was really a rant against the pro-choice view. The minister related to the congregation a familiar story, you can still find it online: http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/TheFetusMay.htm Here's the general version: "If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already (some versions say 5 kids, some say 14), three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, (some versions of this story say that one of the siblings was in a mental institution) and she had syphilis (some versions say tuberculosis and some also say that the father was sick with sniffles), would you recommend that she have an abortion? If you say 'yes', then you get the gleeful response "Then you just killed Beethoven!"" Anyway, the congregation was in complete agreement. They KNEW this to be true. Wrong! It is a complete fabrication and CAN be proven false. A totally made-up story that many religious people KNOW to be true today. Another: The Noachian flood is, in my opinion, a wonderful story but completely mythical. It is wonderful because it shows up in so many diverse cultures. But there is simply no evidence whatsoever for it. There simply isn't enough water on the planet to do what is claimed in that story. Again, I can't prove a negative so it's just my opinion. Another: Jonah and the whale. Just as valid as the Pinnochio and the whale story. More: All the creation myths. All of them. Made up to fill the gaps. Completely understandable human need to have an answer...but made up - in my opinion.

Careful now...them's fightin' words about grits. I love grits. I'd eat them every meal, if they're made right. Maybe I need to add a footnote to my heaven myth to incorporate grits somehow.

Welcome to the forums! Technically, I think the decision could be left to the committee. We did a loan recently when we saw in the news how another troop in the region had lost all their gear (due to theft, I think I remember). We had enough gear for that troop in our trailer so we contacted them with the offer of a loan if they needed it and if we weren't using it on a particular date. They took us up on it and it worked out fine. I'd say go ahead unless the committee objects.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I tend to agree with Beavah on this topic. I would add that all of this is much easier the better you know the boys. And that takes leaders willing to spend the time and who care about knowing the boys. The boys really do notice and they really do appreciate it, even if they don't necessarily acknowledge it.

Oh baby, oh baby!

OGE, the Malibu SS 396, remember it well. I can still feel the G's. Another fav was the 66 GTO. In college I met one of the original Shelby 427 Cobras. I have been forever since intoxicated by those exhaust fumes and I'll follow it anywhere. So what do I have now, a 67 IH 1200B 4WD 3/4ton pickup..rust bucket and ugly as that mythical place. But it clears a path on the highway.

"Oh, scientists don't do that too much either, eh? Especially on things where they've formed a general consensus. It remains implied, if yeh understand science, but to a non-scientist it sure looks like yeh all are pretty definitive about stuff that could be wrong." So how do you propose to correct such ignorance displayed by such a non-scientist? "Science too often quests after what might be possible, without stoppin' to consider whether it should be pursued." And who is to decide about speculative things that haven't been discovered yet? People who aren't even conscious of the process? Freedom of thought and the free flow of information is like blood to the scientific body. If you think you have better knowledge of how to choose what should be pursued, make your voice heard! Show us the merit of your ideas and who knows, someone might agree. Complaining will most likely just be ignored. "In fact, it [science] wants to pursue anything that's an interestin' challenge. In astonishin' arrogance, it seeks to increase da scope of mankind's power, but not of its judgment." Do you propose that better judgment will be directly proportional to greater ignorance? Rather than 'arrogance', I would call this a working assumption that the more we understand, the better prepared we are to exercise good judgment. And that better judgment is supported by better understanding. It is an optimistic view that comes with the 'bargain' we, as a society, have made with science and technology. That bargain has been sealed and there is no going back on it unless we want apocalyptic social upheaval. Grow up. "By disavowing any responsibility for ethics, or any basis for universal ethics, it's willin' to hand a child a stick of dynamite and say "it's up to you." Perhaps you should read some of the NAS documents on bioethics before you make such statements. Far from "...disavowing any responsibility...", scientists do worry about these questions, partly because we understand that someone WILL eventually make the discoveries and hand out those 'sticks of dynamite'. Do you think that there is any way to suppress the advancement of science worldwide? Perhaps there is, but I suspect that none of us would want to live with the conditions that made such suppression possible. Good examples that are addressed in the bioethics documents are the various discoveries in support of biotechnology - stem cells, cloning, gene therapies, genetic engineering, synthetic life. Face it, these things are here, or coming soon. There is no more way to stop that than to keep gays out of BSA. If your point is that science is ill-equipped to advance human ethics, I tend to agree. So why load that responsibility on science? Perhaps it's time for everyone else to get to work and do some of the heavy lifting for themselves. Science is going to produce the ideas and the tools. It won't dictate to the people who can use them or how. The people need to grow up and learn to make good choices for themselves.

In my youth, 'drag queens' were women who hung out with guys who had cars with huge slick tires and monstrous horsepower pumping out of eight cylinders with blowers and sometimes, nitro. And they went really hard and fast...in a monotonous straight line...for a only a few seconds...then they were completely spent...sometimes their engines exploded spectacularly. None of them are in my heaven myth.

In my mythical idea of heaven, one can see just past St. Peter (who is a stunning transexual) and the the pearly gates: in the distance there is a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant flanked on one side by a Krispy Kreme and on the other side by a Dairy Queen. A very prominent sign flashes, "Free: All You Can Eat". Mmmmmmm. Anyway, I'll repeat it: St. Augustine noted that faith has no purpose if not to transcend reason. Thus, he defined one useful characteristic of faith. I also note with some agreement to others that working assumptions, on the surface, sometimes take the appearance of 'faith' and actually work the same way for a time. The difference in my mind is that working assumptions (hypotheses) are always available for rejection if evidence to the contrary is found. And in science, the job is to search for that contrary evidence, not to search for supporting evidence. Faith, as I understand it, is never subject to such examination and rejection. As Merlyn correctly noted, in science nothing is proven absolutely. Facts, as an old mentor of mine was fond of saying, are things that are not currently under investigation. He was a great guy and a good scientist. For matters of faith, proof is not necessary - for faith, alone, is sufficient. Which is why, as I've observed before, there are few religions that qualify their statements of belief or doctrines in a way that implies potential error...or end those statements with a qualifier, "but we could be wrong". Unitarian Universalism is the only faith I've encountered in which such an admission is ever displayed prominently (almost a defining characteristic, LOL). I do see a conflict between science and religion. However, I see this coming from the side of religion. It is almost as if every time a new discovery (especially in biology) provides a new explanation for something that was previously a mystery, another little chip is gone from their "God of the Gaps". Science, on the other hand, is indifferent (and I guess that can be taken as some kind of affront as well). It is as if those who do not understand the difference between science and religion see an implied null hypothesis with regard to God, the null being there is no magic, no hocus pocus, no FSM, or no supernatural anything. And every scientific success seems to provide evidence in support of the null. This brings to mind Freud's statement that ignorance is a poor basis for a belief. I disagree, ignorance seems the be a wonderful basis for some beliefs. It seems to be a natural human ability to believe things that have no identifiable basis other than the desire to believe them.

Contrary to many of my colleagues, I always enjoy graduation ceremonies. I keep track of the names and note whether I had them in a course, or in some cases - whether I served them as a scout leader. This year was a great one. I often am discouraged about the way the world is going and then I observe all these wonderful, bright young people, headed out to discover new solutions to those problems...and I am heartened. This year, two former scouts stood out: One graduated cum laude in mechanical engineering after starting with learning disabilities as a boy. He was snapped up by General Electric during his junior year. Another had serious social problems but he graduated summa cum laude in both electrical engineering AND physics (two degrees) and he has received a full NSF fellowship to do his Ph.D. in physics at Berkeley. And then there are so many others going into medicine, law, science, teaching. I feel so good when I see these outstanding young people. Edited part: typos, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OK, this time I read GoldWinger's message prior to editing by the staff. I'm curious as to what it was about the remainder of his message that required its deletion? Perhaps I just didn't understand...but I didn't see the problem. What gives? Since I'm getting into this late, what does this discussion have to do with either creationism or evolution? I think the originator of this thread could satisfy most needs for discussion by referring to the old threads: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=105837#id_109534 and http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=119075#id_119075

I am unaware of such a requirement. However, back when I was cubmaster I never encountered a conflict like that. The pack committee would make the decisions regarding outings - and campouts in particular. The committee was very responsive to parental and familial interests so: 1) most of the decisions were agreeable to most of the parents, and 2) they never opted for 'primitive' camping conditions. We had running water, showers with hot water, and shelters in case of bad storms. And we always had an absolute blast at each and ever campout, all of them two-nighters. I love the cub scouts. I'd go back to them again if they needed me.

To all the forum members who qualify as mothers, I wish them a Happy Mother's Day. I returned just in time to celebrate this with my wife and mother-in-law, heading out again in a couple of days. And I want to celebrate with all the others who make life possible...and better.

Wow, you really know how to pick a subject title! Anyway, welcome back. While we're at it, NJCubScouter, littlebillie, SR540Beaver, dsteele, any of you guys still out there? Or Trailpounder? I miss reading about the weiner dogs. So Kahuna, now that you're back in Florida, I would say that 'Hurricane Kahuna' is a slam dunk name for this coming season.

As I have noted other times, those legislators represent the people. That connotation goes both ways.

OK, I'm perplexed. You were taken by space aliens;) and the count was 2000. And now you've had 3 additional messages but the count is 2009. Huh? Explain please.

I just got the heads-up from Ohio-Scouter so I looked and I figured this thread had to be the one! I'm glad you finally figured out how to get back in again, Rooster7. It's good to have an old sparring partner back again.

I concur with DanKroh. I invite anyone who is unfamiliar with this topic to return now to those exciting days of yesteryear.... http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=110961&p=1 That thread was closed but you get some idea of the tenor of things (prior to the alien abduction on around 28 September 2005). The really good stuff is near the end. OGE, did you close that thread? Does that make YOU the one with the last word? Kinda does, doesn't it?

Bob White, Chill out, man! (heh, heh, my mother-in-law really hates it when I say that) But really, I've had that 'last word' thing flung at me several times in the past. Big deal. It is a cheap way for someone to try to cut off your message without addressing the idea. And it is evidence that the flinger has little or no merit to their own ideas. My students do the same thing by rolling their eyes and saying, 'what-ev-er!'. You need to develop a little thicker skin if that kind of thing gets under it. Let it roll off your back.

That might seem modest to you but I would consider it outrageous and I know many around here who would be deeply offended if the state demanded that their day include it. Unless the "Almighty God" part met with unanimous acknowledgement of its existence and unanimous understanding of what it is, neither of which conditions exist, I see a big problem. I would object strenuously if an attempt was made to bring that kind of thing back into our schools. I remember too well what happened to the minorities of the past.

Today we use the word 'cult' in the pejorative. Was it always so? Under the current definition, Jesus would be considered a cult leader. A communist one at that.