vol_scouter

My estimate is that some sort of local rule will occur in 5-6 years.

In reading this thread, I am reminded of the reaction of many of us to the criticism about the policies regarding homosexuals and atheists. We have pointed out that the BSA is a private organization and has the right to determine its' membership requirements. That Scouting does much good and the criticism is hurting the youth. All of those things are true. So we should apply the same logic to the GSUSA. Personally, I do not agree with some of the direction of the GSUSA but it is that organization's right to hold those views and to determine its' membership requirements. We should support the GSUSA in the same manner that we would like others to treat us. That is to say that the program is about the girls and not the particular stance of the GSUSA. My daughter earned the Gold Award in the GSUSA and profited from the experiences. If she was reaching that point in her life now, I may have steered toward Venturing instead. So I would speak more with my feet. Interestingly, despite a very liberal point of view, the GSUSA is suffering from the same membership woes as the BSA which would argue that having a liberal stance will not fix the membership drain for the BSA.

Packsaddle, I am amazed how you remember these old threads! Phenomenal memory!

rhol, I would recommend that you make an appointment with the Scout Executive of your council and talk with them about your son's condition, etc. Type I diabetics are very brittle and he can get into a life threatening condition very quickly so you have a valid concern. The appeal will likely not change the outcome but you never know what might happen.

Does there exist any software designed for Venturing Crews? Do you have any experience with the software?

Congress should not be allowed to leave chambers starting October 1 until a budget is passed (a CR is not a budget). Food could be brought in and they could take short bathroom breaks. They can sleep at their desks and wait to shower until they do their constitutionally mandated task. They do swear an oath to uphold the constitution and whenever they fail to have a budget, they violate that oath. The current political shenanigans are not acceptable.

Recess appointments were included in the constitution because it was assumed that the congress would only meet for a few months out of the year so that a death or resignation could leave a position open for an extended period of time. Recess appointments are no longer needed so I would favor an amendment to abolish the recess appointments and would require all presidential appointments to come up to a vote on the Senate floor within a reasonable length of time. Parliamentary shenanigans should be outlawed. That said, the congress staying in sham sessions to prevent recess appointments is disgusting. The congress is a disgrace for such petty tactics that have been used by both parties over the years. However, Obama's ignoring that the congress considers itself to be in session and ignoring the constitution violates his oath to uphold the constitution. Since that undermines the constitution, it undermines the republic and it rises to a possibly impeachable offense. Obama's cavalier attitude is very detrimental to the republic.

Bart, When taking my second year college honors physics course, I was fortunate enough to have a wise and brilliant professor who told us not to believe anything that he told us was correct except in taking his tests. We were to always be skeptical of all theories. In medical school, we were told that medical knowledge was doubling every 10 years - it is less now - and that half of the knowledge was wrong - not quite that bad. So it is important that students learn the what is felt to be true today but to have a healthy skepticism without becoming jaded. The problem becomes from discussions that I have read here is that some then feel that science is arbitrary which it is definitely not.

Packsaddle, Got you. So it is my experience that as humans, we most like theories that meet with the reality that we see in everyday life. So the quantum world is totally foreign to our everyday experience which means that the 'man in the street' would favor a different explanation. The desire to relate a scientific theory to everyday experience affects all of us and shades even the approach of scientists but our training better allows us to accept theories that are very foreign to our experience. The other aspect that colors acceptance of theories is the desire to make ourselves (humans) important. So many people really believe in magic. Magic gives supernatural powers to people. It makes humans in charge of nature. When we consider how insignificant our little planet is in the galaxy, let alone the universe, it is clear that the self importance is silly but it is a commonly held belief. So I believe that the man in the street picks theories based upon illogical reasons that on some level makes them feel better about the theory - it is something that I understand based on my experiences or it is magic that makes man important. That is my take on you question. Obviously, it is based only on my anecdotal experiences which may have no relationship to reality.

Packsaddle, I fail to understand your question. Phlogiston was postulated to be fire that was contained within substances that allowed them to combust, rust, etc. Physics and chemistry eventually described what was actually occurring and the theory was dropped. Had nothing to do with gravity unless I am missing something. As far as what the ordinary US cities would view as a valid scientific explanation, I fear that they would show little understanding and would pick the wrong explanation as much or more than the right one. People spend more time reading about what actors and actresses are doing than reading anything scientific. Merlyn is right that science is not decided by the vote of a committee, rather with time the field accepts a theory as the most correct known interpretation of natural phenomenon. As we have worked for centuries in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, the changes to currently accepted theories tend to be incremental more often than paradigm shifting. That doesn't mean that paradigms will not be changed. Certainly, the classical Newtonian version of gravity is severely changed conceptually by general relativity though the change in calculations of the orbits of the planets is very small. In fact, for most human purposes, Newtonian physics works just fine but our understanding of what gravity is and how it is mediated has been dramatically changed. However, experience tells me that most do not understand even the Newtonian physics let alone have any conception of general relativity. Similarly, the human body is fantastically more complex than it was thought to be even 25 years ago. The more that we understand about cell biology, genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, etc, the more that we discover that we do not understand. Then try to integrate quantum mechanics into that milieu and you find a complexity that at this time we cannot understand. As we get better with bioinformatics, we will be better able to master the information in the complexity. Long winded reply that can be summed up by saying that there have been several folks posting on this topic here that are obviously educated and thoughtful folks who do not understand science, so why would we expect the 'man on the street' to have even a basic understanding?

Packsaddle, That would make the logic circular though more likely, ellipsoidal.

packsaddle, We do know what gravity is. Mass curves space-time proportional to the size of the mass. It is thought that the force is mediated by gravitons but they have not been found. The question that does not seem to be answerable by physics (though who knows in the future) is why there is gravity. For that matter, why are there 4 basic forces is not answerable. Have watched this discussion with great interest and I must say that Merlyn is most close to being right about science. Beavah and others do not understand science very well. If the gedanken experiment proposed by Beavah wherein all knowledge was erased would lead to a similar experience in learning about the laws of physics - see Feynman's thoughts for an eloquent expression of this. The only difference that I have with Merlyn on this subject is minor but scientists work on beliefs as well. They may feel that they have more evidence than a religious believer but they still put stock in beliefs alone. Examples abound as in above, the belief in gravitons based on the mediators of force for the other three forces. String theory believers have confidence that the universe is multi-dimensional although at this point there is no evidence to support that idea. Tachyons were invented because they could be constructed mathematically. Those are beliefs based on convictions that cannot at this time be proven or disproven. That is very similar to religion. So Merlyn, we agree on science with that difference.

I concur with Beavah about the website. I know and have known hundreds of hunters and they do not match your article. Johnponz, how many times have you gone hunting and how many hunters do you know? This is not meant to be confrontational but to point out that it is easy for us to be critical of groups with whom we have little or no experience. Many physician colleagues are hunters which speaks counter to your arguments. There are websites and magazines which tell many stories about how people use firearms to protect themselves and their families from violent criminals. As Beavah points, these sites portray one side of things and add nothing to the discussion. Most gun crime occurs in inner cities among youth that are not hunters. As a scientist, there is no scientific evidence to refute my beliefs and I have much anecdotal experience that tells me that hunting does not promote violence.

Johnponz, I grew up hunting, primarily doves, and have hunted for years. My experiences do not reflect those of Packsaddle's except the experiences of taking the life of an animal. As time has gone on, I have less interest in hunting but still very much enjoy shooting. My father organized hunts on the large fields surrounding our house each fall. Later, I have been hunting with friends. NONE of them have shown any evidence of violent tendencies. They are doctors, attorneys, accountants, scientists, and business folk. In reading accounts of violent criminals, hunting has seldom been mentioned as a hobby or 'training' prior to the violent act. Most violent crime occurs in our inner cities where folks seldom if ever see game animals let alone hunt. It is much more likely that being a member of a gang is related to a violent crime than being a hunter. Most hunters that I know have a high respect for life, take violent crime very seriously, and try to avoid situations that could lead to violence. It is doubtful that your study would ever be done in an objective manner but would rather been performed to prove a point. The APA (professional organization for pediatricians) sponsored research to 'prove' that there should never be guns in a home with children and that guns are bad in general (late 1990's). These studies received glowing praise from the media. When I read them, they were very poor science and reliable conclusions could not be drawn. That is likely what you found in your perusal of the literature as well. My anecdotal experiences and reading of news accounts leads me to believe that hunting does not encourage violent behavior but in fact would argue the opposite, that hunters are less prone to be charged with violence (excluding of course true hunting accidents as to be contrasted with homicides while hunting of which I have rarely read). Going to the original question, I was raised a Christian in a very Christian section of the country. I was taught that one never hunts on Sunday. I have never hunted on Sunday.

CalicoPenn, The point is that school children have been prevented from praying in schools. Valedictorians cannot say a pray, etc. The youth at the flag pole were prevented from praying resulting in a lawsuit. The guards at the SCOTUS told the school group that they could not demonstrate on the oval. They were not demonstrating, they were praying. There may be good reasons for the rule but their First Amendment rights were abridged. Those rights can be abridged in some circumstances such as the oft quoted of not yelling fire in a crowded theater. Perry is like most (all?) politicians in saying things that are not entirely true to get support. He is certainly not my choice for president.

Merlyn, So the school prevented people from praying at the flag pole no matter you view point. Thus, you are wrong. A small group of people bowing their heads in prayer is not a protest or demonstration - it is Free exercise of religion. So you must support these people because you support the First Amendment?

Here students were prevented from praying on school grounds before school started: http://faithandthelaw.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/adf-prepared-to-defend-students-prevented-from-praying-in-see-you-at-the-pole-event/ This group was allowed to have a group discussion on the oval plaza of the US Supreme Court but were told to leave when they bowed their heads in prayer: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4285408/when-is-prayer-illegal/ So Merlyn, as a defender of the First Amendment, you are now rightly enraged are you not by the violation of the Free Exercise clause?

Merlyn, The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion - it does not specify what form that may take therefore i cannot be limited to silent prayers. Whenever schools or the government tells folks that they cannot discuss their religion as in a valedictorian speech or when folks praying on the steps of the Supreme Court that open prayer is not allowed, our rights have been eroded. You should support all of our first amendment rights if you want to lecture others. You call people names and attack them because your arguments are not right.

Merlyn, When will you support the next clause the First Amendment. The first part of the amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Many students have tried to freely exercise their first amendment rights at school only to be prohibited by the school. Where was your post, criticism, and vitriol? The First Amendment, as you well know, was written to allow the states to have their own state endorsed religions but to prohibit the federal government from making the selection. So the founding fathers would find your views contrary to the original intent. The 14th Amendment is seen as federalizing everything resulting in the erosion of our First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion. Until you support the ability of everyone to freely exercise their religion - not there is not mention of places where one cannot exercise their religion - then you should not be calling people liars because they support the entire amendment.

Beavah, The root dause of the economic problem is with banking and investing and that is not the argument. The argument has do with the capacity of socialist countries to have a method to raise funds to help to correct the problems. Since Europe requires pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs at cost, i.e. no profit, that is socialism and not capitalism. It is why the cost of drugs is higher in the US than Europe. European countries may not control every aspect of the economy but cradle to grave medical care is socialism. Controlling the pharmaceutical companies is socialism. The US and Europe do not have the ability to create new revenues to address their problems because they have too much money obligated. European countries have taxes too high to gain much there. The US could raise taxes somewhat but not enough to correct the financial woes. Throughout my youth and young adulthood, the left has touted European socialism but now that it is failing, it is not really socialism. That is ridiculous.

Eagle707, I was not trying to say in any way that the US doesn't have tariffs, etc. but was trying to point out that the Scandanavian country where I lived meets the definition of socialist. The US is becoming socialist and Europe is largely there. If Europe or the US did not have so much obligated to social programs, the countries could easily weather this storm because taxes would be low and government expenditures would be far lower.

The issue under discussion is what is socialism and that Europe is not socialist. It is not about whether tariffs are good or bad or even the merits of socialist programs. BTW, in my state many people pay for private fire departments because they are in rural areas. Also, many folks all across the country have their children in private schools for various reasons. The point is that in the not so distant past, Europe was being touted as why we should become more socialist. Europe has all sorts of advantages because of socialism we were told. Now that over spending on socialist programs has strapped and bankrupt Europe and the US is plunging ahead on the same deadly course, we are told that Europe is not socialist. Ever since I got interested in politics and world affairs in the 1960's due mainly to the Vietnam war and the leftist movement in America, I have noted that left wing regimes are praised by the left until they are shown to be oppressive or fail economically. Then we are told that they were not really socialist or that the communist country is really right wing. It is utter nonsense. The problems with socialism and communism is that they do not work, have never worked for a country, and will never work because they are contrary to human nature which will always win.

Geez, China has considered itself to be communist ever since Mao took over. So in the Scandanavian country where I lived, the government told stores that they had to close at certain times, that some businesses had to be open at certain times, they highly regulated the commerce, tried to keep foreign alcoholic beverages out with exorbitant taxes, controlled the public transportation system, etc. They are controlling the production in the country with laws. The tax rates when I was living there (~1979) went up to 98% but the wealthy hid their wealth and flew to NYC for their health care. There was an incompetent scrub nurse who surgeons asked to be re-assigned (not fired) which prompted government intervention punishing the doctors and keeping the nurse in surgery harming patients. Seems like socialism to me.

Gotta love liberals, when their view of the world fails they simply say that was not what they were talking about. Beavah, I lived in a Scandanavian country and it is not the rosy situation that you think. They exclude everyone in their statistics for health care and other metrics who are not citizens. Our numbers would look better if we excluded all illegal migrants, etc. Also, they have a graduated welfare system that builds incentives to get full time employment unlike the cliff system here where a part-time or poorly paying job can cost the person all benefits. The democrat party is committed to keeping folks on the public dole because it is a fixed voting block. If the countries in question were spending less and had not taxed their people so much then they easily raise taxes and dispose of the monetary problems. However, when your socialism has tapped out the tax base, there is no way out.

JoeBob, It was a liberal democrat, Bill Cilinton, that blocked RU-486 - not conservatives. RU-486 would bankrupt Planned Parenthood who fought tooth and nail against allowing it to become available.