And that's why the Scout Leadership program has "Child Protection Training" - to ensure rules are followed like "two-deep leadership" to keep boys and leaders out of those kinds of situations. Whether you're dealing with a straight or gay leader, or a pedophile leader (straight or gay).
I agree that I don't want ANY pedophiles, of either sex or either orientation as leaders in scouts. But I have no problem with a gay leader, even of my own boy's Troop.
The "Moral Foundation" as used in Scouting is really a much broader-based term than the "Moral Foundation" as defined in fundamentalist religions.
Homosexuality really is not a "Moral" issue in the context of a non-fundamentalist-religious worldview. Scouts is not a fundamentalist religious organization. In fact - the religion badge can be for hindus, muslims, buddhists, jews, etc. whatever.
You can teach a boy a very strong and thorough set of moral values, without even touching on sexual orientation.
It's an issue, because Hastert was told about it - the issue was KNOWN about, and it involved more than just Foley's (new R congressman from IL is now referred to the Ethics committee for page relationships) - and instead of censuring Foley, they took hush money under the table from his campaign committee.
THAT'S why this is a partisan issue. When this crop of Republicans screw up, they sweep it under the rug, invoke "executive privilege" or "National Security" - attack the whistleblowers, and cover it up.
Given the backstory written by the game's creators' previous game (Marathon, Marathon II, Marathon Infinity) - there's a pathway, at least, for a Halo movie to be very highbrow, given the right talent to shape this creative content. (based on the Halo 3 trailer, there's a lot of speculation that the Halo storyline could head into a "Marathon-esqe" direction).
Considering what Peter Jackson has done in the past (he was faithful to LOTR - but he didn't push much of the backstory (Silmarillion stuff). - and I think he was a bit over the top as far as visual heavy-handedness goes, but in that regard, he's merely a product of the cgi-intesnive movie-making zeitgeist) I'm not sure he could pull this kind of Halo adaptation off. But, in a "imagine a beowulf cluster of these" kind of way, the notion intrigues the fuck out of me - and might even generate a lot of highbrow critic-buzz when the picture's released.
Or maybe they could turn the whole project into a complete farce and hand it over to Verhoven, or Joss Whedon. . . (I won't forgive Whedon for what he did to the Aliens franchise; no matter how much I loved Firefly).
This is - by the way, the reason for the recent DJIA upswing. Money is leaving Real Estate, and flooding back to the stock market (which it fled in 1999-2000). Mainly a reaction to interest rate trends.
I have met women who pretended to be dumber than they were, but without exception these women wanted to date a type of guy who wanted that in a woman.
My wife used to do this - it drove me nuts. She didn't fool me though, which is why I pursued her anyway. We've had many long discussions about this, and we both concluded that it was just the way she was raised - she was raised by her parents to "act dumb" - she was never encouraged to pursue school, or anything intellectual. But she still couldn't quench her thirst for books. Turns out, she was able to undo this conditioning, and despite the fact that she *is* dyslexic (clinical diagnosis) she is a Scrabble-geek. (Scrabble was one of the therapies recommended by her doctor for dyslexia).
Libertarians have been co-opted by anarcho-capitalists. (ask 10 different self-proclaimed "Libertarians" what their party stands for, you'll get 11 different answers).
Independents have been taken over by (ew) Lieberman. (it's the party for politicians too craven to attempt to reform their own party, so they call themselves something else).
Even the Reform party has been buttraped; by Social Conservative Pat Buchanan. (Reform Party of Perot was Fiscal Conservative/Social Liberal).
What fucking 3rd Party should I vote? Green? Yeah, 2000 worked out really well for me.
Term limits and turnover aren't the silver bullet everyone thinks they are either.
When congressmen leave office, you know what they do?
Become lobbyists.
They can form all the good old boy circle-jerk networks they want for as long as they want as lobbyists. Then when a fresh crowd shows up in congress, they stop in and teach them how the world really works. (ie. $).
Only elimination of private funds for campaigns has any hope of stopping this - and then, you still have to worry about the hundreds of millions being spent on public advocacy groups and "think tanks" and such that spew their slant and propaganda onto the corporate-dominated media.
Money controls the message today. And there's very little that can be done about it without shitting on the Bill of Rights as badly as it has already been shat on.
And remember, as one leading Democrat has said, if Democrats control either house, there's going to be "oversight, oversight, oversight".
I call bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Because any oversight is going to come down to subpoenas, which will obstructed either via "national security reasons" or "executive privilege" - which will come down to a supreme court decision. Since the SCOTUS was pretty well stacked BEFORE Bush came into office (never mind the two fundamentalist radical activists he's put on there now) - there's no way in hell a Democratic Congress is going to get the information they need to do even marginal oversight.
And by the way, these same Democrats are the ones that did not fight Bush's SCOTUS stacking in the first place. These Democrats have already lost the fight - they lost it by their craven, enabling actions from 2000-2006.
Sure - elect some Democrats, throw out some Republicans - but there will be no real change. It's already locked-in.
It may not be a matter of fact; the historical record provided by the Bible, may, in fact, be completely fabricated (despite well-known instances of archaological correlates) - let's just, for the sake of argument, assume the Bible's all fiction;
Given basic human nature, no matter how strict such laws were, it's almost a certainty, especially among a nomadic race, that marriage between Hebrews and outsiders occurred. I don't think you can show me a single example of any human breeding regulation (or any regulation, for that matter) that was a universal success. Humans break laws, particularly where matters of the heart are involved.
Sita didn't "tell me off". Sita didn't accuse me of bigotry.
He elaborated on my oversimplification. Where I was needlessly terse, and overly general, he offered corrections. There was no bigotry intended in my statement, and I think most people read it as such. My point was (and it still stands) that; despite the fact that there was marriage outside the Hebrew race, the law was that one was not supposed to do so.
This is not a tribal feature, unique to ancient (or modern) Hebrews - it's simply the earliest RECORDED instance of it, (pre-dating HG Welles by a few thousand years).
There's this book called The Bible (author; disputed, age; roughly 2500 years?) that tells the story of an ancient nomadic race of goat-herders called the Hebrews. One of their laws was to discourage marriage outside their own race. Only the Hebrews were the Creator's favored race, and the rest were damned.
Some jackass in Texas or Saudi Arabia can't rig the supply market to fuck you.
You get your solar cells, the sun shines, you drive to work. No wars, no oil spills, and no global warming. It's really a simple idea based on free market principles (the freest market there is; sunshine).
Is decentralized power generation less efficient? Yes. Even solar (because your collectors can be positioned where it's sunny all day, and collected generation means you've got a 24x7 maintenance staff keeping things working. - though you get transmission losses) - but relying on energy cartels and smarmy market manipulators is hella-inefficient too. And deadly.
To me - the memory issues are pretty important too.
Although, a nice workaround would be the ability to restore all the tabs I had opened if I close Firefox with multiple tabs. Sometimes, I just don't have time to read all the content on all my open tabs, and I don't want to make bookmarks for pages I'm going to read once and close.
I know that if Firefox terminates unexpectedly, the next time you launch, it asks if you want all your tabs restored - this is a very nice feature, and I wish I could do that when I close firefox normally.
heh - most insightful post of this whole discussion.
300 millionth American is hogwash. Just another pathetic attempt by the mainstream media to politicize crypto-xenophobia (ie. "the illegal immigration problem").
(America does not have an illegal immigration problem. America has an illegal employer problem).
Well, that's because GIMP's primary users are also its developers.
If you give a Machinist the ability to make his or her own tools, you'll get dial calipers, die grinders, etc. Not Hammers and Screwdrivers.
It's a weakness of the Open Source approach. Not insurmountable by any means - but there's this tendency for the technician to make tools that are: surprise! technical. Big software companies have things like market research, designers, usability experts, and, erm - accountants (who - while useful, should always be kept on a very short leash, and perhaps punished with a rolled-up newspaper quite often). None of this means that Big Software Companies can't make money producing open source software.
Slashdot Mirror
It is inconceivable that a Republican appointee to the head of the FCC would come out against further consolidation of media ownership.
Really - when I read that title, I thought I had woken up in bizzarro-world or something.
Well, that was about my least favorite scene, so I'm glad I wasn't too far off. Thanks for that, maybe I *can* forgive. . .
To me personally and religiously it is a moral value. Don't get your opinions mixed up with facts.
hm. Sounds like you've got an opinion too.
And that's why the Scout Leadership program has "Child Protection Training" - to ensure rules are followed like "two-deep leadership" to keep boys and leaders out of those kinds of situations. Whether you're dealing with a straight or gay leader, or a pedophile leader (straight or gay).
I agree that I don't want ANY pedophiles, of either sex or either orientation as leaders in scouts. But I have no problem with a gay leader, even of my own boy's Troop.
The "Moral Foundation" as used in Scouting is really a much broader-based term than the "Moral Foundation" as defined in fundamentalist religions.
Homosexuality really is not a "Moral" issue in the context of a non-fundamentalist-religious worldview. Scouts is not a fundamentalist religious organization. In fact - the religion badge can be for hindus, muslims, buddhists, jews, etc. whatever.
You can teach a boy a very strong and thorough set of moral values, without even touching on sexual orientation.
Bush lied under oath when he swore to uphold the Constitution.
It's an issue, because Hastert was told about it - the issue was KNOWN about, and it involved more than just Foley's (new R congressman from IL is now referred to the Ethics committee for page relationships) - and instead of censuring Foley, they took hush money under the table from his campaign committee.
THAT'S why this is a partisan issue. When this crop of Republicans screw up, they sweep it under the rug, invoke "executive privilege" or "National Security" - attack the whistleblowers, and cover it up.
Frog blast the vent core! :)
Given the backstory written by the game's creators' previous game (Marathon, Marathon II, Marathon Infinity) - there's a pathway, at least, for a Halo movie to be very highbrow, given the right talent to shape this creative content. (based on the Halo 3 trailer, there's a lot of speculation that the Halo storyline could head into a "Marathon-esqe" direction).
Considering what Peter Jackson has done in the past (he was faithful to LOTR - but he didn't push much of the backstory (Silmarillion stuff). - and I think he was a bit over the top as far as visual heavy-handedness goes, but in that regard, he's merely a product of the cgi-intesnive movie-making zeitgeist) I'm not sure he could pull this kind of Halo adaptation off. But, in a "imagine a beowulf cluster of these" kind of way, the notion intrigues the fuck out of me - and might even generate a lot of highbrow critic-buzz when the picture's released.
Or maybe they could turn the whole project into a complete farce and hand it over to Verhoven, or Joss Whedon. . . (I won't forgive Whedon for what he did to the Aliens franchise; no matter how much I loved Firefly).
You forgot gamma ray bursts.
A gamma ray burst in our near neighborhood would wipe us all out in the space of a few minutes. And I doubt anyone would notice before it's all over.
The housing bubble is over.
This is - by the way, the reason for the recent DJIA upswing. Money is leaving Real Estate, and flooding back to the stock market (which it fled in 1999-2000). Mainly a reaction to interest rate trends.
I have met women who pretended to be dumber than they were, but without exception these women wanted to date a type of guy who wanted that in a woman.
My wife used to do this - it drove me nuts.
She didn't fool me though, which is why I pursued her anyway.
We've had many long discussions about this, and we both concluded that it was just the way she was raised - she was raised by her parents to "act dumb" - she was never encouraged to pursue school, or anything intellectual. But she still couldn't quench her thirst for books. Turns out, she was able to undo this conditioning, and despite the fact that she *is* dyslexic (clinical diagnosis) she is a Scrabble-geek. (Scrabble was one of the therapies recommended by her doctor for dyslexia).
They can tax my Meat when they pry it from my (Cold Damage), Beaten Up(3), (eXtreme Mittened) hand.
Libertarians have been co-opted by anarcho-capitalists.
(ask 10 different self-proclaimed "Libertarians" what their party stands for, you'll get 11 different answers).
Independents have been taken over by (ew) Lieberman.
(it's the party for politicians too craven to attempt to reform their own party, so they call themselves something else).
Even the Reform party has been buttraped; by Social Conservative Pat Buchanan.
(Reform Party of Perot was Fiscal Conservative/Social Liberal).
What fucking 3rd Party should I vote? Green? Yeah, 2000 worked out really well for me.
Hah!
Term limits and turnover aren't the silver bullet everyone thinks they are either.
When congressmen leave office, you know what they do?
Become lobbyists.
They can form all the good old boy circle-jerk networks they want for as long as they want as lobbyists. Then when a fresh crowd shows up in congress, they stop in and teach them how the world really works. (ie. $).
Only elimination of private funds for campaigns has any hope of stopping this - and then, you still have to worry about the hundreds of millions being spent on public advocacy groups and "think tanks" and such that spew their slant and propaganda onto the corporate-dominated media.
Money controls the message today. And there's very little that can be done about it without shitting on the Bill of Rights as badly as it has already been shat on.
And remember, as one leading Democrat has said, if Democrats control either house, there's going to be "oversight, oversight, oversight".
I call bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Because any oversight is going to come down to subpoenas, which will obstructed either via "national security reasons" or "executive privilege" - which will come down to a supreme court decision. Since the SCOTUS was pretty well stacked BEFORE Bush came into office (never mind the two fundamentalist radical activists he's put on there now) - there's no way in hell a Democratic Congress is going to get the information they need to do even marginal oversight.
And by the way, these same Democrats are the ones that did not fight Bush's SCOTUS stacking in the first place. These Democrats have already lost the fight - they lost it by their craven, enabling actions from 2000-2006.
Sure - elect some Democrats, throw out some Republicans - but there will be no real change. It's already locked-in.
It may not be a matter of fact; the historical record provided by the Bible, may, in fact, be completely fabricated (despite well-known instances of archaological correlates) - let's just, for the sake of argument, assume the Bible's all fiction;
Given basic human nature, no matter how strict such laws were, it's almost a certainty, especially among a nomadic race, that marriage between Hebrews and outsiders occurred. I don't think you can show me a single example of any human breeding regulation (or any regulation, for that matter) that was a universal success. Humans break laws, particularly where matters of the heart are involved.
Sita didn't "tell me off". Sita didn't accuse me of bigotry.
He elaborated on my oversimplification. Where I was needlessly terse, and overly general, he offered corrections. There was no bigotry intended in my statement, and I think most people read it as such. My point was (and it still stands) that; despite the fact that there was marriage outside the Hebrew race, the law was that one was not supposed to do so.
This is not a tribal feature, unique to ancient (or modern) Hebrews - it's simply the earliest RECORDED instance of it, (pre-dating HG Welles by a few thousand years).
One thing's for sure - there's DEFINITELY an election coming up!
Actually - it's older than that.
There's this book called The Bible (author; disputed, age; roughly 2500 years?) that tells the story of an ancient nomadic race of goat-herders called the Hebrews. One of their laws was to discourage marriage outside their own race. Only the Hebrews were the Creator's favored race, and the rest were damned.
The whole point of decentralized generation is;
Some jackass in Texas or Saudi Arabia can't rig the supply market to fuck you.
You get your solar cells, the sun shines, you drive to work. No wars, no oil spills, and no global warming. It's really a simple idea based on free market principles (the freest market there is; sunshine).
Is decentralized power generation less efficient? Yes. Even solar (because your collectors can be positioned where it's sunny all day, and collected generation means you've got a 24x7 maintenance staff keeping things working. - though you get transmission losses) - but relying on energy cartels and smarmy market manipulators is hella-inefficient too. And deadly.
Agreed.
This change happened in 2000, when they changed owners, (and lost the Gardner article to boot!).
I canceled my subscription after 15 years.
To me - the memory issues are pretty important too.
Although, a nice workaround would be the ability to restore all the tabs I had opened if I close Firefox with multiple tabs. Sometimes, I just don't have time to read all the content on all my open tabs, and I don't want to make bookmarks for pages I'm going to read once and close.
I know that if Firefox terminates unexpectedly, the next time you launch, it asks if you want all your tabs restored - this is a very nice feature, and I wish I could do that when I close firefox normally.
heh - most insightful post of this whole discussion.
300 millionth American is hogwash. Just another pathetic attempt by the mainstream media to politicize crypto-xenophobia (ie. "the illegal immigration problem").
(America does not have an illegal immigration problem. America has an illegal employer problem).
Well, that's because GIMP's primary users are also its developers.
If you give a Machinist the ability to make his or her own tools, you'll get dial calipers, die grinders, etc. Not Hammers and Screwdrivers.
It's a weakness of the Open Source approach. Not insurmountable by any means - but there's this tendency for the technician to make tools that are: surprise! technical. Big software companies have things like market research, designers, usability experts, and, erm - accountants (who - while useful, should always be kept on a very short leash, and perhaps punished with a rolled-up newspaper quite often). None of this means that Big Software Companies can't make money producing open source software.