BrentAllen

"Regarding K-12, my feeling is that through 4th grade, our efforts to dumb them down just hasn't taken hold yet and their innate desire to absorb everything sustains them." Not sure how you can say that. At least compared to when we were in grade school. Today, the kids in K-4 are a full year ahead of where we were when at that age. They come out of Kindergarten reading better than we were at the end of 1st Grade. They learn multiplication in 3rd, whereas we learned it in 4th. I'm amazed at what these kids learn at these young ages. My son is now in 5th grade, so we will see what happens from here on in. He goes to a very good school (where mom teaches 3rd grade), so this experience may not be the norm. The biggest problem I see is when they hit Middle School, it is not cool to do well in school. The peer pressure (I hear) is almost impossible to deal with, and even kids who did really well earlier cave to pressure to not be "smart." "Smart" kids make it harder on the slackers and wreck the curve. They are labeled "nerds" and "geeks." Hopefully, Boy Scouts can still teach character and values to the boys in the program, and they will survive Middle School.

packsaddle, Maybe this is why the Bush Administration objected to the process. Maybe they knew it was false. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Stem_Cell_Confusion.html By MATT CRENSON September 1, 2006 - 5:35 p.m. EDT AP National Writer NEW YORK An advance in stem cell research that was intended to resolve moral differences over the promising but controversial field has ignited fresh conflict instead. Because stem cells can turn into virtually any type of human tissue, they hold promise for treating a host of human maladies. But critics have argued that creating the cells for research is wrong because it requires the destruction of human embryos in their earliest stages. Scientists say the field's progress is seriously hampered by federal funding restrictions that are motivated by those moral objections. Last week, the California biotech company Advanced Cell Technology proposed a way out of the impasse. Writing in the scientific journal Nature, ACT researchers described a way to make stem cells from single cells that had been removed from embryos. Because fertility doctors routinely remove single cells from embryos for genetic testing and then successfully implant them, the technique could in theory be used to create stem cells without destroying human embryos. An e-mail sent to reporters by Nature before the paper's online publication stated that company researchers "have been able to generate new lines of cultured embryonic stem (ES) cells while leaving the embryo intact." In reality, however, the embryos used by the company were destroyed in the course of developing the method. The researchers removed an average of five to six cells from each embryo rather than one to improve their chances of success. Removing that many cells at such an early stage of development effectively destroys an embryo. Within hours of the paper's release, the journal issued a pair of clarifications to the original e-mail that corrected the mistake. But several media outlets included the error in their own accounts. The Associated Press' stories did not address the fate of the embryos, instead focusing solely on the technique. Robert Lanza, vice president of research and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology, said the technique is the important thing, not how it was developed. "The concept and implications of the study remain completely unchanged," he said. Critics of stem cell research said the company had not been sufficiently clear about how their experiments were conducted. "I'm not saying the Nature article was false, but it certainly misled a lot of people," said Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Company officials protested that the fate of embryos in their laboratory has no bearing on the scientific value of the research that comes out of it. Using the techniques they developed, they said, future researchers can create stem cells without destroying embryos. Having such a capability could be useful because U.S. law currently bans federal funding of any research that harms human embryos. In an August 2001 decision, President Bush allowed federal funding for research on the few dozen cell lines that had been created up to that point. But researchers say they need hundreds of lines to move the science forward. "I think the degree of protest here is the result of the importance of this breakthrough," said Ronald Green, chairman of Advanced Cell Technology's ethics advisory board and a professor of religion at Dartmouth College. "If the president were to turn around tomorrow and authorize stem cell lines produced in this way, in two years' time we could have three to four hundred stem cells lines." Other scientists have expressed reservations about the significance of the research, saying that it needs to be confirmed through replication. Many would prefer to keep creating stem cells using the current technology, which requires the destruction of embryos about five days into development. At that stage, they constitute a ball of about 100 to 150 cells.

"In fact, the boys entering this unit at age 11, almost every one of them, enter with an impressive array of vocabulary and ideas on these topics. Much of what they think they know is completely false. Wouldn't it be better for them to at least get it right? I have asked this before, what issue or problem is it whose understanding or solution is enhanced by ignorance? I would be interested in knowing what any of you think." I'll give you my thoughts. Stay with me here. Do not make too many assumptions, please First, a question on extremes. Which of these two would you prefer to be your son's first sexual experience? A. A gang-bang in a filthy, dilapidated crack house with someone they just met. B. Sex in a bedroom with a woman they are deeply in love with, and have promised to spend the rest of their life with. Would the difference between those experiences have much to do with their expectations of sex and love for the rest of their lives? Second, many of us (Christians, at least, 70% of the country) believe that sex is a gift God gave to be shared between a married man and woman. It is a pleasure to be shared by those married couples who have devoted their lives to each other. It is a gift that can produce one of the greatest gifts from God, a child. We believe sex education should be taught in a manner that respects these beliefs, in the form of human reproductive biology (as you mentioned earlier). We fail to see how homosexual sex falls under the category of human reproductive biology, so coupled with our own religious beliefs, we have strong objections to homosexual sex being taught to our children. Yes, we even have objections to books being sent home showing homosexual couples as a normal, acceptable lifestyle. We do not feel that way, so why should we want our children taught that? We do not teach our children to hate homosexuals or treat them badly, but we do not want our children taught that homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle they can simply choose. As to when to teach boys about sex, I would prefer to teach it at an age when the boys have a true understanding about love, and that it should be taught as part of a loving, committed relationship. It should not be taught as a casual act to be shared by two kids who find themselves alone in a room at a party. What about a boy sitting in the sex ed class who says he is attracted to boys, not girls? He should be directed to a counselor to discuss those issues. Since homosexual sex is not part of reproductive biology, it should not be discussed in sex education classes in public schools. Since homosexuals make up less than 10% of the population, the course should not include discussions which are of interest to such a small number, and which are so highly objectionable to the majority. Would we prefer ignorance over education? On the topic of homosexual sex - yes. I see no reason why my son should be taught what homosexuals do to pleasure themselves. I see no harm in him remaining ignorant of those practices. Finally, why do we object to groups such as GLSEN being allowed in the schools? GLSEN has taken the position that anyone treating homosexuality as anything other than normal or equal to heterosexuality is guilty of harassment and bullying, which is false. They have forced their position into every nook and cranny of public education, from kindergarten to high school. As mentioned in earlier posts, the book "Who's in a family" is being used to teach 5 year-olds that a homosexual family is a normal, acceptable family lifestyle. I do not believe that and my religion does not teach that, so I do not want the public school teaching my son that. If you want to teach your children those lifestyles are acceptable choices for them to follow, that is fine - do it at home; do not force it on my children. Public schools should not be used to teach these ideas, to push these agendas. Please note I am not teaching my children to hate or dislike homosexuals. I am teaching my children those lifestyles are ok for others, but not for us.

That Jetboil system is hard to beat. I don't own one yet, but that might change this weekend. I've read very good reviews on at BackpackGearTest.org (http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/Cook%20Gear/Stoves/) Team that up with Freezer Bag Cooking (http://www.freezerbagcooking.com/) and you are good to go! I do have an alcohol stove that is very light (2.5 oz without fuel) and works well. Very nice design. http://www.thermojetstove.com/

Dan, First, we are not talking about a kid asking a question about why his gay parents aren't included in a book. We are talking about a book being sent home to ALL families. Why, again, did the author write the book? If you don't see the problem with this, then I can only assume you are a member or supporter of GLSEN. GLSEN goes in to schools under the premise of protecting gay kids from abuse, and then turn into recruiters for the homosexual movement. Second, I don't know where you read that the "Students asked very specific questions, which were answered in a factual, neutral way (at least, looking at the transcript from the person who recorded the session and "broke the story" in the news)" but you couldn't be further from the truth. "Queer sex for youth, 14-21" In one well-attended workshop, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21," the three presenters acting in their professional capacities coaxed about 20 children into talking openly and graphically about homosexual sex. The three presenters, who described themselves as homosexual, were: Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Education Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health The workshop syllabus included: "What's it like to be young, queer and beginning to date? "Are lesbians at risk for HIV? "We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met." The Department of Public Health employee, Michael Gaucher, had the following exchange with one student, who appeared to be about 16 years old: Michael Gaucher: "What orifices are we talking about?" Student: [hesitation] Michael Gaucher: "Don't be shy, honey; you can do it." Now, I don't know how you read that, but it is pretty clear who is asking the questions and who is leading the discussion. Decorum prevents me from posting the rest of the discussion. You can read the entire disgusting transcript at http://www.massnews.com/maygsa.htm Just let me warn you - it is very graphic. This was a "Teach-Out" for public school teachers, staffed by 2 Department of Education employees. The public school teachers who attended received state development credits for their participation. You may not see anything wrong with it, but the Commissioner of Education sure did, which is why he apologized. Margot Abels was terminated because of her participation. If you can't see this as pushing an agenda, then you are so far left, you have fallen off the edge.

Dan, Softball questions? This is in your backyard. "An ongoing struggle in a Boston suburb over homosexual material in elementary classrooms has culminated in a lawsuit between parents and the school system. The Parkers were upset over a book sent home with their five-year-old son in January of 2005, Whos in a Family, that presents families with gay or lesbian parents as normal. Robert Skutch, author of Whos in a Family, says that the whole purpose of the book was to get the subject [of same-sex parent households] out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced that theres another way of looking at life. Ever heard of GLSEN? Among their gaols: GLSEN calls upon public policy makers to remove any prohibitive laws that forbid or discourage in-school discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. More Mass. news: "The Commissioner of Education, David Driscoll, has apologized for the explicit teaching of homosexual sex to teenagers at a conference which was sponsored by a homosexual organization, GLSEN, at Tufts University on March 25. He said, "There is no question that the comments of the Department of Education staff and the other consultant in those workshops go beyond the boundaries of what our staff should have done."

packsaddle, As you drove past that rally, did you, as a moderate person, get out and voice your disapproval of their message? If not, then I assume you were granting silent approval. The KKK also carried and burned crosses. Does that mean crosses are now "a symbol of prejudice and hate"? They also carried the US flag. Does it disturb you that the flag of your state is the Stars & Bars flag of the Confederacy, with the State Seal added on the canton? "With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." "I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." Robert E. Lee

Eamonn, There are a lot of Confederate flags - I assume you mean he was flying the Confederate Battle flag (square) or The Navy Jack (rectangular)? Or was it the Stars & Bars, which our current State flag is modeled after? I see no problem with him flying either flag, or with the Jolly Roger. My guess is they were just having a little fun, showing they had a little Rebel or Pirate spirit in them. This whole "I'm offended" thing can get out of hand, quickly. You are offended by my flag. I'm offended that you are offended by my flag, and so on, and so on... The Ranger did about the worst thing possible in that situation. Of all the choices he had, he chose the last on the list.

"I wonder why those of us who object to certain social practices seem to be more tolerant when those practices are simply kept out of sight...and only apparent in our minds." Well, maybe because those people aren't demanding to change the definition of marriage. Other than a handful of people in Utah, there really isn't anyone pushing for public approval and acceptance of their behaviour. By nature, most mistresses must be kept secret - most wives wouldn't approve, I don't think. I'm right-handed and left-footed. My wife and son are right-handed, my daughter left.

This one would be easy for me. If I'm the SM or on committee, we let the family know if they sue, we all resign and fold the Troop. If they persist, fold the Troop and reorganize, and don't let that family in the new Troop. They tried to accomodate him; he blew his chance.

scoutldr, I would PM you, but I don't think the system is working. email me at iballen at mindspring dot com

You reacted to an inflammatory post, now let it go. FScouter moderator (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

I'll give you my honest answer. I don't know enough about the issue to make an honest, moral decision. I don't know whether either process is destroying life as in abortion. I know very little about IVF - luckily we had kids without having to visit that arena. If you reread my posts carefully, I think you will find I mentioned the conservative objections to this process - moral issues using public dollars - but I never stated those were my objections. To be clear, I will tell you my objections to the posts in this thread. packsaddle takes yet another shot at Bush which I felt was unjustified. Dems and libs use hype for political points on this issue, which is the worst form of political warfare I have seen. John Edwards was the bottom of the cess pool, with his "vote for me and we will cure you!" rhetoric. People need hope and realistic expectations - not hype. This has become a very emotional issue because we have been sold a bunch of hype. Once the federal trough gets opened up on an emotional issue, get ready for a stampede and plenty of waste and corruption (Katrina?) I think there will plenty of private corporate money and charity to discover the cures, if any, that might come from stem cells. Now, for those who want to use public funding, please tell me how much is enough? I want to hear what each of you think is the appropriate amount of money that should be budgeted for stem cell research. Give it to me either in dollars or percentage of the budget. Should money be pulled from cancer research? Or Aids research? So, morally, if Bush reversed course, I don't think it would bother me much. I guess I have more fiscal objections than I do moral. To some, that may sound crass. I feel that I am just being realistic about the possibilities. I'm tired of the hype and hypocrasy from the Dems - trying to use the issue to score political points while building false hope for some very sick people, and yet never mentioning Clinton's actions. So no, Gern, I would not reject the cures for moral reasons. Have I answered your question?

Gern, Dolly, the first cloned mammal, was cloned in 1996, 10 years ago. 1995 was the end of Bill Clinton's term? Methinks you need to freshen up on your history. He was in his second year of his first term as President in 1995. 1993 - 2001.

OK, OGE. Maybe the radical Muslims want us dead and our civilization destroyed because we accept homosexuality and have a state that allows same-sex marriage. I don't think those radical Muslims are too big on homosexuality. There - I changed the subject. :-)

"If it happens, it will be due to the legalization of interracial marriage, not gay marriage." Wrong. Interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman. That has been the definition for several hundered years. Gay marriage changes the definition. It's obvious I'm not going to change my position, and you aren't going to change yours. I live in a state where gay marriage isn't allowed, so I am happy. You live in a state where gay marriage isn't allowed, so what are you going to do about it?

Calico, Whether Sony developed them, or brought them to market, it really doesn't matter. What matters is you can get them, correct? On the other subject, none of those inventions you mentioned involved embryos or the political or moral issues that go along them. I just find it hard to believe that if those miraculous cures were just around the corner as Kerry and Edwards would have us believe, then the Mercks and Pfizers would be putting in more than enough research money. After all, there would be a huge financial reward for these cures, correct? Anyone have any idea how much money the US gov't puts into cancer research? What % of the total? I didn't think the gov't was the main funding source for medical research, but maybe I'm wrong.

Dan writes "Actually, what it looks like Merlyn just admitted is that the segment of society that denigrates gays and finds homosexual relationships to be less "pro-family" than heterosexual marriages are enncouraging gays to enter sham marriages. Hmm. I wonder if that could be the same segment that "defends traditional marriage"? Nah, must be a coincidence." That would be only about 70% of the US population. packsaddle - DNA as a metaphor. The traditional family is one of the main building blocks of our society. Add in churchs, schools, other social groups. Merlyn, I don't know where anyone said there would be immediate detrimental consequences to traditional marriage from gay marriage. The results from incest may take years to become noticeable. One of the threats we are concerned about is the expansion of the definition of marriage as I mentioned previously. It may not have happened yet, but are you promising me it never will? There are a lot of issues that are going to come up. Can gay couples adopt? Can they be foster parents? Are they more prone to abuse, as some studies have shown? What about the implications for businesses and their insurance plans? No, I don't know all the answers. I only know we are toying around with the building blocks of our society. Thankfully, legislatures in 37 states have passed legislation banning same-sex marriage, and voters in 20 states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage. 7 more states will vote on the issue this November. Mass. will most likely be voting on it before long. Hmmm... looks like I'm not in the minority.

Gern, Oh, really!? 1960s - Joseph Altman and Gopal Das present evidence of adult neurogenesis, ongoing stem cell activity in the brain; their reports contradict Cajal's "no new neurons" dogma and are largely ignored 1963 - McCulloch and Till illustrate the presence of self-renewing stem cells in mouse bone marrow 1968 - bone marrow transplant between two siblings successfully treats SCID 1978 - haematopoietic stem cells are discovered in human cord blood 1981 - mouse embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass 1992 - neural stem cells are cultured in vitro as neurospheres 1995 - President Bill Clinton signs into law the Dickey Amendment which makes it illegal for Federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of the embryo. Hmmm... Bill Clinton... made it illegal to use Federal funds? Where is the outrage? How many cures could we have already if he hadn't banned the Federal money? packsaddle, looks like you have a new bad guy. Care to revise and extend your comments?(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[1)Why do you suppose McGreevey hid his homosexuality? Probably because gays are denegrated by large numbers of people in the US. 2)Would he have been considered just as "pro family" if he had been in a gay marriage, as he was in a hetero marriage? Not in today's society.] If you can't see that you just admitted society encourages gays to enter into sham marriages, then we have nothing further to discuss. That fact is as plain as the nose on your face. [Note that I'm asking 'how HAS it suffered" - no making up future disasterous scenarios, how HAS it suffered AS OF NOW?] I'll give you the same courtesy of an answer you gave me - "You'd have to ask them." I don't live in Mass.

Merlyn, I'll be glad to answer your questions, as long as you agree to answer mine. Fair? 1) you are against gay marriage, - Yes, I am against gay marriage. 2) you are against gays entering into "sham" marriages - I don't think I ever said I was against sham marriages. I think they are sad and hurtful. I'm sure there are heterosexual sham marriages, for either money or fame or citizenship. To me, marriage should be between a man and a woman who love each other and promise to spend the rest of their lives together. Yes, I know there are plenty of divorces - they are equaly sad and produce a lot of heartache. That does not change my opinion about what marriage should be. 3) it seems you are against gays marrying, period. Should there be a law stating that gays cannot get married? - No, the laws are fine they way they are now. Marriage should stay the way it is defined now - between a man and a woman. There is no constitutional right to marriage - for anyone. 4) And, by the way, how has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there? - It may not have - yet. But let's wait and see what happens. How long before we hear polygamy arguments, and those who want to marry their siblings or their pets? How will you answer the question about how those marriages hurt traditional marriage? Are you for allowing them? Allowing gay marriage is tinkering with the DNA of our society. The consequences may not be truly known for years. Welfare sounded great, until we had families living on it for 3 generations, and it became a way of life. Luckily, most other states are passing amendments against gay marriage, so it should not spread far. I believe Mass. is even proposing an amendment against gay marriage. Now, for my questions. 1)Why do you suppose McGreevey hid his homosexuality? 2)Would he have been considered just as "pro family" if he had been in a gay marriage, as he was in a hetero marriage? 3)Why do you suppose most of the gay men in sham marriages decide to enter in to those marriages? 4)Why do gay men enter in to sham marriages instead of just living with their gay lover?(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

That process is happening in IVF, but I don't think it is being funded by the government. That is the objection - using taxpayer dollars to do it. If stem cells are going to provide all these miraculous cures, there should be plenty of for-profit companies willing to put money into the research. As for the miracles I mentioned, that is what Democrats are selling. I give you John Edwards: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." According to Bill Frist, research related to spinal cord injuries does not involve embryonic stem cells but rather adult stem cells, "where the president has absolutely no restrictions, no limitations and there are about 140 treatments." For the record, George Bush was the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. Yes, we get what we ask for - realistic approaches or "snake-oil salesman" hype.

Merlyn, That is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have read in a long time! You posted that McGreevey married to get more votes - that is society encouraging the sham marriage - plain and simple. Do you think if gay marriages were allowed, McGreevey would have married a man? He would have thought he could get just as many votes if he was in a gay marriage? That being in any kind of marriage would get him more votes than being single?? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you! McGreevey was hiding his homosexuality - that is a fact. I assume he thought he was a more electable candidate as a heterosexual than homosexual. If you have a different idea as to why he was hiding his homosexuality, I'd like to hear it. Hopefully, it will make more sense than your other argument. Dodge - dodge - as in the question? Sorry, guess it went over your head. packsaddle wrote "You don't expect ME to do anything about it." I never said that. I said I don't expect you to turn them in. I would hope you would talk them into getting out of the program. You could take your son out of that unit. But that isn't going to happen. You take too much pride in thumbing your nose at this program which the rest of us have so much respect for. "tough luck"