eisely

It is hard to believe that a DE could be so misinformed. The other posters are correct. It used to be that way, but the change was made so many decades back it is surprising that someone at that level still has not gotten the memo.

It is not that I am without sympathy. I too have some current chronic conditions which would likely not be covered if I were on my own. The point of my post is not that such people are crooks or do not deserve some assistance. My point is that conventional insurance contracts do not cover pre existing conditions for a reason, and forcing insurance companies to do this will result in other premium payers subsidizing the pre existing conditions. My preferred means of helping such folks would be to directly subsidize them in some fashion and let the conventional insurance under writing function.

I may be dense, but what does that have to do with health insurance?

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday. While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the nearly nine months he's been in office, the same clearly can't be said for economics. The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats. From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap-and-trade bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the undead health-care "reform" act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years. Yet the Nobel panel chose instead to award the prize to two obscure academics -- Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson -- one noted for her work on managing collective resources, and the other for his work on transaction costs. See full story on the Nobel winners. Other surprise losers include celebrity noneconomist and filmmaker Michael Moore; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Larry Summers, head of the U.S. national economic council. It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year. (This message has been edited by eisely)

One of the major thrusts of the "reforms" of the health care system being promoted by the administration and the majority party is to compel insurance companies to cover all pre existing conditions. While those of us who currently have insurance should count our blessings, this is one of those reforms that is likely going to make things worse rather than better. Insurance is something one purchases before the event against which you are insuring. For example, we buy car insurance to provide financial protection in case we get into an accident. What would happen if you applied the standard of pre existing conditions to the auto insurance industry? Or the fire insurance industry? Nobody in their right mind would buy insurance, but would wait until the accident occurred and then buy the insurance. This is an example of "moral hazard." A moral hazard is a situation where you encourage or provide an incentive for the kind of behavior you are trying to prevent. Moral hazards are present in many government programs, and forcing health insurance providers to provide coverage of pre existing conditions would create a further moral hazard. One of the real reasons that politicians do these things is to force the cost of their objectives onto others without a direct government expenditure. Providing care for the uninsured is a bona fide problem. Forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for pre existing conditions is an attempt to force the companies, and all the other payers of premiums to those companies, to subsidize care for the imprudent or unlucky. It would make more sense to provide direct government subsidies to folks in these situations than to hide the cost in private insurance programs.

As a proud worm, I have to agree that the committee that made this award embarrassed itself. That is not just the opinion of an arch conservative, but an opinion widely shared by people of a wide variety of political persuasions.

In California we stopped counting a long time ago.

Paying a son for merit badges and rank advancement seems a little tacky, but what is really wrong with a parent adding their own recognition and a tangible reward for such achievements? I would stay completely away from this unless the parents specifically sought my advice. Even if they did ask I am not all sure what I would say. The amounts involved seem pretty minor. My greatest concern would be the possible impact on the rest of the troop if it became a competitive thing among the boys and other parents.

Lisabob, It is correct that Ebersol said that the US Olympic Committee was delusional and out of touch. However, any president who is willing to lend the prestige of his office and invest political capital in a losing effort for something that ultimately does not matter a great deal to the USA is also delusional and out of touch. Most cities and countries that host the olympics experience a huge financial cost for which the only benefit is a temporary gain in prestige. While that may have been important for the regime governing China, it is much less important for the US. If Obama believed along with the USOC and Chicago promoters that the US was at least going to be a finalist, he was equally delusional and out of touch. If Obama believed otherwise, then he knowingly made himself look foolish in the eyes of the world. But then that probably really doesn't matter very much as we now know. One can get the Nobel Peace Prize awarded by foreigners for accomplishing nothing.

Given that Obama's primary accomplishment to date is getting elected president of the USA, one infers that the peace prize committee intends to give the award to all future US presidents during their first year in office. The guy in Baghdad got it right. If Obama actually did any of the following things he would certainly deserve the award: 1. Persuade either the North Korean or the Iranian regimes to verifiably dismantle their nuclear programs. 2. Achieve lasting peace between the Israelis and their arab neighbors. 3. Persuade either the Taliban or Al Queda to give up their murderous ways. If Obama actually pulled off only one of these during his term in office, I would justifiably nominate him for this.

I concur with the others that a rank cannot be revoked or taken back. It would be useful to know more of the back story on this. You and your son are certainly entitled to a full discussion. If there was some aspect of your son's performance as a den chief that was not satisfactory and did not meet the requirement for a "position of responsibility" then this should have been identified much earlier in the process. I tend to fault the SM more than anybody else. The SM has a great deal to handle, but the SM is the one who signed off at a scoutmaster conference that everything was OK when perhaps it was not OK. Keep the book in your possession as it is an important record. However, if the troop has not yet submitted a rank advancement report to the council, there is not much you can do to force them to do that. You need to find out what the real complaint was before anything else happens.

If Chicago's case was so poor to begin with, it becomes a personal rebuke when the president steps in at the last minute to close the deal, when apparently there was no deal to be closed. I have to confess to feeling mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, I have to admit that I got a modest amount of pleasure out of seeing Obama rebuked. However, I am far more concerned about the near future when there are far more serious matters before him. So far all the leaders in the world whom he expected to charm into agreement have made it pretty clear that they are going to go ahead and act in what they see as their own personal and national interests regardless of what Obama says. It is not good for our country for our president to be perceived as uncertain, weak, self centered and even stupid. Even the French are suddenly more aggressive on those things that matter. I see this whole Olympics exercise as evidence of incompetence and naivete which is cause for concern for anybody who cares about this country.

I don't know what specific charges if any were ever formally made against Polanski. Having illegal sex with an underage minor was a negotiated plea. If he was ever actually arrested, and I believe that he was, some kind of charge would have to have been specified in order to hold him, even if he was not subsequently indicted by a grand jury. A negotiated plea is a conviction and could be negotiated at any time if both the prosecution and the defendant are willing to negotiate. It is clear from the grand jury testimony that the sex was not consensual, notwithstanding that the girl was below the age of consent anyway. While the negotiated plea was for something less than rape, it is absolutely crystal clear that Polanski is a rapist.

Having low expectations of politicians generally, particular with respect to "the one," I am less likely to be disappointed. Presidents do need to pick and choose and set priorities for where they will invest their time, engergy, and "political capital." I don't know if the fix was in for Rio from the start or not, but for the US to garner only 18 votes and to be knocked out in the first round of voting can only be considered to be a personal rebuke to Obama by the very foreign elites whose favor he has sought. He would have been wiser to stay home and focus on those things that matter far more.

Laws about statutes of limitations will vary among countries and among states within the US. I think in general in the US that statute of limitations refers to when charges must be laid. It does not mean that a conviction must be obtained before the expiration of the statute. Any attornies reading this feel free to correct me. In any event, the statute of limitations issue is moot, since Polanski did plead guilty to a lesser charge. That is what he will be sentenced for if he is returned to the US. I too have no sympathy for the roman catholic priests who molested children or their superiors who covered up for them. I am not going to presume to judge Benedict in this since I am not at all sure that anything I have read about his alleged role is factual. While I am at best a nominal catholic, I can be very anti clerical in my attitudes from time to time, which is not the same thing as rejecting any particular teaching or doctrine of the church. I mentioned the church scandals initially in this thread to simnply point out the fact that the perpetrators in those scandals did at least exhibit some sense of shame which is totally absent from Polanski. He probably thinks he deserves another Oscar for his current performance.

Roman Polanski is a seventy year plus old man who is a movie director. Born in Poland before WWII. I have not heard it said that he was born jewish but the fact that he survived the holocaust in a concentration camp as a young boy suggests that he is, or at least was born, jewish. (His religious affiliation has nothing to do with anything, except that some wish to excuse his behavior based on his prior sufferings.) Polanski was also married to Sharon Tate when she was murdered by members of Charlie Manson's cult. So it is fair to say that he had some tough earlier experiences. Subsequently in the 1970's at the age of 44 he persuaded a 13 year old girl and her parents to let the girl pose for some pictures. The photo shoot actually took place at a residence owned by Jack Nicholson, although Nicholson was not home at the time. During this shoot Polanski plied the girl with alcohol and qualudes. He attempted to persuade her to have sex with him. He did begin conventional intercourse but apparently withdrew when he learned that she was not using contraceptives. He then completed his rape in a different orifice. Very thoughtful of him. I don't whether the girl or her parents reported it to the police but the record is clear and was not challenged. Polanski negotiated a plea bargain but fled the jurisdiction to France before sentencing. Subsequently he has lived in complete freedom and luxury in France where he enjoys citizenship. Also a dual citizen of Poland. This thing was brought to life a few years ago when someone made a documentary about the case. The original judge died some time ago, but the prosecutor on the case claimed in an interview for the film that he engaged in some misconduct that may have contributed to Polanski's flight. That prosecutor in the last few days has recanted his interview with the film makers. All this recent activity led to new hearings about the legitimacy of Polanski's original plea bargain. The new judge was willing to hear the pleadings, but insisted that Polanski appear. This was a few months ago. Polanski did not appear, and when the California authorities learned that he was going to be in Switzerland, they exercised their rights to request extradition under our treaty with Switzerland. Apparently the US does not have an extradition treaty with France. So right now Polanski is in custody in Switzerland awaiting extradition hearings under Swiss law. The fact that the case is over thirty years old is irrelvant. Many of the crimes by priests about which Merlyn is so exercised occurred even earlier. The fact that Polanski negotiated a plea to a charge less than rape is essentially irrelevant to how he should be viewed by society at large. He committed statutory rape. The fact that the victim states that she wants the thing to go away and that she forgave Polanski years ago is also irrelevant to society's larger interest. No one wants to impose more pain or noteriety on this woman, but the fact that that might happen is Polanski's fault, not the fault of the authorities. So what we now have is a large number of Hollywood notables willing to dismiss his crime as unimportant. Polanski is a very creative man. But his film achievements cannot offset his acknowledged crime. I have no problem with any of his peers providing character witness testimony at his sentencing if they choose to do that, but to take the position that society should now simply forget his crime is depraved. Among those who have spoken publicly are Sharon Tate's sister who seems to have a problem with the idea of statutory rape, and Whoopi Goldberg who somehow thinks that what Polanski did was not "rape - rape" whatever that means.

It would not surprise me if Benedict, while a bishop or cardinal, helped cover up sexual crimes committed by priests. I am not at all sure how a member of the hierarchy in Germany can play a role in covering up crimes committed in the US, but then that is merely nitpicking. Coverups certainly happened in the US, and some in the hierarchy in various jurisdictions probably committed criminal offenses by not reporting allegations of which they became aware. However, suspicions and allegations and do not add up to convictions. Further, one does not get "convicted" in a civil suit. You know that Merlyn. Further one does not go to jail as a result of losing a civil suit. There also is a qualitative difference between being the actual rapist and covering for the rapist after the fact. So perhaps your desire to see Benedict in jail really derives from your general animus towards all things religious.

Merlyn, Of what crimes has Benedict been accused? Of what crimes has he been convicted? To what crimes has he pleaded guilty?

According to one internet source this morning there are now 138 Hollywood celebrities demanding the immediate release of Polanski. One name that is constantly mentioned is Woody Allen. How's that for irony? This is an amazing situation. This is moral relativism raised to a new level. This could become a turning point in the entertainment industry. I know some will point out the sins of various conservative politicians, prominent evangelists, roman catholic priests, etc. The difference is that these offenders knew they were doing something wrong and tried to hide it. They at least were capable of a sense of shame once they were exposed. The message coming out of Hollywood now is that it is high artistry to not only rape 13 year olds but also to flaunt your depravity and no one has a right to judge. My wife and I go to a lot of movies, but I am considering drawing up a personal boycott list. At least I can avoid providing financial support to those who are the worst creeps. Hollywood occasionally rises above itself and produces films of great artistry that are truly profound. Consider Schindler's List and Sopie's Choice for example. Nevertheless it is still an entertainment industry many of whose biggest earners now have revealed what they think of the rest of us. (This message has been edited by eisely)

I would be inclined to remove patrol recogition from the hands of the youth leadership to avoid the appearance of bias, or at least some of the recognition. Stirring up a little competition among the patrols is a good way to generate interest and improved performance in those areas you choose to recognize.

All of the above are worthy comments. I too am "eagle coordinator" for our troop. In that role I don't approve anything or sign anything, but help the aspiring eagles claw through the paperwork. I laughingly tell the eagles and their parents that we are teaching another life lesson here - how to deal with paperwork and bureaucracies. One important shift in our district, and I believe the entire council, is to get the "program officer" to sign the application before it goes to an EBOR. This person does the detailed scrutiny. This has been a very helpful change in the process. I don't think that any BOR should be merely a lobbing of softballs, but most BORs for any rank should be largely pro forma if the troop leadership has been performing properly. SMs should not be signing off on scouts for rank advancement if they are not ready.

CrewMomma, To answer your questions about our troop, in all three cases there was a history of general misbehavior, disruptiveness, etc., even after being counseled. The first case is the easiest to understand and I have written about this one before in other threads. This happened several years ago. This kid was fooling around with a knife at summer camp, threw it at another scout from another unit, hit that scout in the eye, and sent that kid to the hospital. The camp director immediately demanded that the offender be sent home. That was done and he was removed from the troop at the same time. We did get a letter from the parents asking for reinstatement. There was no doubt that this kid needed scouting and could have benefited from scouting, but the safety of the other scouts was our paramount consideration. The second incident also involved summer camp. This boy was difficult to handle and I personally knew him better and liked him. He was not a good example to the younger scouts and occasionally disruptive. He had been counseled repeatedly. Again he stood to benefit from being in scouts, but crossed a line with the SM that caused the SM to want to remove him. Contrary to instructions, this scout had driven a car to summer camp. Upon discussion with the SM at camp, he agreed that he would not drive any other scouts home with him. He gave his own best friend a ride home anyway. When the SM learned about this, he, the SM, had had enough. This boy's parents (who had enabled the misbehavior by making the car available to him) objected. We referred the matter up to district which everybody agreed was fair so that other senior volunteers who had no axe to grind could advise. In that "hearing" the boy acknowledged everything and exhibited no remorse or contrition whatsoever. Scout removed. Case closed. The third case I know a lot less about. I know the SM had wanted to remove him earlier, but was essentially overruled. Further counseling was provided. A year later he was gone. I don't think there were any particularly egregious incidents with this kid, just general attitude and disruptive behavior.

Actually I don't remember. There was a period of a few years when I stopped visiting the forum altogether. Praying TO any living person really is creepy, president or not. For that matter, unless the vatican declares any particular president a saint (how likely is that?), praying TO any president, alive or dead is creepy. I don't think that is quite what Baden Powell had in mind in saying scouts should be reverent. It would not surprise me if people have occasionally prayed FOR a president. It seems to me I recall political leaders being added to the list of people for whom the congregants prayed in catholic masses from time to time. Again, we were praying for divine help in making such recipients of the divine help more just and wise. But I digress....the ten dollar offer still stands.

OGE, Why wait? Worry now. Give it a few more years and we'll likely get there. I've got ten dollars for anybody who can come up with a video of school kids singing the praises of GW Bush (not George Washington).

Yes our troop has removed boys from the unit as a disciplinary action. We have no formal process for dealing with this. Removal has in all cases of which I am aware been initiated by the SM, who brings it up in the regular committee meetings. In only one instance was the removal contested by the scout and his family, but ultimately the troop was upheld in its decision.