eisely

If you haven't seen the really creepy video of the kindergarteners in New Jersey singing songs in praise of President Obama, check out the link below. You can watch the video of the American kids and then watch North Korean kids sing the praises of their Dear Leader. Nobody is saying that Obama himself, or anybody in Washington for that matter, had anything to do with this. But the mind set of some people running the public schools is often quite scary. Apparently this incident actually happened in June. I understand that the educational authorities in the State of New Jersey are now looking into this. http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/09/24/comparative-videos-new-jerseynorth-korea/

Only on this one quote however.... The quote below is from Barney Frank as quoted in the Wall Street Journal today, commenting on the sting operations against Acorn. "People have said, 'Well, the sting [against Acorn] is terrible.' I will tell people there is a great defense against being stung. Don't do the kind of things that put you on television."

I think, as a general principle, service hours have to benefit someone or some organization outside of scouting altogether. A service project benefiting your troop's chartered organization does count as service, but putting time in at a recruiting booth does not.

Gern, Do you really believe that members of congress who think that they should not read the bills they vote on would be interested in a dramatic reading of their own rules?

Jimmy Carter has forfeited any respect or credibility that might be due him as an "elder statesman" a long long time ago. He is undoubtedly the worst ex president we have ever had, and easily in the top five of worst presidents ever. Certainly the worst president of the second half of the twentieth century.

Might as well jump in here, having not read all but the earliest and latest posts to this thread. I think the following points deserve mention: 1. Wilson clearly erred in shouting out the way he did. 2. Wilson has apologized to the president. 3. The house was not in session for the speech so it is not clear that Wilson violated many rules governing debate. 4. The president himself characterized critics of the plan (or is it plans) as liars a bit earlier in his speech. Where is the civility in that? 5. Rep. Pete Stark, democrat of California, called then President George Bush a liar in the well of the house. No discipline imposed. Where is the civility in that? 6. Senate majority leader, Sen. Read of Nevada called then President George Bush a liar. Where is the civility in that? 7. The house has yet to sanction in any way the failures of Congressman Wrangel, democrat of New York and chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, to disclose various interests and pay all taxes due. His offenses are very similar to those committed by the Senator from Alaska (name escapes me) for which that Senator was convicted in a court of law. (Convictions were recently overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct.) No one can or should approve or copy Rep. Wilson's conduct. He himself has said that he should not have shouted out the way that he did. But the current moves by the house to discipline him are just more evidence against the way the house is currently led by the majority party.

When is this scout's 18th birthday? I can't see fudging on the requirements just so he can meet an arbitrary deadline for a particular eagle court of honor. If he really was active over the summer in his den chief role, then fine, but I have not seen that stated as a fact here. If he, as of this moment, still has several months to run till his 18th birthday, then let him do it right.

Lisabob, Polling figures show that as many as 85% of americans with health insurance are happy with what they have. Even if 85% is high, this clearly indicates that the larger system as a whole is not in a state of crisis requiring urgent overhaul. Incrementalism is a perfectly sound approach. One thing that I forgot to mention in my earlier post is providing tax equity to individuals who do not have access to insurance through employers. This would make individual coverage more affordable and probably motivate more people in this category to buy their own insurance, thus further reducinng the numbers of the uninsured at a relatively minor cost to the treasury. This would be very easy to accomplish.

Defining the problem to be solved is not a trivial exercise. One of the difficulties with the proposals from the liberal left is that they are not clear on just what problems they are trying to solve. So far I have heard three things cited as problems requiring a solution: 1. Health care costs a lot. 2. Medicare is going broke. 3. There is some number of uninsured people that must be covered somehow. The one easily legislated thing that could make a big dent in costs is tort reform. Since the Democrats are a wholly owned subsidiary of the trial lawyers' lobby, they have not proposed anything positive here and would oppose anything that would rein in this lobby. There are a variety of ideas that might help Medicare, but Obama's idea of simply cutting expenditures without somehow reducing benefits defies common sense. Medicare already is subsidized by patients with private insurance that enable providers to cover their losses on Medicare. I don't see any alternative to increasing taxes in some way to cover increased costs of Medicare. You notice that I referred to "uninsured people" not "uninsured Americans." Since most people would equate the term "Americans" with "citizens of America," there is an important distinction to be made here. The figures I have seen indicate that some 10 to 12 million of the uninsured are illegal aliens. Illegals already have access to emergency rooms. There is an important policy issue here that deserves open debate, but that has been covered up. To what extent do American citizen taxpayers want to pay for coverage for illegal aliens? Ironically many illegals are also taxpayers, and the IRS encourages them to file returns without turning them over to ICE. I don't know where the balance is here, but I suspect that, even if coverage was extended somehow to illegals who actually paid taxes, most American citizens would still not want to extend coverage to the balance of the illegals. There are also several million uninsured people who fall into other categories: (1) eligible for Medicare but not participating, (2) eligible for Medicaid but not participating, (3) eligible for SCHIP (acronymn correct?) and not participating, and (4) sufficient income to purchase coverage but decline to do so. The figues I have seen, after all these categories are excluded leaves less than 10 million citizens who presumably desire coverage but do not have it. Surely there is some way to address this problem without screwing up the entire system. If we could eliminate the inefficiecies arising out of the culture of jackpot justice and defensive medicine, we could probably pay for the few who really need help. But don't expect that reform, as noted above. Further reforms that may actually happen are to open up interstate commerce in insurance, and increase the supply of doctors. Both of these would work to hold down costs. So there are plenty of ideas out there and the Republicans have submitted bills. Those bills will be killed in committee and never make it to floor votes because the Democrats are not interested in anything from their opponents.(This message has been edited by eisely)(This message has been edited by eisely)

Regardless of the particulars, I have a major problem with BSA changing the uniform every other year. Or was it every year.

This entire discussion is about a very valid issue. While rejection for membership because of something coming up on a background check seems clear, what should a unit do about a rejected person participating as a non registered adult? I have never had to deal with this kind of situation. I can think of a lot of ways to deal with it, but it would be useful to know if there is a national policy. I agree that making additional inquiries on one's own can be very dangerous.

Lisabob, We have not merely a right to pass judgment, we have an affirmative duty to do so. I agree that Kennedy is largely ancient history now, and I have no desire to speak ill of the dead soley for the sake of doing so. The lesson to be learned is that the voters of Massachusetts failed in their responsibilities to seek and get some minimal standard of conduct from their elected leaders. Certainly politicians are imperfect people, as are all of us, but they put themselves forward as qualified to lead and represent us and we should be judging them on the totality of their conduct and effectiveness. Kennedy was a fairly effective voice for his policy preferences, but there clearly was a dark side.

I did mention Sowell's race, not because it is relevant to the issues, but as an aside. There are african americans who are conservative on a lot of issues and the views of african americans are no more monolithic than of white americans. Sowell does have opinions but his analysis is astute. He introduced one fact that I was aware of, but had not tied to the collapse of the housing market the way he does. The federal government has long subsidized home ownership, at least since the 30s. Sowell points out that the claim that there was a lack of affordable housing was isolated to a few regional markets, particularly the coastal communities of California, which began restricting growth in the 70s. Real estate in California up until the late 70's used to be cheaper than in similar urban areas of the US. The local policies of restricting growth restricted supply and so drove up prices. Note that these anti growth restrictions were essentially local phenomena, not driven by either state or federal policies, except where environmental policies began to impact development. The next big thing was the Commumnity Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed when Jimmy Carter was president. This was a federal law designed to encourage federally regulated depository institutions (banks and savings and loan at the time), to reinvest some of the funds deposited with them in the communities where they maintained branches. Among other things, this probably contributed to poorer neighborhoods being under served since banks that might have established branches in such neighborhoods would have been less eager to do so. Keep in mind that one of the major functions of banks is to act as financial intermediaries between depositors and borrowers. The single most important role of banks is the key role in the payments system for the entire economy. All that said, the CRA was largely ineffectual and ignored until amendments were adopted when Clinton was president. That was when the banking industry was forced into beginning to lend to borrowers that would not otherwise qualify. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to provide liquidity to mortgage lenders of all kinds. They did this by purchasing mortgage contracts, and borrowing large amounts of money to do so. The obligations of these two institutions were collateralized by the mortgages they purchased. These two institutions enabled the current situation by lowering their standards for the kinds of debt they would purchase, motivated by political objectives to help marginal and low income borrowers. If these two institutions had not done what they did this crisis would not have been nearly as bad as it became. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also patronage posts for people coming out of the Clinton administration. Several of these people became rich as a result. Doing well by "doing good." The risks posed by these two institutions became recognized even during Bush's first term. A weak regulatory watchdog was established in the Department of the Treasury, and kept deliberately weak by the congress. Members of both houses in both parties received a lot of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to allow the shift into sub prime loans. This was pointed out by a few critics, and they were beaten up by the congress, but mostly by liberal democrats, even when the democrats were in the minority. Were lenders greedy? Some were, but the system and incentives created by the politicians drew in lenders who, if it really was their own money at risk, would not have behaved the way they did. We hear about "predatory lenders." What a joke. Would people really lend money to the sub prime borrowers encouraged to apply if it really was the lenders' own money at stake? Would you lend money knowing the risk of loss was great if the government were not relieving you of risk through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? What about predatory borrowers who lied on their loan applications? There is more to write about this, but my real point is that this situation is the result of policies set in motion many years ago. The Bush administration deserves credit for trying to rein things in, but the congress steam rolled the executive branch on this one. The final collapse could have happened under any administration. Read the book. Trivia question for you: Can you name the two senators who received the largest and second largest amounts of political donations (think bribes) from Fannie Mae?

Not wishing to let a good crisis go to waste, it is time to resurrect this topic. There is an excellent book on this subject by Thomas Sowell called "The Housing Boom and Bust." If you cannot get it in a local book store, you can get it on line through Amazon. Thomas Sowell holds advanced degrees in economics and he is what would be considered a "public intellectual" in that he writes columns and books intended for wider audiences. The book I am recommending is very accessible to non specialists. Sowell also happens to be a conservative african american. The book is quite an eye opener. Essentially he very skillfully lays the entire fiasco at the feet of politicians, mostly liberal democrats. Clearly there was greedy incompetent behavior by people in the ordinary banks, investment banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, etc., but his point is that they were responding to both incentives and financial threats stemming from political mandates. Read the book.

I am a little late to this discussion, but our council offers the kind of training under discussion. I agree that such training should be tailored to local conditions. We offer a variety of courses. The link to that part of the council web site is below. http://www.bsa-mdsc.org/hat.php

I am really jealous. We had some great times with our parents when I was a kid, and my wife and I have had some great times with our kids, but nothing to compare to this.

Doing OLS in conjunction with a camporee is an interesting idea. However I agree that trying to jam too much into one weekend is probably a mistake and lessens the benefit of the training. Our council is one of several in the San Francisco bay area. Various districts in our council offer this at different times during the year so just within our own council one has numerous dates to choose from. I don't know how offering it once a year for the entire council would be sufficient. We regularly get trainees from neighboring councils showing up for our training sessions. Record keeping across council boundaries can become a hassle so such people are well advised to obtain and maintain their own hard copies of their documentation.

OGE, In general I agree that one should not speak ill of the dead. You will not see me raising this subject anywhere unless somebody else raises Kennedy as a subject first. I think there are two reasons why this incident was largely ignored when it came to light. First, potential political opponents in Massachusetts probably realized that, if literally getting away with murder was OK with the majority of the Massachusetts electorate, then raising this issue would not gain any traction either. Second, as the mainstream media became ever more relentlessly liberal in outlook and selective in what it reported and how it presented information, those media organs would not have touched this story unless they were forced to do so. If Kennedy had ever sought the presidency again, say as when Bill Clinton's second term was drawing to a close, it would have come up, just as Chappaquidick came up when Kennedy opposed Jimmy Carter's re nomination in 1980. I don't know how much this is going to get publicized in the blogosphere now and don't much care. EMK, RIP

I agree with the suggestions made by others: 1. Meet with the head of the chartered organization with a committee of concerned parents. Have replacement SM and CC lined up ahead of that meeting. 2. If this is not feasible leave the troop. As with Beavah, when I teach troop committee challenge I advise that the CC, SM, Treasurer, and Advancement Coordinator should all come from separate households. Require two signatures on checks for fund disbursements. We have seen too many other similar situations described in this forum where a husband/wife team runs a troop into the ground. Separating these repsonsibilities in this manner will not guarantee a lack of the problems described, but will minimize them and make them easier to address when they do arise.

As I understand it, this did not become known until Boris Yeltsin opened the Soviet archives in the early 90's. The documentation consists of a report from a senior KGB officer to Andropov who then was the leader of the Soviet Untion in the early 80's. Apparently Kennedy did offer to collaborate with the Soviet Union to try to undermine Reagan's foreign policy and military initiatives, particularly the deployment of the Pershing missle system in Europe. I have never seen anything that indicates that the Soviets acted upon Kennedy's offer to them. Apparently when queried about this in the 90's, Kennedy's office danced about but did not deny the fundamental truth as documented in the Soviet archives. I don't know if Kennedy himself ever spoke to this issue. Assuming that the facts as documented in the Soviet archives are correct, because they have never been challenged, Kennedy's offer probably was a violation of the Logan Act. But then we have tolerated numerous violations of the Logan Act by Jimmy Carter. Personally I consider this to be a dead issue except for the fact that hagiographies are now being produced about Kennedy. We are entitled to the full story of everything he did if we are expected to exalt his life.(This message has been edited by eisely)

As others commented earlier, having a blue card for any BOR is not necessary. Keeping the blue cards along with the MB cards in a secure place is always a good idea. When it comes time to process an eagle application it is quite common that the council and unit records are inconsistent or incomplete or both. I always counsel new parents to set up their own files in the base ball card collector things in a binder as a backup file.(This message has been edited by eisely)

The role and responsibilities of troop committees, as distinct from pack committes, have been discussed at length in various threads on this forum over the years. While it is certainly correct that most committee decisions can be made by consensus there is nothing prohibiting formal voting. Taking formal votes does have its advantages. It imposes a little discipline on the process. It also gets people used to the idea that votes are ordinary things. When the really messy situations arise, usually involving disciplinary matters, utlizing formal votes results in clarity as to what is being decided and how it is to be decided. If one is going to think of relying on voting on decisions, then one needs to think about who is actually a voting committee member and who is merely a parent. One also needs to think about what consitutes a quorum. These may seem onerous but they are really quite simple matters. There are some who may object vociferously to the idea that any vote is ever necessary, but one important advantage of conducting regular votes is that decisions are transparent and it becomes more difficult for cliques or dominant personalities to control decisions. In any event, the SM is not a member of the voting committee. However, this is not to say that the SM does not have a great deal of influence. If the SM takes an organized open approach to dealing with the committee, it will be rare that the committee will simply overrule the SM.

As far as I know you cannot carry camp stoves, and certainly not fuel, in any baggage going on an airplane. UPS ground is not too expensive, and you could probably ship some heavier crew gear that way. Plan on buying fuel locally at your destination. You may prefer to buy some of your food locally upon arrival. While you will not be able to dehydrate anything, there are some more or less standard items you can get in local grocery stores.

I don't do circles. Ellipses and other geometric forms perhaps, but not circles.

Presuming to speak for Gunny: Because you are both in Missouri!