packsaddle

At this council camp, that person would proceed to the health lodge and have the clinician pull his file and retrieve his medication from the secure area, just like any other medication.

While I agree with Calico's description, I also note that all water is not the same. If you check the web for the technical aspects of municipal water treatment you will see that in some areas of the country, water tends to 'corrode' or 'erode' pipes differently from other areas. This is because of the dissolved materials in the water, or lack thereof. In my area water actually tends to slowly dissolve copper or brass pipes whereas in nearby areas with greater concentrations of dissolved materials, those same pipes may experience the buildup of precipitates. A galvanized container may release zinc into hot water in a manner that is dependent on the characteristics of the water. However, while I would not use one of these for cooking soups or stews, I would not worry too much about cleaning water. I merely wonder why bother with a galvanized container in the first place? Why not aluminum or stainless steel for cleaning. You'll never have to worry about rust for either of those and you can use the stainless for cooking to boot!

ntrog8r, In the place I was at that time, my liason warned me about the practice and had evidence that children had been intentionally maimed by a parent and sold or rented across the border for use by professional beggars in order to gain greater sympathy from their customers. Every cent given to this system supported the intentional harm to innocent children. My companion saw things in the simplistic terms that our society has allowed him to enjoy. Real life in that place is not for the naive.

Regarding beggars, there is an element of deception that is difficult to clearly identify. I was in a country which I will not identify. A friend was visiting. We encountered a poor woman who was begging for money to help her terribly maimed and crippled child. I had to stop my friend from giving her money. He just didn't understand. Edit: answer to original question - you are obligated to pay your taxes and otherwise obey the law. You are free to politically oppose (or support) any program you feel is wrong (or right).(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Thanks Calico for some great things I'll probably forget in a few weeks. Sorry, it's just one of those things, at least that's how I try to explain it to my wife. The value of scouting today, as you note, does not depend on its roots in imperialism or lack thereof. It's like saying that because my family helped fight a war in order to end slavery, that somehow endows me with some extra (and undeserved) quality, one way or the other. My personal place in life does not depend on those events (but it's nice to know what happened). Ho hum.

At a REAL campfire, there might be a very small possibility of someone throwing actual horse turds at the other guy. THAT would at least be interesting. But no less informative than what I'm reading.

TT, there's not much hope for anyone who goes to graduate school, period. The Ph.D. just makes it official.

Eagle92, "What school does this guy teach at? When I was in grad school, I was taught that you need to have ALL of your acts straight before writing or speaking them." OK, didn't you notice the link to the transcript in the OP? I'll give you a hint: "yale.edu". It's a 'Ph.D. mill' in New Haven, CT.

jtswestark writes, "But also note that back in the day, we got away with many more things than kids can today." Probably true. Which is why I beat my students (and the scouts in this unit) over the head with my advice, "If you think you can get away with something, you probably shouldn't try it." It is sad for me to know for a fact, watching the arrest reports, that some of my former students don't take advantage of this advice even after hearing it drummed into their heads for an entire semester, sometimes longer. They're almost always male. Testosterone poisoning? Defective 'Y' chromosome? 'Arrested' development? I wish I understood why some people have to learn from harsh experience and yet others never seem to learn at all. Sigh.

Egad! And I had hoped for a whole month without one of these dreaded threads...

Sadly, Rainey Mountain is not unique in that aspect, Kudu. Horizon, I like the distinction you make between correlation and causality. Your alternative hypothesis makes much more sense. I wonder if they'll give it a try with the program?

Trainerlady, you make some great points. Shortridge, "Thanks....for the memories..." that link is very useful. I knew it was out there somewhere, just didn't have time to rustle it up.

C'mon folks, which is it? TAHAWK claims in the other thread, "the goal of a good many Councils is to turn a profit on Summer Camp. I don't know of any that have a goal of subsidizing Summer Camp, except in the case of camperships." Here he makes the claim that camps are supposed to turn a profit.... .....while Shortridge writes, "Camp costs in BSA are HEAVILY subsidized by fundraising and volunteers. To take an average camp out of the council system and set it up to run independently, charging exactly what it costs to run the camp, would lead to closure within a few years." I tend to agree with Shortridge but I would like to see someone try to reconcile these two views. Anyone wanna give it a try? I don't see how these two views can both correct simultaneously.

Acco40, I'm comparing to YMCA and similar camps where 4 days starts at around $400 and 12 days goes to more than $1000 or greater. These camps seem to be thriving and it isn't because they're cheap. They are competing successfully because they offer a product that is worth the price. AND THEY DON'T DO WITH VOLUNTEERS! or inexperienced, or disinterested staff. The problem with offering a cheap product at a cheap price is summarized in the old bromide that still applies: 'the bitter taste of an inferior product will linger long after the sweet taste of a cheap price has passed.' That makes scout camp a weak competitor. There are obviously people out there who are willing to pay for a good product. Why not attract them?

Abel Magwitch, I know of no such things and could not begin to guess about such things. It is an interesting idea though. One thing I can think of which would not tend to support such a Machiavellian scheme is the fact that councils seem to be unable to even keep simple advancement records correctly. How could such incompetence put together a scheme THAT clever? I could be wrong, I suppose. It might not be that difficult to pull the wool over the eyes of a bunch of naive volunteers. Maybe the advancement record thing is a clever smoke screen. Wow, talk about conspiracy theories!!!

Yeah, I agree with Basementdweller. I butted my head against the indifference of the system for a while as well. I was trying to bring a cub scout pack back to life and learned over the course of about 3 years not to count on any help whatsoever. The only hand extended was for FOS or for our popcorn proceeds. So I took the approach that Basement described. Focus your attention on the things that matter most: the boys.

"...you may need to reassess where you are on the political spectrum." That presumes there IS some kind of a political spectrum. The guy you described puts the lie to that misconception. Anyway, I thought we were supposed to get away from politics.... If you think it is reasonable for a business to expect to profit from a poor quality product and dissatisfied customers, you must be on Chrysler's management team. The business which has 93% of its budget in salaries (from your statistics, I assume the camps, other programs, infrastructure fall into the 7%) is one that I suggest belongs in the grave. The customer does have alternatives. They will walk if they find a better alternative. That might be happening already. It IS going to happen anyway, I'm just promoting a way for it to happen efficiently. Edit: Abel, "The boys deserve a quality program. That is not entitlement..." And I agree. It is a reasonable expectation by customers who are not satisfied.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"the goal of a good many Councils is to turn a profit on Summer Camp. I don't know of any that have a goal of subsidizing Summer Camp, except in the case of camperships." So, if there is no subsidy (other than camperships) and the council's goal is to turn a profit from the camp, as YOU say, please explain how this results in either a fair or a competitive price? Unless the councils suck away at the quality by investing less than needed for the quality we expect or pay for? If you think that promotion of the free market is a liberal approach, or if you want to remain confused, I'm with you all the way as long as you support that free market approach. You can call it anything you want. Edit: "I thought paying little but expecting more is Dollar Stores." Yeah, that works. These days I'm thinking about the whining retirees expecting more from socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid, or SS. Oops, is that getting political again? I think that if we free the camps from their masters in the council and allow the customers a greater choice and a better product, these problems may not all be solved, but they will have a more rational mechanism for solution - the market.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Heh, heh, it's not politics...it's simple economics. When customers pay more, they expect more and they get it or else move on to a competitor. And that is the free market. When customers pay little and expect more anyway, that's...entitlement...aka Scout Camps. So if, as you assert, the price is a fair and competitive price for camp, and the poor quality of the product is the result of councils skimming profits to pay for salaries, then the solution is to rid the camps of those 'percentage parasites' so they can operate freely within the marketplace. I can't help that this is a conservative solution nor can I help that it seems to rub you the wrong way. It is the best solution and for some reason, most of us want to avoid it. I don't understand why.

I've always liked the food at camp. But then, I am not a very discerning person when it comes to food. Eamonn wrote, "While I'm unsure if Councils would be able to find the quality staff with the needed qualifications? I feel sure that paying these guys would force the camp fees to go up. This for me begs the question, if we can't afford to do it well, should we be doing it at all?" This overlaps with the thread on too many camps as well. A while back TAHAWK noted, "The goal of a good many Councils is to turn a profit on Summer Camp. I don't know of any that have a goal of subsidizing Summer Camp, except in the case of camperships. The last annual budget I saw for our Council (2008) allocated 93% of all funds to salaries. That left 7% for all other items, including maintenance and operation of the Council's camps and offices." If that is true, then it sounds like the councils ARE the problem...sucking the life's blood out of the camps. I continue to advocate cutting the camps loose and letting them operate on their own as real businesses, competing in a free and open marketplace. I know this kind of talk rubs all you liberals the wrong way but I will stand by this idea as a way to address many of the problems we have with the summer camps.

If the camps were forced to compete in the marketplace, we would have exactly the number of camps we need or want. They don't. So we're left with dissatisfaction, complaints, and whining about quality. Are there too many camps? Probably are.

OGE, me too. I think we all might be in better shape these days, as a matter of fact, if the 'clonk' of the steel hanky was heard fairly often in DC as well. But...as long as we have our elected officials, who really needs National Lampoon, really? I guess, somehow, it just doesn't seem as humorous.

I'm going to fling the steel hanky of politenessman here. I confess that I have had some really hot exchanges with other forum members in the past (Rooster7, you out there, somewhere?) but I have NEVER 'ignored' someone. I suspect (but don't particularly care) that I've been ignored too (I think my wife would readily admit it) but I have never liked the idea that this forum has that feature. OK, it's not my forum so I accept it. But if someone is going to ignore another person, the way to do it is to quietly select that option. More than once I've read that so-and-so is 'ignoring' someone else and I'm thinking, "if you really want to ignore them why are you making a big deal out of it?" So I ask, please, if anyone wants to ignore another forum member, just do it without the fanfare. It boggles my mind that anyone would want to hurt an anonymous person they've never met just because of something they said. I guess it's one more of those social things that I just don't 'get'.

You are experiencing a variation of the "winner's curse" in which the winner in an auction has likely paid a little MORE than the item is worth, or at least the winner begins to worry about that being the case after he wins it. So, my advice: It's your illusion, make it a happy one. You'll never know for sure so you might as well go with the best of the options and stay with it until evidence to the contrary presents itself. ...or you can go insane trying to sort it out...might be too late to avoid that already....

OK, I'm not worried cause there's almost no chance I'll ever have ammo or use my bags just after going to the range. But I do chemical procedures that involve boiling concentrated nitric, sulfuric, and other acids, plus the use of concentrated peroxides and perchlorates, persulfates...you get the picture. And I DO sometimes have my bags in the lab if I have to leave for a trip later in the day. So...what do those tests detect? Are they specific for certain compounds or are they looking for any kind of combined nitrogen or other elements? Am I going to get to sit with 'group W' someday? Should I add another couple of days or so to my travel schedule?