Beavah

Yah, ScoutBox, an older boy is allowed to sit on a BOR if you let him, eh? Some troops still do some version of the old program where youth led. Technically, the current program materials say that a BOR should consist of three members of the troop committee (registered adult MCs). Overall, da trend is to use three adults, but I'd guess less than half of the troops out there are strict about using MC's. The materials are specific about not using relatives, SMs, or ASMs. Still, even if you're stayin' strict to the books, there's nothing that says that you can't have an older scout or youth leader sit on a BOR as a 4th person/guest. That can be a nice way to go. Beavah

Yah, congrats to the new Eagle, fellow Beaver! Enjoy your proud parent feeling (it's the reward for living with a teenager ). Give the lad a pat on the back from all of us. B

According to the child's mother, a woman passenger got out of the SUV, approached the boy and ordered him to get in the vehicle. Yah, I wonder what da odds are that it was another overprotective mom who was "concerned" about a boy who was left alone out in the cold by some heartless, abusive parent, and thought she was doing the right thing? B

Yah, da real issue to my mind is whether scouters should have a "capstone" course at all, eh? It makes sense for the youth programs - something to strive for before yeh graduate. But for adults, it sure seems to send da wrong message. Learnin' is an ongoing thing for adults, or should be. It shouldn't be (which it so often is) "I've got my beads, I'm the best, and I'm done!" To my mind, WB barely gets yeh past "beginner". SM Basic is essentially a "paint by numbers" set of courses. Doesn't really teach yeh a thing. WB is closer to a first course in painting - learnin' how to hold da brush with a few bits of basic technique, and then a chance to go try to paint somethin' (your ticket). So it's just a beginnin', eh? Wearin' WB beads should signify that you're a novice scouter who is workin' on it. 'Tis the start of the real journey, not the end. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... lots of partial understandings here. On my part too! E-87, the question of the constitutionality of SS and Medicare and the like was decided some 70 years ago. Now I know how much da neo-cons despise good conservative principles like stare decisis, but let's try not to go there. I think it's worth rememberin' that the "freeloaders" are people like we've seen on prior threads, eh? The Boy Scout who was injured at camp and needed several surgeries, whose parents didn't have health insurance because dad was out of work and they were tryin' to hold on to the house. "Drive them into bankruptcy!!" is of course what's goin' on, but is that what we really want? A Boy Scout and his siblings losing all hope of college and becoming homeless because of a camp injury? Da "freeloaders" as oft as not are real, honest, ordinary, hardworkin' people. Friends and neighbors hit with bad luck. In da short run, a well-managed program could lower costs through competition and the inclusion of what percentage-wise are a relatively healthy younger demographic. In the longer run, it's unsustainable without reductions in care for the older folks. The U.S. demographics with our one-child "planned" families just won't support a medical Ponzi scheme any more than they will support SS and Medicare. And Congress did its usual thing coverin' up the long term costs by including provisions that provide short term income - like providing long term care (nursing) coverage in da package. For 10 years or so, that's goin' to be income-producing. But after that when the demographic wave hits it'll be a boondoggle. Without a population growth demographic curve, yeh can't sustain medical coverage for the non-working elderly who are living progressively longer. Period. Doesn't matter whether da provider is private or public. With a down-trending and aging population, yeh can't even reasonably sustain health care for the working elderly. Only way out is to cut care for the elderly and encourage emigration of young, employable folks. Which are da two solutions that are politically untenable for politicians. So we go da way of Greece, eh? We borrow more and commit an ever higher percentage of GDP to the problem until no one will loan us any more money. Then we go bankrupt and leave our grandchildren and their children with... Greece. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ever get a job from a poor man? You want jobs or petty class warfare victories? Pick one. Yah, I agree with most of your post, JoeBob. But this one unfortunately has broken down. There is no incentive for a wealthy individual to build a business or employ more people so long as they can get a higher return by playing the high-stakes financial derivatives and stock pump-and-dump market. Why would anyone spend the time and effort to build a business and employ people to earn 8% down the road when yeh can play the unregulated markets and rob pension funds, naive retail investors, and taxpayers to the tune of 20% per annum right now? Especially when as an exec your compensation in stock options incentivizes short-term gains? All you can do to make short term gains is try to takeover and destroy a healthy business. Buildin' industry and jobs only gets yeh long-term gains. That's da problem, eh? Our deregulation of the financial markets and da executive compensation structure has led directly to the death of our industry and the failure of conservative financial principles like those you comment on. Conservative financial principles rely on conservative social principles, eh? Yeh need real corporate business ethics, and as Buffet is tryin' to demonstrate, a deep Christian sense of charity for them to work. That's da piece that the neo-conservatives in Congress have forgotten, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yeh should get a refund from your math teacher, eh? Marijuana use has been increasing for the past three years among teens, so that now it has surpassed cigarette use on a "used this month" basis. It had been trendin' slowly down durin' the previous decade. That correlates with da enactment and implementation of medical marijuana statutes in several states, and the prominence of "MJ is OK" media talk on the matter. Of course it also correlates with da economic downturn and fewer jobs for teens, too. Beavah

Ya, the increase directly correlates with the growth of medical marijuana clinics, eh? There's a reason why in the states with medical marijuana clinics, they all seem to open up around colleges and other schools, eh? Yeh don't see many of 'em near nursing and hospice facilities. B

Yah, but da problem is it's not just adults, eh? The attitudes of adult society, for good or for ill, tend to get multiplied in the young. The news reports today that more high schoolers are smoking pot than are smoking cigarettes, and that marijuana use among young people from 8th grade on is on a marked upswing. Those mostly likely to abuse are also those where the abuse is most likely to have more harmful long-term effects - young folks. B

Yah, Gern, that's how the current law is structured, eh? Yeh can buy private insurance or yeh can pay the tax. They should have written it as a tax credit for insurance instead of a tax penalty for not having insurance, but there's no difference. That's why I think da constitutional arguments are bogus, once yeh get beyond judges who don't have the decency to avoid conflicts of interest. LOL, nice quote though, BrentAllen. Yep, I'd call that a broken promise. Beavah

Oh, wait - no, they couldn't get it passed in the Senate, so they had to take it to reconcilliation where they just needed 51 votes to pass. Yah, 51 votes is passing in the Senate, eh? Actually, 50 votes plus a VP. Da notion that every single piece of legislation should require a supermajority in the Senate because of the abuse of the filibuster is absurd. The notion of unlimited debate is a fine thing, but it should be debate, eh? They should be standin' on the floor talkin' 'til they drop. It should not be a pain-free way to anonymously block the majority from legislating. Just another case of gamesmanship rather than statesmanship. Folks who were never taught as children to share, because when yeh act responsibly toward others they act responsibly toward you. Beavah

Yah, I'm with skeptic, eh? Da problem isn't with the executive so much as it is with the legislature. As I nose into da ruling a bit, this seems like a very limited ruling that leaves most of the Health Care/Insurance reform intact. Just eliminates da one provision for individual mandate, for which there are any number of work-arounds. God only knows what they're thinking, since da individual mandate was first introduced by the likes of Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, and Orin Hatch as the only viable conservative alternative to da Clinton plan. If they completely disable da individual mandate, a single-payer government program like Medicare becomes almost inevitable in the medium to long term. Yah, I can opt not to use Medicare, but as a working fellow I can't opt out of paying for it, eh? I also note that since the judge is a part-owner of a political consulting firm that took money to lobby against the bill, he had an obligation to recuse himself. My disgust at da federal judiciary engaging in paid political lobbying knows no bounds. Have they no sense of decency? Beavah

Yah, Nike, da European perspective is different, eh? By and large, kids still seem to be treated like kids, not like fragile pieces of glass. It can be quite eye-opening for American scouters to visit scoutin' programs in other nations. No forms, no procedures, no G2SS, no worries. Not at all unusual for older scouts to have keys to the scout hut, be permitted to take sail and motor-boats out on the ocean without adult permission or supervision. I imagine some of that attitude spills over on base, eh? Plus mil-spec kids aren't as likely to be treated like dolls, I expect. At WSJ, some of our gold-tabbers almost die in fits of apoplexy worryin' about such stuff as SSD, when the rest of the world is more "You're First Class, right? Have fun, don't drown!" America really is da Land of the Policy-Regulated and the Home of the Fearful. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, peri, no exaggeration. Da outfitter even shared the emails with me. Sadly, fit da negative stereotype of female leadership. It's Mrs. Eagle92 I have a hard time believin'. Lucky someone didn't call the cops on her. B

Yah, I agree with yeh, vol_scouter, about da use of the military. It should be the absolute last choice, and then it should be a full commitment. GWB blew it on both counts. Problem is, Afghanistan is now a nation-building enterprise more than anything, and makin' a full commitment to that is just impossible. But the president backed 95% of what da military wanted for its "full option" in Iraq, and that comes with casualties. GWB made similar small adjustments to the Iraq surge as well, and that came with casualties. So how is one fellow doin' a "surge" conservative while the other fellow doin' a "surge" is liberal? Even though yeh might fault either president on the issue, I just don't see that as being a "liberal" policy, eh? Maybe the nation-building, I guess. Yah, perhaps environmental policy has become a liberal thing, eh? Though I'm from that old branch of conservative thought that believes that bein' environmentally responsible is part of being conservative. Cap & Trade is a mess not because of tryin' to reduce carbon emissions or foreign oil dependence, it's a mess because it would be another complicated beast of financial regulation that would destabilize markets. GWB spent $700M on TARP, plus more on auto bailouts. BHO spent $700M on stimulus plus more on auto bailouts. How is one conservative and da other liberal? Both let the Fed run amok. And now Obama and the Republican leadership in Congress are goin' to add another $1 Trillion in debt through these tax cut-and-spend additions. He's not with the Dems on this, eh? Now these days I don't know if tax-cut-and-spend is liberal or conservative, I suppose. It's more in the "just stupid" category. So I still don't get it. The fellow is so moderate he's wishy-washy. As an aside, I have to admit I don't care for the ad that popped up here on Scouter.Com with the president wearing a hammer & sickle. Doesn't belong on a Scouting forum, IMHO. B

Yah, seemed like this should get spun off, eh? The news media seems to have gone hog-wild when one partisan federal judge struck down a portion of the health care law (though they seem to have ignored the other federal courts that have either upheld the law or where the suit was dismissed outright). At least this should guarantee a swift ruling by da 4th circuit, seeing as how two different Virginia district courts have ruled in contrary ways despite bein' only 100 miles apart. Honestly, da notion of using the courts for this sort of political policy dispute I find to be truly inappropriate. Just a quest for an activist judge so that yeh can get your way. Not a conservative notion at all. Also really poor strategy if you're to the right on this thing, as it pushes things toward a government run single-payer program rather than da private exchange bein' contemplated currently. Maybe someone can explain, though, why it's perfectly constitutional for me to have to buy into Medicare, but it's unconstitutional to give me a choice as to which private health care arrangement I buy into? Isn't da health care law the medical equivalent of school choice that we conservatives champion? Now don't get me wrong, eh? I'm not a fan of the current health care reform act, which is a bloated, over-complex mess of legislation. But usin' weak constitutional arguments to try to reverse legislation in the courts is not a tactic that makes much sense. Da last thing we need is a more active judiciary substitutin' its views for our elected representatives in a policy debate. At least we can fire da representatives. Beavah

When I talked to the SM about this, he said no, becasue it is against BSA policy. LOL. Yah, good for you being a skeptic, Platypus96. You'll find that adults use the "against policy" argument almost exclusively when what we are sayin' is manifestly stupid. If somethin' really is a bad idea or has downsides that should be considered, it's easy to talk about those without resortin' to "policy." In answer to your specific question, no, there is no BSA policy that prohibits what you are talkin' about. Mixed age patrols are a common enough practice, and they were the most common practice for 90 years of Boy Scouting until the introduction of NSPs in 1990. Since then, da BSA has backed away from the NSP/same age patrol notion a bit. Kids switchin' patrols is also a fairly common thing in many troops. Not regularly, mind, but occasionally here or there. What would be very uncommon is leaving a patrol of only 2 scouts on its own. That's too small by most recommendations, which put the "ideal" patrol size at at least 8 scouts, and certainly no less than 4. National Honor Patrol Award requires 8 patrol members (or an increase). Now, all that havin' been said, Eagledad is right, eh? If you're goin' to succeed when dealing with a senior partner like a SM, your first, best choice is always to work with him, eh? Not challenge him. The point isn't to be right, eh? The point is to succeed. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Well, it turns out he's NOT moderate. He's been extremely liberal Yah, I don't get this, eh? Most of da liberals are disgusted by Obama, and think he's a sell-out to the right. Even some moderate libs I know feel "betrayed". He followed da military advice into a more gradual drawdown in Iraq. He followed the conservative line and the military advice into a major military buildup in Afghanistan. He caved on single-payer health care and instead adopted a health care plan that came out of da Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney's playbook. He caved on business and bank regulation and essentially left da industry with only token regulation. He never followed through on his "engage with Iran" rhetoric and instead has been pursuing a hard-line policy very similar to GWB's. He's siding with the pro-deficit Republicans on the tax cut package despite strong democratic opposition. In fact, it's hard to find a Bush policy that he hasn't upheld. So I just don't get it, eh? Why do people think the fellow is a liberal? Is it that some have gone so far to the right that we think da center has actually moved? Beavah

Yah, Eagle92, your comments reminded me of one, eh? I remember talkin' to a canoe outfitter a few years back. Tellin' me about a scout troop where the leader(s) were outraged that they 1) Didn't provide flush toilets on the river at da lunch stop. 2) Didn't refrigerate the (outfitter provided) lunch beyond the waterproof cooler it was kept in. 3) Didn't offer vehicle transportation for da walk of 1/8 mile from the takeout to the shop where the cars were (they were allowed to drop their boats and gear at the takeout, they just had to walk themselves). 4) Told the adult leaders that it was a "short walk" to the adjacent state park group campsite (about 1/4 mile), when clearly it was far too much to be expected to do without minivans. Safety First! The lads might stub their toes on those big, nasty tree roots along the trail. Is the no walking or biking to school thing really real out there? (I suppose that question is da equivalent of "Is Beavah an old fuddy-duddy?" ) Beavah

My husbands job takes him to neighborhoods where they have built indoor playgrounds so their kids never have to leave the house for fear of infected mosquitoes, ticks, birds, bees "you name it". Yah, dat's one to file in the "You have got to be kidding!" department. I figure it's high time for us all to vent a bit and share our similar stories, within scouts and without, of overprotective kid-rearing. Stuff where kids are no longer allowed to do what we considered routine as children ourselves. I have a purpose for this, and that's in part for da most "special" examples to use in various talks with officials and scouters and parents. But I also reckon it will be enlightening. So, let's hear em! Beavah

Yah, so as I poll various troops around my neck of da woods, it seems an awful lot of 'em don't run any outdoors activities from early November until a fair ways after new years. Now granted, we are up here where it really does get cold in da winter, and yeh can get some December blizzards . It also can be hard to let a troop full of lads loose at the wrong times in November, eh? Really isn't courteous to the fellows hopin' to find a deer within 5 or 6 miles Still, this seems like a recent trend. I remember active troops used to get out in both November and December for at least one weekend. Now it seems more rare. "Too many things goin' on for the holidays" and such. So I'm just curious: do your troops and crews (and packs) get out camping during "The Season", or do yeh choose not to go out because of the busy holiday season? What's the trend in your area? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

This may be very unpopular, but as a rule, there should be no eponymous threads. Yah, so I must be new to da forums, eh? When we run into da folks who are always tryin' to pass off some new bit of urban legend "rule" about scouting, our typical response is "Oh, really? Can yeh show me where that is written down?" So, can yeh?

Thanks, packsaddle! What fun. I just completed my first submission to the site. I requested rather than NSF, an equivalent list of direct and indirect congressional expenditures. Now there's where I reckon we can all find some things to cut! B

Yah, I'd ask da council office for the contact info for the "drops" from da other troop, eh? Worth at least sendin' 'em an invite. Every troop grows to its natural size, based on its adult leadership. If yeh add more kids, they just spill out. That's the time to get another troop growin' in the area. Good luck with it. Beavah

Yah, figured I'd move this to a new thread for a thorough smokin', in da hopes others might still comment on my news sources thread . Scoutfish, the smoking itself doesn't harm the other people. Yes, smoking marijuana and driving can harm other people, but that isn't the smoking per se ("itself") that does it. Have yeh seen da studies on second-hand cigarette smoke, Merlyn? Have yeh seen da studies comparin' the toxins in marijuana smoke with tobacco smoke? Have yeh ever been to a rock concert? I reckon just like cigarette smoke, the second-hand effects of smoking itself harms other people. Beavah