Beavah

Yah, the former thread sorta degenerated, but it raised another issue: Where do yeh go for balanced news? I find it is really hard to stay informed these days. Most of the media outlets tend to just repeat what each other say, and none of 'em seem to do much research. When I counsel Citizenship badges, I confess I make the boys look at the same story from multiple different outlets: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CBC or BBC, The Economist, Christian Science Monitor, etc. And then spend some time when readin' blogs or op-ed opinion pieces looking up the background and experience of the author with the question "would you hire this person to consult on this topic?" But in my day-to-day, I have a hard time findin' anything that provides good reporting consistently. Was wonderin' what other people did for daily news, or what if anyone has found any "gems" out there? I like The Economist for world news, and some of their special section stuff makes for decent analysis, but of course it's not a daily. What do the rest of you like? Beavah

Yah, perhaps jblake. Da thing is, most troops don't feel comfortable telling some boys they aren't welcome on da troop outing, let alone excluding a whole patrol. So the NSPs do come out. Consider this... if yeh have a NSP and your troop goes on a day canoe outing, yeh have a problem. 1 boy knows how to paddle and be safe (the TG), maybe half have passed swim checks. So the only way you can support the NSP is to introduce a bunch of adults to support the new scouts and/or run a very limited shallow-water "class" for the NSP while others head off to the big boys activity. If yeh have mixed age patrols and a day canoe outing, then the two older scouts with canoeing MB and BSA Lifeguard can take the two new fellows in their boats, the other boys can split up into other boats where a slightly stronger paddler can balance a slightly weaker one, and yeh have a functional and safe group without needin' to introduce a bunch of adults. In fact yeh have better than 1:1 experienced:inexperienced ratio, compared with 1:8. So a troop doin' mixed-age patrols doesn't have to limit its troop activities to car camping or what the NSP can handle (or leave da NSP behind to be "baby sat"). So those troops and their PLCs tend to plan more adventurous and varied outings. As Eagledad says, there's an additional advantage. In da first scenario the young boys in the NSP class get to learn "about" canoeing basics; in the mixed-age patrols the young lads get to really participate and "see" what good canoeing (and canoe safety, and...) look like and to practice it. They learn much faster and better. Yah, to bring it back 'round to the topic of da thread, yeh might make the same sorta claim about an inexperienced new boy PL, eh? It's "irresponsible", especially the rotate-around thing. Why would yeh put an inexperienced new fellah in a situation where he's clearly unprepared and over his head? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I didn't realize this was a NSP on the trek. Must have missed that in the text. I agree with Basementdweller, eh? There were some poor choices here. Mostly because of SM inexperience. I've seen a lot of adults make this sort of mistake, eh? They've been on a trail or river or campout to an area in different conditions, and assume it will be da same. They don't account for changin' weather or higher water levels or whatnot. Or they've done a route themselves or with older scouts, and don't quite appreciate how challengin' it might be for the younger fellows. I expect da former is especially true in California, where the weather and conditions at lower elevations can be very different from those as yeh get higher. So startin' in tennies might seem reasonable. Eagle92 makes a good point, and as I wrote in da other thread on NSPs, there's a real difference in havin' a mixed age patrol with some strong kids, some intermediate fellows who know the rules, and a few inexperienced or weaker guys. There the group has enough horsepower to help its younger fellows. One or two experienced folks for a gaggle of neophytes is a recipe for problems once yeh get away from the cars or trailer. Still, my heart goes out to family, troop, and scoutmaster. Accidents are just that, eh? All of us can remember stories from our own past where kids ran ahead out of sight or there was somethin' we didn't figure on that was harder than expected or there was a "near miss". In many ways, God watches out for fools and boy scouts. So even when we recognize errors in judgment, it's worth doin' so with compassion. Getting wet feet or post-holing through some snow on a reasonably warm day isn't really that bad a thing, nor is lettin' kids get ahead while yeh stay with the slower lads all that unusual, nor is taking inexperienced kids on a hike that pushes 'em a bad thing necessarily, nor is taking scouts on a steeper grade trail with some exposure. It's da combination of all of 'em which can surprise you. Often, until you've been caught by "things adding up" a couple of times yeh don't recognize the potential for that in advance. Beavah

How does having a patrol of inexpereinced, or low expereinced scouts working together imrpove safety? When I did my HA trip in Canada, the troop was divided into 4 mixed age patrols. Yah, this is da main reason why I think NSPs tend to be used only by troops that predominantly do trailer-based car campin'. If you're doin' harder stuff, yeh can't put 8-10 inexperienced, immature boys together. Even with a good TG or ASM, all it takes is for one or two of 'em to have "issues" that require the ASM's undivided attention and suddenly all the rest are loose and unsupervised/unsupported. Like in the LA Times case, eh? The SM stays at the back with the slowest fellow, and the others get ahead and get into trouble. Only way to avoid da problem is to run "classes" where all the boys in da patrol sit around while one or two boys try the activity, supervised one-on-one. That's what often happens for cooking, eh? For troops that don't do as much car/trailer/cabin camping, the mixed-age patrols help ensure that there's enough peer-experience and peer-supervision, and fewer "weak" lads together, so as to be safe. Beavah

Yah, this seems like da PL's responsibility, eh? Where yeh feel the PL needs help, the troop scheduling a "shakedown" or "gear check" the meeting before the outing can be a good way to go. Then the PL gets to take his fellows outside in the cold with their gear and have a fun meeting of it, and make suggestions and improvements. If your troop keeps a spare clothes closet of some kind, the PL can also go to the QM and get extra gear issued to a patrol member who needs some support. Arriving at the winter campout in the dark is not the right time to be doin' a gear check. Now, da situation out west was a bit different, eh? There yeh can often find the valley is dry while the higher elevations have snow on 'em. So then it's just a question of "no hiking boots? No gaiters? No go on this hike." Again, the PL's responsibility if you've given the PL enough real experience to have developed that kind of judgment. Beavah

It'd be nice if net federal taxes were limited to a designated fraction of GDP. I sorta liked that thinking out of Obama's deficit commission. I've long worried about the risks of letting government as a whole control too large a fraction of GDP. There's a critical point in there where yeh start approaching a big enough block of people dependent on government funding in one way or another that yeh get easy majorities to "vote yourself largesse". Teachers' union control of many local school board elections is an example, eh? Da turnouts are often small enough and the information on candidates limited enough that the union members and their families can control the outcome of elections and who will be writing their next contract. B

In the parent thread, packsaddle writes: Obama looked like he had statesman qualities but his actions...what can I say? Let's face it, he was elected partly because he was NOT Bush and to many seemed to be the farthest from Bush. But his embrace and continuation of so many Bush policies has put him into some other category. He came in with strong criticism of - and pledge to end - the Bush tax cuts. Now, with the compromise, he's likely to elect to keep all of them through his entire first (and possibly only) term. We're not 'out' of Iraq and there are more troops in Afghanistan than there were under the Bush administration. Gitmo still is, and likely will remain, open. There's not much, if anything, different under the Patriot Act. The response to the economic crisis can hardly be called 'bold' or 'decisive'. In foreign policy he wouldn't even qualify as a dilettante. Even something as peripheral as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is likely to whimper into the next administration as is. I certainly know a few liberal folks who are disgusted with him. "Pre-emptive caving in" is what they call his approach to negotiation. I confess I'm disappointed in his lack of follow through on da Patriot Act and Gitmo abuses. And his lack of real leadership got us a Financial Reform Bill and Health Care Bill that were written by committees of lobbyists... and read incomprehensibly just like somethin' created in da worst committee you've ever experienced. I can't even read sections without shakin' my head. So what do the rest of yeh think? Especially those of yeh who supported him in 2008? B

Yah, I understand da attraction of letters to the legal-minded scouter crowd. And sometimes it is best to do 'em. Most of the time, though, I think the sending-the-boy-a-formal-BOR-letter is overkill, eh? We're not an HR department trying to document cause for termination. We're just a bunch of friendly adults trying to challenge a young man to improve. To my mind, that's best done with a conversation in person, and without the sense of formal reprimand that comes with a documentary letter. Just me. Different units use SM conferences different ways, and that's an OK thing. Especially when yeh have weak or untrained BOR members as happens from time to time in troops, a SM being consistent can be a good thing for boys rather than a bad thing. Let's not confuse different techniques as being right or wrong. It's a choice of what's best for the circumstances and what you're trying to accomplish. Beavah

Nah, still not terrorism, JoeBob. Has da Wikileaks staff blown up a few hundred people in a half dozen different subways? That would be terrorism. Let's not confuse irresponsible journalism with murder. Have yeh actually read the released memos? I haven't yet. In fact, yeh must not have because it's foreign critical infrastructure that was listed in da State Dept. memos, eh? I haven't seen anything on domestic infrastructure. From what da popular press has reported so far, there's nuthin' there of substance. I thought it was goin' to be secret U.S. safehouses and staging areas overseas. Instead it's just a list of foreign strategic assets that anyone with half a brain could find online. I don't think we need Wikileaks to tell us that the Strait of Gibraltar is a vital shipping lane, eh? Close as I can tell the MSM is just hypin' this stuff because it's otherwise a slow news season. It is more entertaining than watching Obama's pre-emptive caving in to congress. Unfortunately, the media hype is gettin' the stuff into the heads of bad actors in ways that Wikileaks on its own never would have. Maybe CNN is the real terrorist! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, it's been a while since we talked about this one. In da parent thread, acco writes for the New Scout Patrol: Each Scout should get a chance to be patrol leader for 30 days (not elected but rotated). While that's actually not part of the BSA materials anywhere, that does seem to be a notion that comes up on the forums a fair bit. By contrast, Eagledad suggests not bothering with a new scout as a patrol leader, but instead using an over-15 TG in that role. Then of course there's the BSA materials that suggest the PL should be elected and serve just like any other patrol leader. And probably a few more permutations to boot! So if yeh use New Scout Patrol(s) in your troop, how do you set up the boy leadership for 'em? And what do yeh find to be the advantages and disadvantages of your approach? Beavah

Yah, to go back to mikecummings157's question... Most troops I know will bring the boy back into the room and tell him straight up what things remain to be done / improved upon, with some suggestions to the boy on how to proceed with them. Most will also offer encouragement and support, and tell the boy when they want to see him again at a BOR to finish the rank. This seems to work well, in a couple of ways. First, the BOR members should be responsible for their decision and conveying it clearly to the boy. If they can't do that, then there's probably somethin' wrong with the Board. Second, it sets the SM up to be the friendly mentor who helps the boy to succeed in meeting the expectations of the board. Sometimes a lad (or his parents) won't accept a SM's "advice" at a conference and proceed to a BOR. In deferring the boy, they support the SM and set the SM up to be the "good guy I should listen to" in order to be successful. That's an OK role for the board to play. As peridochas says, it's also common for the SM to play da gatekeeper role. That has an advantage of being a bit more consistent, eh? Consistency in BORs is often a concern. At da same time, it has a disadvantage in that it can affect the positive, mentoring relationship a SM should have. Beavah

No Beavah, I don't have any more thoughts on the thread. I have said my piece regarding that. Then let's leave folks to continue the topic in peace, eh? While it is a spiritual work of mercy to instruct the ignorant, it is a fault of courtesy to do so in public. B

[duplicate post](This message has been edited by Beavah)

No offense intended, camilam42. I can't speak to how the term was used in da English reformation, eh? But then, I'm not usin' it in the English reformation. I'm an old fellow, but not that old! I note, however, da first Google page that pops on "Papist" includes three Roman Catholic bloggers who use the term affectionately ("The Joyful Papist"), and a truly hysterical article from 1958 about Catholic students responding to an obnoxious diatribe in a college newspaper. That article also includes da one eyed one horned flying purple people eater (no kiddin'!). Page two gets me another Catholic blog with a definition that says "papist: a Catholic who is a strong advocate of the papacy" (on the "americanpapist.com" website) as well as American Papist Cool Catholic Clothing. So it might be that the term no longer means what yeh think it means? I learned it from a few Catholic friends in late night discussions around campfires. They don't seem to be offended, in fact it seems to be used in jest and good-natured camaraderie. Of course, my Catholic friends, they call me funny names too, eh? Yeh can feel free to join in with 'em, I don't mind. Too few years left on my clock to spend any time taking offense over such silliness. Any more thoughts on the topic of da thread? B

I have long maintained that the qualities reguired to win a campaign for President bear no relationship to the qualities required to successfully do the job of President. So says Woapalanne in da Issues and Politics thread this one spins from. I happen to wholeheartedly agree with Woa on this, eh? If yeh ever have the pleasure of workin' with politicians for any length of time (I have at the state level at least), yeh know they tend to be very charming, very shallow people. Yeh can be delighted and entertained by 'em at a dinner table or cocktail party... just as long as yeh don't do it very often. That's when yeh notice the shallow. Governing, by contrast, requires yeh to be deep, eh? To engage with issues not just people, and to be willin' to tick people off, not just please 'em. So I'm wonderin'... do we have this problem in Scouting? Or worse, are we part of the problem in the nation? Are the qualifications for being elected to SPL or PL different than da qualifications to serve as SPL? Yah, I confess I once saw a lad who hadn't done a thing in his POR the previous year win an SPL election over a fellow who as ASPL planned and ran half of the troop's successful and well-liked events. All because he gave an entertaining and enthusiastic speech. Are da qualifications for being selected SM or ASM different than da qualifications to do those jobs properly? I remember as a commish once being involved in the removal of a SM because of some very poor behavior around youth (not YP, just screaming/threatening), even while he remained well-liked by most of da parents (for being so "clean cut" and well dressed). Do our selections and elections teach da notion that it's possible and even valued to "get" a job with flash and charm rather than earn a job with sweat and ability? More importantly, how do we teach the young generation as voters and selectors to dig beneath the surface and look for real quality? What do you see in your troop? What do you do? Beavah

I believe that the public is more accepting than the politicians. Yah, I think that's the case. Yeh put 'em in Washington and their brains go to mush, and their souls follow. The nation is cryin' for real statesmanship.

that's because "Biometric" is a word that sounds more important than it's true meaning. Yeh need to read the memos, CalicoPenn. Diplomats in some countries were instructed that biometric data includes "fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and iris scans" and asked to obtain it from hundreds of people, including civilian "ethnic, religious, and business leaders." They were also instructed to gather identity-theft information including credit card account numbers, frequent flyer numbers, passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks, all cell phone and pager information (presumably for intercepts), internet addresses, email listings and handles, work schedules, and biographical information (which is used in identity-theft and surveillance). It was a pretty hefty intelligence "shopping list" for diplomatic staff, eh? I suspect it was a product of Mrs. Clinton's inexperience (and her staff's) that they just sent da CIA wish list out without vetting it. But still... Again, da Golden Rule applies, eh? How would we feel about foreign embassy staff tryin' to gather all that from our "ethnic, religious, and business leaders." I agree with yeh, though, that Valerie Plame was an active undercover agent at the time she was outed. That was a far more dangerous act than anything I've seen from Wikileaks so far. And it was done by Americans. That there were no prosecutions other than for Libby's coverup shows how high da politically-motivated corruption ran. Shameful. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It's true that if Assange were a U.S. citizen or had he committed the act in the U.S. the First Amendment would apply to him. So would the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. 793 : US Code - Section 793). And in the conflict between the two, the First Amendment would rightly prevail. Expansive definitions of criminal laws (like "terrorism") are a fundamental threat to personal liberty that is far larger and more "terrifying" than learning our diplomats think Menendev is Putin's lapdog. You would have us apply a felony prosecution (with the death penalty in play, no less), because you happen to feel afraid. How does an average citizen engaged in anything controversial conduct himself so that no one feels afraid? Especially someone with no particular experience in the area? If a liberal black man becomes fearful because of the Tea Party rally down the street, can we prosecute the Tea Partiers for terrorism? After all, he doesn't know who might be beaten or attacked because someone got inspired by what the Tea Partiers said, and he's heard through the grapevine that the Tea Partiers might be racist. Criminal acts must be defined specifically and narrowly in the law, so as to prevent the government (in the form of a politicized or overzealous prosecutor) from doing something like applying capital terrorism or treason charges to an act of press freedom. Insisting that those definitions be kept narrow even when we think the press has been irresponsible is how we guarantee freedom for everyone, because at some point someone is going to feel that the statements or press that WE put out are irresponsible and make them afraid, and we don't want to face capital charges at the hands of an overzealous government official ourselves. What we apply to Assange and Wikileaks now might well be applied to Glen Beck publishing a leaked Obama document on Fox News blog tomorrow. Do yeh think that the current justice department is completely free of any overzealous liberal prosecutors? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If Walmart can source a widget for one cent cheaper than one made here, they are going to buy the imported one. As well they should, if da quality of widgets is the same and the savings holds when shipping costs, breakage, currency, and political risk are factored in. That works for simple textiles and children's toys, mostly. Note, however, that it doesn't work for grain farming. In mechanized farming, we are far more efficient, even if we were to scale back agriculture subsidies. Nor does it work for precision manufacturing. In short, in da industries where we have made substantial capital reinvestment to improve efficiency, we can compete very well. While it may not be a level playing field in terms of environmental and worker safety regulation, it's also not a level playing field in terms of the education and skills and productive lifetime of the populace, either, and those things all run in our favor. So does the stability of our legal system and our culture of fair dealing. Plus, in manufacturing, environmental regulation can be met simply by fixed capital costs; it tends not to affect (or even sometimes improves) variable costs. That's also true to a lesser extent in worker regulations. So where yeh see the most whining about regulation, it's in da same industries that haven't been reinvesting in capital, and instead just milking what they have for short-term gains. I think if yeh wanted to do one thing to really boost American manufacturing, it would be to eliminate quarterly reports, base executive compensation on long-term profitability, and put much higher hurdles in place for hostile takeovers and buyouts of well-capitalized industry. In short, make the incentive structure support re-investment in capital rather than faking short-term profit. Tax the crap out of short-term capital gains, keep the current tax structure on medium-term gains less than 5 years, and eliminate or phase out all capital gains tax on investment held 5 years or longer. In fact, that's where I think da Republican trickle-down effect failed. Had we not deregulated the financial industry and created incentive through derivatives and executive stock options for wild short-term profit, we would have seen a lot more reinvestment of untaxed funds in capital development. But instead of going into manufacturing capital, the savings instead went into the financial markets. Beyond that, a sound energy & fiscal policy that ensured predictable commodities prices and financing to reduce the risk of capital re-investment would be my second suggestion. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, with packsaddle and Eagle92 I too am dismayed by the anti-intellectual, poor work ethic and entitlement culture in da U.S. Respect for the value of knowledge and hard work are a lot more powerful in the long run than regulatory challenges. Especially when many of those regulations result in having a population with a much longer productive lifespan and a potentially higher level of education and innovation. Actually, though, if yeh look at the statistics, there has not really been a decline in American manufacturing. What there has been is a shift in American manufacturing. Manufacturing is more productive, which means it requires fewer (unskilled) workers. So as a percentage of the workforce, manufacturing has declined, but not in terms of output. Manufacturing has also shifted from heavy-concentration zones in urban areas (Detroit and da Rust Belt cities are the biggest example) to more distributed manufacturing closer to sources of reliable labor. So instead of having dozens of auto factories clustered around Detroit, we now have auto plants spread throughout the midwest and south. So it's really a bit of a fiction that our manufacturing has declined. In fact, it's just become more productive and shifted. Unfortunately, that leaves the uneducated urban folks behind in de-industrialized high-poverty areas. U.S. manufacturing jobs now demand a higher level of education and skill, and some degree of labor mobility. Yep, yeh can point to a few industries like steel that have dried up, largely due to mismanagement. That's what happens in a capitalist society, eh? If yeh don't fund your depreciation and modernize your mills, yeh can't compete. And, interestingly, we receive as much or more foreign direct investment in American manufacturing as we make in overseas manufacturing. So even the offshoring is unclear, eh? For every Mexican Ford plant there seems to be an Indiana Subaru plant. Still, I agree... free trade is a good thing, but it should be something limited to stable democracies with similar environmental and worker-protection regulations, or at least nations with a firm and demonstrated commitment to move in that direction. But I might be wrong, eh? There are others who would claim that free trade and industrialization naturally foments democracy and increased protections for workers, and I think that's also true at least to an extent. Of course, limiting free trade to countries that have da same level of worker and environmental protections cuts both ways, eh? That would mean that we in da U.S. would be locked out of many free-world markets for our products. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

If we weren't doin' something bad, then why are we so embarrassed about it, eh? I don't think yeh can make a case that having your ambassador gather biometric data for identity theft from other delegations is an ethical act. Leastways not with a straight face. That it's also contrary to international law and protocol is irrelevant to the ethical question, as is whether or not some other bad actors do the same thing. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I have not seen any stories that would fit with whistle blower. Oh, probably Secretary Clinton's very ill-advised memo instructing diplomatic personnel to engage in efforts to collect biometric data from other nations' diplomatic staff could be considered that. Much of what was released about China's behind-closed-doors stuff and about the heads of most of the mideast nations could be considered whistle-blowing on them. After all, Wikileaks did "out" China on what they really feel about North Korea (more embarrassing to China than to us by far) and all the nations who are quietly calling for armed assault on Iran (again, more embarrassing to them than to us). Certainly they "outed" the Yemeni government for lying, though that's da one I think was irresponsible. And we come off lookin' pretty good tryin' to get the Pakistanis to get control of their nukes. So all and all it's been an equal-opportunity whistleblowing. The data just happened to come from us. B

Yah, da service stars and knot devices just annoy me, eh? They poke me and I'm always losin' the things. So I tend to leave 'em off for that reason as much as anything. I see less and less folks with quality unit these days; either they just don't like to sew 'em on (hear a lot of that, actually) or we've made the paperwork such a burden for so little real "quality" that nobody cares. I think the units that do the custom sets get more folks to wear 'em just because the sewing is easier Beavah

Sorry, Woapalanne, in the bigger world of business a 2% return on assets is very poor. Now, you're entirely right, a person or family can opt to take it easy and not make full use of their assets, instead enjoying a comfortable, easy-going life. But that's a choice, eh? The consequence of da choice is that yeh don't have as much wealth to pay taxes and pass down to your kids (or to survive in a business downturn, or make it through a loss from fire, or...) I'm old fashioned I guess. I expect my kids to earn their own keep. Always have. I provided stability and education, da rest is up to them. Now, of course I'll opt to contribute my resources when I croak to various well-run charities and such rather than give as large a chunk to Washington But I don't begrudge da contribution to Washington, since it's been my generation of "leaders" that has done its best to keep me from payin' my fair share in favor of tryin' to foist it on the grandkids. If yeh have a business where the kids' are workin', then I assume you're paying 'em? After that, if yeh feel it's worth it, talk to a friendly tax attorney and set up an appropriate structure to pass the business along with less tax exposure. It ain't rocket surgery. Just takes a bit of planning. They can buy your share with what they saved from workin' hard, eh? It'll still be a much, much better deal for 'em than if they went and worked for someone else, where they might not have ever been made a partner. (which raises da issue if it's fair for those kids who worked just as hard as yours and saved more but weren't given the same resources by accident of birth). Capitalism should provide each person the opportunity to learn and work hard to achieve to the best of their ability. I don't think there's really any merit to lettin' a fellow sit on his arse because his great granddad worked hard and established a family trust. Just me. Mrs. Beavah calls me "an old coot." Beavah

Yep, agree with yeh on all that, vol. Our irrational fear of nuclear is a problem, and ethanol is currently absurd (though da corn futures traders have made a fortune on the market as we convert food to fuel). Nuclear in particular is the only viable way of gettin' away from carbon-emitters. Sudden wind loads are easy to control just by feathering the propellers and shuttin' down turbines. Ever drive by a wind farm and note that not all the turbines are runnin'? That's what's goin' on. And solar loads are pretty predictable, eh? The sun rises and sets pretty regularly, and clouds mostly don't evaporate suddenly. Yep, there's a limit to how much steam yeh can let bypass the turbines in a nuke plant before yeh have to shut down reactor cells, but while it's an issue, it's nowhere near as big an issue as you're makin' out. Of course if we build a better grid, then yeh can just send the juice somewhere else that ain't windy. That's the real deal, rather than shuttin' down your wind farm to balance load. I also don't care about gettin' a reactor vessel from somewhere else if it's cheaper that way, eh? That's just a symptom of the other issue: us not havin' the commitment and the tech savvy to make our heavy industry efficient. If yeh can't compete against someone who has to add a whole mess of transport/shipping costs, then yeh deserve to go bust. Our industry has a bad habit of lookin' only at the quarterly report and not re-investing in upgrades or plannin' for the longer term future. When yeh do that as a company, you die. And you should, eh? Not get socialized by a government buyout. It ain't that hard to account for depreciation and plan for upgrades. B