Beavah

Yah, vol, this is where I think da modern neo-conservative muddles things up. Just because yeh may like the (media-crafted) image of the Palins as regular family folk doesn't mean that she is ready to be Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the country. Mrs. Beavah is regular family folks with outstanding values IMNSHO, but she wouldn't get my vote for President (thank goodness ballots are secret, eh? ). Just like a one-term Senator who happens to be a good orator doesn't have the experience to be an executive, eh? Former Governor Palin failed as the executive for one of the smallest (economically and population-wise) states in the country, despite its homogeneity and one-party governance. Quit halfway through, with some small-state ethical squabbles to boot. That's a far cry from Reagan, who served several terms successfully as the governor of the economically largest and most diverse state in the union with a split-party, almost chaotic system. Reagan had been a leader and organizer since his college days, where Palin quit 4 colleges before finally muddlin' through. Only thing she stuck with successfully was being Mayor of a small town on da federal dole. We have a great big country with a lot of excellent people in it. We can find lots of folks with great values who are more qualified than Mrs. Palin. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, that's what I meant about Joe McCarthy, BS-87. You're throwin' around the word "terrorist" without much thought. Terrorists blow up random civilians for a cause. The diplomatic documents leaker leaked some documents to the press. He didn't sell 'em to our enemies to be used against us, he released 'em to our own media so they're no longer of any strategic or tactical value to anyone. That's not even remotely close to terrorism. Just because we don't like what someone has done doesn't mean that they must be mass murderers out to kill women and children. And certainly not that they should be put to death. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Kahuna, I agree that Wikileaks is a foreign entity not friendly to the U.S. But I think calling them "terrorists" is absurd. They aren't out blowing up innocent civilians for a cause. They just shone a spotlight on what members of our government are really doing and saying. They didn't steal the information themselves, they just published what they received widely (after giving our State Department an opportunity to ask that individual items be withheld and taking at least some time to redact sections that they felt might endanger individuals). At some point, character is what you do in private when you think no one else is watching. If our government officials are embarrassed or our interests compromised when what we do in private is made public, what does that say about our character? So far I've found many of the Wikileaks documents actually support our government's position in many areas, including our hard-line approach to Iran and our unwillingness to deal with North Korea. Wasn't it interestin' that they showed Obama abandoned his "engage Iran" dialog as soon as he got into office? So Assange and Wikileaks did the proper job of the Press in a democracy, eh? They shone a spotlight on government actions and behavior. If he was a U.S. citizen or resided in the U.S., he'd receive the full protection of our Constitution. As for the young private, I think they're goin' to have a challenge makin' a conviction on anything with what I think they've got, but if they do it'll be for releasing confidential documents. Again, the notion that he is guilty of "terrorism" is just absurd. We're throwin' around that word the way Joe McCarthy used to throw around "communist", just to express our displeasure. As to "treason", they won't even come close to makin' a case for treason, which as yeh know from the Constitutions requires the statement of two or more witnesses to the overt act. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, gotta side with Gern here vol. While you are right that the grid isn't a capacitor, it is a distribution system. Right now in many areas of the country, the output of traditional power plants runs close to 100% with very little reserve in the hot summer months. That's because we haven't built new power plants in decades. So if during those hot summer months there is additional wind and solar added to the grid, it reduces the output of the traditional plants and makes the grid more stable over all. Now, the problem is that our switching equipment is old, eh? The grid in most places is in serious need of a digital upgrade to be able to monitor and control the flows from multiple sources in real time. Mostly, the traditional grid was based on havin' only a couple of power plants locally sited near the demand, all of which could have their output adjusted very quickly to match demand. For solar and wind, especially distributed solar and wind, that is harder to do. So yeh need a major upgrade of the grid monitoring and switching equipment, and yeh need to build long-run transmission lines from the windy and sunny areas to the cities. For the foreseeable future it will be necessary to keep traditional power plants in place to handle load balancing, but they'll be running at less capacity. See http://www.biodieselnow.com/alternative_energy1/f/77/t/22694.aspx One of the tragedies currently occurring is watching da U.S. cede our lead in energy technologies to other nations, especially China. While our fossil fuel lobbyists continue to block alternatives, the level of R&D being done by other nations is staggering. We're settin' up to be dependent on foreign manufacture of energy technology for our needs for the next century. B Beavah

Yah, the even more disturbing thing is the timing of the criminal complaint by the Swedes, eh? The allegations from what has been reported are really quite thin. I sincerely doubt any U.S. prosecutor would bother to pursue the case. Certainly not to the point of tryin' to issue international arrest warrants. I'd lay odds that if yeh scratched the surface of that you'd find several layers of "inappropriate influence" on both the complainants and the justice authorities. That gets kinda scary, eh? Yeh don't ever want to allow vendetta prosecutions by an angered government. It's one of these areas where I disagreed with the initial action by Wikileaks, but the response is so clearly illegal and over-the-top that I'm more upset by that. Turns out that the cyber attacks also downed the DNS host in New Hampshire, a legitimate business with a lot of other customers who were affected. If I were the FBI, I'd be lookin' at the origins of that criminal activity as a first priority. If upset foreign powers are launchin' cyber attacks on U.S. businesses, that's an issue. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I finally caught da first episode off of a download, eh? (not gettin' TLC on cable) The biggest focus seems not to be on Alaska so much as on the Palin family. Some really nice, cute, ordinary family moments. Makin' muffins, dealin' with a surly teenage girl, in the RV with her parents, cheering her daughter on a climbing wall, goin' fishing, young kids disappointed and tired after not catching fish. As much as I shared their annoyance with a silly reporter/bookwriter moving in next door, I was disappointed with the relatively long segments taking pot-shots at the neighbor. Just because yeh don't like your neighbor or find him to be a nuisance doesn't mean yeh don't still have an obligation to be courteous yourself... and especially to teach your kids to be courteous. It was truly hysterical to see her strugglin' for a couple hours on what looked to be a pretty short 3rd or 4th class climb (while tryin' to protect her long nails ). The mountaineering segment mostly showed that she'd never been on a mountain before despite her beautiful "back yard", and was clearly set up to be the biggest guided tour softball route possible. But for ordinary viewers, I reckon it came across fine, and showed her as being adventurous and "not a quitter." Much like the fishing bit. Not much good spin-casting, but da guide gets kudos for findin' a great spot for a bear show! All in all well-produced with some high-quality cinematography. Clearly a vehicle for promotin' her image as much or more than the State. Aside from da shots at the neighbor and one or two political comments that seemed out of place, I enjoyed it. B

Nope, not the way it works, jblake. The miner can be sittin' on a bunch of bauxite that he labored long and hard to mine, and the manufacturing process can change so that bauxite is no longer in demand. So the miner's "wealth" can evaporate just as easily as the farmer's or the stockholder's. He can't go back and dig up more wealth, and the "wealth" you claim he has produced by mining is just vapor. Wealth is determined by utility, eh? Utility creates demand. When demand drops, accumulated wealth drops with it. That's what we call "depression" or "contraction". All of those widgets yeh mined and manufactured become worthless things rusting in your back yard. That's no different than "paper wealth" as you call it. Yeh buy stock in the mining operation under the assumption it has value, both in current capital (stuff already mined) and future dividends (stuff still in the ground minus extraction costs). But if the demand for mined materials or widgets evaporates, the value of the stock falls. Just like the value of the mined mineral or the manufactured widgets. However, if the government steps in and creates a market for those widgets (either by taxing, borrowing, or printing money), then you suddenly have wealth again. By making a market, the government "created" your wealth as a miner. Similarly, patents have real value, eh? It's a government grant of monopoly protection which "creates" a special type of market for your device, and therefore increases your wealth. Let's try one that's even more abstract. Education is a form of created wealth, eh? As an individual, yeh pay for (university) education in order to achieve marketable skills (or at least a marketable certificate) which increases your future earnings. That increased productivity has value. Others are willing to pay you for it. There is a market. So education is an "investment". It increases personal (and national) wealth. And the government can and does provide education. Da issue with government by and large is a question of friction or overhead. Generally speakin', the government is less responsive than free capital markets, and so there is greater friction and overhead, making government involvement less than desirable in most cases. Even before yeh get into the possibilities for corruption. However, in some cases, for example building & maintaining roads & highways, there is greater friction/overhead in the private sector. And in some other cases (like basic or high-risk research funding or national defense), the private sector does not have the resources or incentive to do it, or the possibilities for corruption (ex. private police forces) are too high. In those cases, yeh want government to provide the service. The argument between liberals and conservatives is on where the efficiency point is, eh? For conservatives like me, the government should be involved in fewer things because a (properly regulated and policed) private sector does 'em better. And yeh can see why urban folks are more liberal and rural more conservative in this way, because in cities government (shared resources) is more necessary. Yeh need water treatment and sewers and more stoplights to keep people from bumpin' into each other. So a greater fraction of wealth is held in common infrastructure (government) supported by common sacrifice (taxes). Where in rural areas yeh just drill your own well and build your own septic and stop at the occasional stop sign. . We don't need so much government. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so I confess I'm havin' some trouble trying to figure out what I feel about Wikileaks. On the one hand, I think publishing some of the material that they did was just irresponsible, and damaged U.S. interests. Of course, they aren't a U.S. company, eh? At least their founder and CEO isn't a U.S. citizen. So they don't really have an interest in or moral obligation to protect U.S. interests. On the other hand, I think da claim that they endangered lives is a bit of a stretch, at least from what I've seen of the releases so far. And the widespread denial of service attacks on their web site really are criminal. Makes me uncomfortable that our government may be involved in that illegal activity, directly or indirectly. That impression isn't helped by random Senators trying to pressure service providers into suppressing the documents. As a Senator yeh took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and the publishing of documents is clearly protected by the constitution. As a private citizen they can make that complaint like any of us, but they should not be doin' it in their public persona. And I have to admit that while most of the information I find to be ordinary or just funny (callin' Putin the "alpha dog"), there are some things that are really interestin' where the disclosure really does help Americans make informed decisions about the actions and competence of elected and appointed leaders or options that are being debated publicly. That kind of transparency is important. So I'm oddly conflicted. Now, I reckon there's a young Army pfc who is headed for a long term in Leavenworth, and rightly so. At the same time, I'm lookin' forward to da release of banking documents on Wikileaks next year because I think it will give us a good insight into how much fraud and malfeasance was goin' on compared with just blithering incompetence. So what's a good citizen to think? We need leakers, whistleblowers, and a free press for the health and survival of democracy. And yet, in a few things, there should be some restraint and circumspection, because especially in diplomacy there is a genuine need for private, confidential frankness. B

Nah, jblake, you're bein' overly simplistic. Sorta like Woapalanne's B-School professors, eh? Yah, sure, if yeh make the definition of "manufacturing" broad enough then it can encompass almost any human activity. In that way, R&D is manufacturing. It's manufacturing knowledge and creative intellectual product, which is oft traded as a tangible asset (in the form of patents and copyrights and trade secrets), or as a human asset (in the form of an employee or teacher). When the government produces such knowledge and transfers it to the private sector, that's an increase in wealth to the private sector. Yeh have noted that one of the largest growths in "wealth" has come by way of intellectual property in da last few decades, haven't yeh? Your funny use of definitions have also let yeh fail to see the big picture. Yah, sure, in our system we don't like government ownership of the means of production (real socialism), though right now we do have some of it in the case of GM and some of the banks. So the government is makin' manufactured wealth . But there's an additional piece, eh? There's no consumer market for a bomber. A bomber only has value because da government makes a market for it. So in order for Lockheed-Martin to make that manufactured wealth, the involvement of government is required. Markets are what determine value and wealth. Yeh could spend all kinds of resources building a widget, but if there is no market for it, the widget is valueless. Dismantle government Medicare, and watch the stock price of every health care outfit tank. Disappearing wealth! ----- Woapalanne, I agree with yeh on the problems with the estate tax for small farms and small business owners. That's why I'd take the lower limit up pretty high before it kicks in. Right now it's at $1M, but $10M is more reasonable. At that level, if yeh have an unproductive asset like the folks you mention who are only earning 2.5% on a $2M depreciating asset, it's your own tough luck for not doin' a better job managing your asset or business. Yeh don't get my sympathy for not being a good businessman or not saving any money as liquid assets. Pay for some of that education or intellectual consulting and you'll create more wealth. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah OneHour, you describe a very common Boy Scouting scenario, eh? Same-age patrols, active in middle school, with high attrition and fade-out goin' into high school. This is where so many troops also get the "death bed" Eagle thing, where a fellow who has just been hanging on and not participatin' pops back up just for the crackerjack prize. They also tend to be adult-driven programs, if not adult run, just because their active middle schoolers really aren't up to the point where they can run a whole troop. Most of the troops that use mixed-age patrols that I know either never switched in 1990 or switched to NSP and then switched back when they didn't care for it. So I'd say the most common version is the one Eagle92 describes, eh? No NSP. New boys just join an existing patrol, based on some combination of their request/friends and discussion among the PLs. When yeh get enough boys so that there's room for another patrol, the PLC and/or SM recruit a couple of upcoming leaders to be PL & APL of the new patrol, and they in turn recruit members from other patrols. If yeh shrink, usually one patrol is showin' the most damage, and the boys left in it just shift over to a different patrol that is lookin' for members. Now, several of those troops do run a couple of "new scout campouts" designed to jump-start the new guys. So that would be like a 1-2 month NSP (but not really, since none of the new boys are becoming a "Patrol Leader" in name). That's usually run by the PLC, and the various PLs might be recruiting . Most have the lads join regular patrols by summer camp at the latest, so they spend camp in their permanent patrol. I confess I haven't really seen a full-year NSP then transition to permanent patrols that I thought worked well. That seems to introduce a second disruption in routine for the boys... first transitioning to the troop, then, just as they're gettin' comfortable, transitioning again. And, as yeh anticipate, that transition can come with some angst (who gets to join the "popular" patrol, who gets picked last, etc.). So I'm an advocate that if yeh do some sort of new scout orientation/NSP at all that yeh keep it relatively short. Others may have different views. I will also say that for whatever reason, yeh don't tend to see troops in the "very large" category running mixed age patrols. I've always felt that very large troops are almost always adult-driven, and adult-driven programs like to maintain the same-age / class-based structure. But it might also be the reverse, eh? There may be aspects of mixed-age patrols with real older boy leadership that doesn't scale well when yeh get really big. That might be a concern for yeh, since your program is on the large size. But I will say, if you're tryin' to address the high-school attrition/fade out thing, that mixed age patrols work very well for that. By and large the mixed age patrol troops don't experience much of that, because the culture within the troop that they grew up with is that the older HS boys are real leaders and really cool, and they all "want to be that guy". It feels like growing up, and an honor, being a PL, because that's something only cool high school guys are capable of and entrusted with. Quite different from same-age, where being a PL is something even a complete newbie 10 year old can do. And the the PLC running the troop is a cool older group of HS friends working together, not a mixed-age muddle. Beavah

The BSA? Nope. Except Jambo and da World Jambo contingent, and NAYLE I think. Local councils? Nope. Except maybe NYLT. Your troop? It's up to you eh? Technically, yeh can't add to the advancement requirements, but yeh can put any other expectations on that you want. Require full uniform for everything if yeh like. I'd say most troops expect at least partial uniforms for indoor meetings, and full uniforms for formal ceremonies and other events out in public. Some require uniforms for travel to and from outings. Very few require uniforms actually on an outing, except for dinner at summer camp. Beavah

Don't cha just love it when in cold weather the batteries go out on the GPS? Yah, I'm not sure I buy it, eh? I carry a candle occasionally on a winter campout. I just sorta like the light at night reflectin' off the snow or in the igloo. Nice classical ambiance. But it doesn't work for beans in the wind or rain or even a good snowfall. So what I really do is carry a headlamp and extra batteries, with a spare bulb to boot (on top of the 3 or 4 LED's). Yep, I'm an old-timer map and compass guy, too. Don't carry a GPS, because I've been doin' map and compass so long that I can reliably navigate in near zero visibility. Yah, I can do celestial nav in a sailboat, too. Nice, old-timer fun. Still, that doesn't mean GPS isn't a better tool, so what I really do is bring a GPS and check my celestial nav against that. The lads and in fact most of the other adults can't do celestial nav or low-viz map and compass. So for them GPS is a more worthy tool. As a result, they can keep up with me . Even learn more and do more. The electronics are easier, more accurate, with a shorter learning curve, and they leave your mind and your time free for other things. With the high-quality moving map ones, I find the boys learn map readin' faster to boot. If you are worried about battery life, just bring extra batteries. It ain't hard. Beavah

Nah, it's more complicated than all that, jblake. If a private company's R&D department comes up with a new gizmo, what you'd claim is that they aren't producing wealth. Only when the gizmo is manufactured and sold. But in fact, it was the development of the new gizmo, and the investments in R&D, that led to the growth. No investment in R&D, no growth in wealth. Think of the government as just a big private business that we all have stock in. When da government builds roads, those are our roads, eh? They add to our general wealth as Americans. They lead to future revenues through trade and business growth. No different for government R&D, eh? Velcro, Tang, GPS, on and on... that government investment spurred development. Those are our innovations. When manufactured, they can be sold to us for a lot less because the R&D is already paid for, and for our tax investment in the R&D we get a bigger, more robust economy. Again, an addition to our general wealth as Americans. That's the "provide for the general welfare", eh? We're investors in America, and we hold a lot of produced wealth, from roads to bridges to inventions to B-2 bombers, in common. Our problem is that our investment is being badly managed, eh? Our overhead is way too high... stuff like Medicare and Social Security and Defense which by and large do not create wealth the way roads and telecommunications and inventions do. (Leastways, defense doesn't create wealth in most cases. It did in the first Iraq war because the Saudis and Kuwaitis paid in cheap oil for a decade. It did in WW2 because Europe & Japan had to buy from us to rebuild. It would if we were willing to "sack" a country we invaded. But it didn't in Vietnam, and it's not goin' to in Iraq and Afghanistan.) So for our investment in America, only a small bit of it is producing wealth, eh? Those are the bits - research, infrastructure, education, etc. - that are worth investing in. The rest is in non-wealth producing support services (courts, police forces and regulators, defense, etc.) which should be pay-as-we-go. If crime goes up, we should pay more for police. If crime goes down, we should cut police. If we feel it's necessary to fight a war, we should pay for it as we go. If we don't feel we need as much defense, we should cut it and cut taxes to match. It's not an investment. Yeh only borrow money for investments. Then we have entitlement Ponzi Schemes like Social Security and Medicare. I don't know what those are other than foolish. Every private corporate pension plan eventually goes bust, often draggin' the company down with 'em (like GM). Every state pension plan in da U.S. that I know of is so underfunded as to be essentially bankrupt. The coming bailout of those might be what sinks us. And the federal entitlements are similar. It's a pretty sorry company, the U.S. government, mortgaging off its assets - its roads and bridges and research funding - just to pay its police and soldiers because we won't pay-as-we-go for those services. And its a completely foolish company, the U.S. government, that is saddling itself with debt just to pay current pension and health care costs, when we know those obligations will sink us just as they have every other pension Ponzi scheme. You'd say, if you were runnin' the government as a business, that yeh have to cut or eliminate the entitlements for non-working people and then increase the charges to pay-as-we-go for running a high-tempo military operation, while allowing borrowing only to invest in infrastructure and research and the like which actually produce wealth for us in common. And that's what we should do to be fiscally responsible. Beavah

Yah, which future, eh? The long-term future or da short-term future? The short-term future is probably OK, as I mentioned. So long as we make a reasonable effort at reigning in our debt and so long as Europe is worse off than we are, we probably won't end up like Greece. Long-term, we're sittin' on a demographic time bomb. Too many old folks on the dole, too few young folks being productive. That portends a significant shrinkage of the economy that will persist for at least a decade or two. As more baby-boomers start drawing on Medicare, Social Security, and retirement savings they will be an enormous drag on the economy. Depressing stock prices, reducing the capital available to invest, reducing demand for any products other than health care. Ever wonder why yeh see drug stores popping up on every corner? If we go into that economic shrinkage already deeply mired in debt, and block immigration of young workers entering their productive years, there will be a dollar/debt crisis. And that will be the Greatest Depression and the end of American supremacy in the world. So yah, the long term is kinda scary, eh? But everybody is so worried about their swimming pool in the short term that they are unwilling to do what it takes to be responsible and prepared for the longer term. Beavah

Yah, hey, BrentAllen, right there with yeh. If anybody in congress, liberal or "conservative" was actually proposing substantial cuts of that sort, I'd be votin' for 'em. And yep, Rockford, I see your point, except that they already spent the money, eh? We owe on the Afghan and Iraqi wars and prescription meds for seniors. The time to stop 'em was back then, but we didn't. So we're stuck with the bill. I supported both those wars, and I believe in paying our debts for them rather than mortgaging the country to China. Eagledad, I fully admit that I no longer meet the definition of modern "neo" conservative, eh? Definitely not the Palin wing of the Republican party. I just don't care for da emotional, anti-intellectual approach they embrace. That's OK, because they don't meet my definition of conservative either, eh? I consider the borrow-and-spend thing to be way left of center. I also don't buy the amusin' fiction that a few south-plains states are "most of the rest of the country". History does not show that a drop in taxes increases government coffers. That's just poppycock. The tax increases of GHWB led to an increase in government revenues and budget surpluses. The tax cuts of GWB led to record-setting deficits even before the bailouts. What is true is that intelligent tax policy can provide incentives for re-investment, and vice-versa. Taxes on luxury goods, for example, lead to less tax revenue overall, because people just stop buying luxury goods. Taxes on dividends can reduce re-investment and capital growth. But that's not true for all taxes. Taxes on gasoline, for example, lead to greater investment in automobile development and manufacturing, while reducing our trade deficit and therefore increasing domestic capital. In fact, da domestic auto industry has been begging for responsible gas taxes because it would help 'em predict the cost of oil and make more productive R&D and production decisions. I do see CPA's and business folks all the time in my line of work and have an MBA myself. You're muddling a bunch of things up. People are scared right now because we're still in the throes of a credit crisis, eh? Narrowly missed a Greater Depression. A half-dozen European countries are functionally in national bankruptcy, and international banking and investment is interlocked. Yeh think lots of banking money is available to lend to help businesses grow when whole nations are in bankruptcy? But da U.S. domestic picture is brightening, eh? Home sales up in October, corporate earnings up, and the stock market (a leading indicator of the economy) rising healthily. Yep, teachers like your son are still takin' their lumps. Government revenues and salaries for government employees like your son lag the economy. They and other state-level government employees were saved from more severe cuts and layoffs by the federal "stimulus" (which really didn't "stimulate" anything, it just kept state budgets afloat for two years). Now the stimulus has run out, so there will be another round of state budget cuts around da country. The state revenues won't come back up until after the economy rises. But that's what we want, eh? Cutting government waste now, while we can. Might even lead to more privatization of education with more choice, which would be a good thing. And swimming pools? We're cryin' about private swimming pools? Yep, when as individuals and a nation we're in debt up to our hindparts, it's time to start layin' off on the luxuries like the private neighborhood swimming pool. Yep, that means fewer lifeguards. That's what we call "personal and fiscal responsibility." One of those things us old school conservatives still believe in. Besides, I'd lay odds that one of da things that's driving your swimming pool cuts is the aging population, eh? Fewer of the homeowners usin' a pool that much, so it's a reasonable thing to cut. Now, I do share the belief that the proper way to fiscal responsibility is along the lines that the deficit commission is proposing, eh? 3 parts spending cuts to 1 part revenue increase. And, long-term, reducing the size of government back to a smaller fraction of GDP. But that means cutting or eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Defense Spending, Veterans' services, farm subsidies, etc. The things no "neo" conservative is talkin' about. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

jblake, that's sorta true, eh? It's certainly true for da welfare programs. Yeh can, however, find some government programs that do produce wealth. The GPS satellite system is an example. The developments made by NASA. There are certain kinds of things like fundamental research and large-scale exploration that are typically beyond the risk-taking ability and capitalization of the private sector, especially when it is focused entirely on da quarterly report. The reverse is also true, eh? It's often bad news for da private sector to get involved in support, infrastructure, protection, regulation, and governance. Those government functions are best performed by government (as we've seen recently in da collapse of the "self-regulated" banking system, or the absurd use of mercenaries in war zones). But sometimes, yeh can find exceptions to that, too. Beavah

Yah, I too am a Fair Tax proponent. Woapalanne, back in '01 under then President Bush congress passed a series of tax cuts that had an expiration date of this year. The reason that the tax cuts had an expiration date was because when they ran budget projections back then, if the cuts didn't have an expiration date then the national debt by 2014 was goin' to be out of control. So they justified the tax cuts by incorporating the expiration date and then only reportin' the budget deficit figures for 15-20 years out. So what will happen next year if Congress doesn't act is that the tax cuts will expire, and taxes will rise back to what they were during the Clinton term (still less than what they were for most of Reagan's term). I said back in 2001 that the budget jiggerin' they were doin' was just dishonest. Then we went and added two wars and a prescription drug plan for seniors without payin' for 'em. And then a near-Depression with a massive bank bailout. So let's see, that's a dishonest cut in da first place plus 4 major unfunded "borrow-and-spend" projects, and conservative BrentAllen wants to keep it up? That's the "modern" conservative for yeh. Why tax ourselves when we can tax our grandchildren or sell the country to China? In terms of Clinton, the only reason that the economy was so successful under him was the same combination that we are about to be in. Republican control of Congress and Democrat control of the White House. Yah, yeh know... I just don't get da whole notion of ascribing the economy to either the president or the Congress. They honestly don't have much to do with the economy. The national budget, yah, sure, somewhat. But not the economy. It's driven by much bigger things, like auto company execs that run their companies into the ground and aging demographics and such. The reason we had a boom in the Clinton years was because of the end of the Cold War in the early 90s reducing tensions and military spending (freeing capital) and the first Gulf War resulting in artificially low oil prices for a decade (freeing capital), and the baby boomers being in their most productive years. Now we're facing two wars, global tensions, and an aging demographic that is a net economic drain. The economy is driven by the people not the government. The president and congress can't do much about it except in small and temporary stop-gap ways. What they can do is be responsible about da management of the government. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Jersey, there's no national prohibition on cell phones. What you do in your unit is up to you. I used to be in favor of a "no electronics on campouts" rule. Mostly to prevent the video game stuff in tents, but also to avoid the phone calls to girlfriends, texting for hours, etc. These days with iPhones and the like it gets harder, eh? The phone is (the boy's only) high quality camera. It's what he uses to bring pictures home and post 'em on Facebook showing how cool his scout trip was to all his non-scouting friends. There's a good chance da phone is also his compass and GPS and map. Why buy and carry all those separate things when yeh can download USGS maps for free from the government to your phone? One lad was even showin' me a cool theodolite in his phone that he was using for measuring tree height for First Class. Simply put, the modern digital device is the logical, thrifty way to get all sorts of functionality that yeh would otherwise pay 5 times as much for separately. So these days, I'm leaning more toward education. "When you're with other people, it's not courteous to be using your phone. It says you don't care about the people you're with". For kids, I'm finding that the novelty of the phones is wearing off a bit now that they're so common, so they're open to the discussion of how to use 'em as a tool. Appropriate sometimes, not appropriate others. I'll second da notion about the national hysteria. Kids aren't doing anything with phones now that they didn't used to do with film and magazines. Only difference is that it gets spread farther and faster and therefore it's easier to catch. Many states have grappled with the absurdity of charging minors with child porn trafficking over a teen sending a picture of his scantily clad girlfriend to his buddies. The laws will be revised, but in most cases rationality will prevail. Beavah

Nah, Gern, I don't reckon I'll ever be one of those L-fellows. I just figure sending everyone home now has very little downside. We avoid a whole bunch of silly liberal lame-duck nonsense and we get to reverse the GWB impression of LBJ trying to fight a war without paying for it. Unemployment benefits have already been extended several times, eh? I think it's time to start drawin' that down. Maybe a short extension to the better weather months at most. But I sure don't feel much guilt about upping the tax rate on the idiot bankers with multi-million dollar bonuses to pay for that extension. Only "massive" increase is da estate tax, 83Eagle. All the rest are just an incremental bump. And I'm not really convinced that if a fellow does a good job as a businessman that all of his descendants shouldn't have to work a day in their lives. Just doesn't seem like it builds the right character we need in da country. What's needed is just bumping the low threshold for estate tax up a fair ways so that owners of farms and small businesses can keep 'em in the family. Beyond that, if yeh get to live off daddy's Trust Fund for life, I reckon yeh should pay some added tax for the privilege. B

Yah, so today's news has the Republicans threatening to block all lame duck legislation unless the Dems go along with an extension of the Bush era tax cuts. Now, some of the lame duck legislation should probably be blocked anyways, eh? I confess, though, I don't get the Republican obsession with tax cuts. Taxes weren't all that high under Clinton. They were lower than they were for most of Reagan's tenure. Most importantly, we had a balanced budget back then. If we want to get control of the deficit, we have to address both the income and expense side. We cut taxes going into two wars, fer cryin' out loud. We have to pay for 'em sometime. Why not start by just lettin' the darn things expire? The economy is startin' to rebound, so it can take the hit, and I think Americans are willin' to sacrifice a bit for the cause. So I think the Dems should call the bluff. Send Congress home. Heck, they only create problems when they're in Washington tryin' to rush things through, especially as lame ducks when they're looking for "consulting" jobs with industry after they get out. Let the lame duck legislation and the tax cuts expire. Beavah

Why? Because of stuff like the example I gave, eh? The one with da religious discrimination against fellows with beards. By singling out Sharia for exclusion from civil cases but not excluding Rabbinical Law or Canon Law, the government has endorsed the laws of some religions over others. That's the veritable definition of what the first article of the Bill of Rights excludes. On the international law bit because of federal pre-emption. John-in-KC, the term "international law" refers exclusively to law between, not within, nations. In other words, treaty law. The laws of Germany, France, etc. are national laws. So as written, the Oklahoma amendment tries to prohibit the application of international treaties, not the application of German law. Though, in some cases, the treaties bind us to honor other countries laws (so if yeh get married in France, Oklahoma should recognize that you're married, for example). Instructing judges to ignore international law is a problem because a number of treaties affect private civil transactions, such as the Hague Conventions. What Oklahoma is sayin' by refusing to consider are things like its companies can't engage in such things as contracts with international corporations for the buying and selling of goods, because the international partners can't rely on the contract being enforced by Oklahoma courts. Or that an Oklahoma court won't enforce child care obligations on someone who flees to its jurisdiction. And on and on. We live in a global society, eh? Yah, yah, sure, Oklahoma can try to withdraw from the rest of the world. We've got a great example of what yeh end up with when you do that: North Korea. Vibrant economy and society there, eh? Beavah

Aw, there's a little bit of an echo chamber, JoeBob. Leastways, a big "ditto" and 100% agreement with your last post. I like it when packsaddle and BrentAllen both yell at me, eh? I try to keep a bunch of non-virtual friends and colleagues who come from different backgrounds and perspectives too. I always figure that there's a certain Darwinism of ideas. The best ideas will survive the challenge and competition. Ideas that can only live in the echo chamber are doomed to extinction in the real world. Thing is, yeh can generally rely on scouters being good folk no matter what their background or political stripes. One of the great things about Scoutin'. Beavah

I think FScouter was being facetious, Woapalanne. He just likes takin' pot shots at da old Beavah The capstone awards like Eagle fall under the "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle" thing, eh? So Eagle is a "current status". Wearin' an Eagle knot as a Boy Scouter makes a lot of sense. I'm not really sure that wearin' an AOL knot as a Venturing Advisor makes much sense. But in all these things, the uniform is just part of the game of scouting, eh? Yeh can choose to follow the guidebook to the "T", includin' the Excess Insignia rule, or yeh can tweak it here and there, or yeh can add some fun doodads like the "Untrainable" patch. It's a tool. If yeh truly use it as a toy in the game of scouting and make it all about youth, then I figure you're doin' just fine. If some thoughts from others make yeh reflect on how you're really approachin' uniforming yourself, then that's a fine thing to. We should always be thoughtful about what we're doin', and reflect on how best to use the methods to reach boys. Beavah

Hiya ASM915, Yah, I think there's the same temptation with the religious awards programs as there is with MB's, eh? The temptation to turn 'em into "classes" or "MB Universities" or such. A friend sent me a copy of the page from the Ad Altare Dei counselor training that is titled "Counseling Techniques". Yeh might check it in your copy. It's really a great description of what MB counseling should be like. So da actual program materials for Ad Altare Dei instruct counselors to treat it like MB counseling. There can be some group sessions, but it's meant to be small, friendly, personal. Not CCD. So I'm just tryin' to nudge folks to try to do it that way, eh? Yah, yah, I know. The large majority of MBs these days come from group classes. So it's no surprise that da religious emblem folks are doin' the same school-like thing. But that doesn't mean I can't be an advocate for the more authentic Scouting Way, eh? Da Pope Pius medal for Venturers/High Schoolers is a bit different, though, since that requires group discussion. But it's supposed to be group discussion as I understand it, not teaching/lecture. Again, I'm not one of those papist fellows, so I don't have an insider's perspective on this. But we do have a lot of Catholic units in these parts, and I do look in on religious award sessions and ceremonies in my role of bein' a friend to the units. Plus a good friend is a Jesuit attorney and canon lawyer, and you know how those Jesuits can be . Beavah

Yah, but there's all kinds of other things in law where those British folks do things funny, eh? Some, like government surveillance, yeh would think would be more upsetting to the good people of Oklahoma than worryin' about Sharia. Actually, what's goin' on in England is that the state recognizes independent arbitration panels of different types. Citizens can do something very similar here in da U.S. If two parties to a civil dispute agree to binding arbitration, then the courts will generally enforce the finding of the arbitrator. And the arbitrator can be any disinterested party, eh? An attorney, a retired judge, a Catholic marriage tribunal, a muslim imam. The key ingredient in Great Britain as in the U.S. is that both parties have to agree to the binding arbitration and the arbitrator up front, eh? That's not an imposition of Sharia or other arbitration by the state, that's two parties of a dispute voluntarily submitting the dispute to be decided by someone with a legal/religious/ethical background that they happen to trust. So I again fail to see da issue. Generally speakin', arbitration is an excellent method of alternative dispute resolution that saves the parties and the state a lot of time and money. Beavah