Beavah

Yah, Kamakamelian, welcome back to da forums and to scouting. I think yeh have to consider whether things are worth saving at this point. If they are, then I wouldn't think twice about dropping da problem adults from the roster. They didn't pay for their registration, so why register them? They're not active, so why register them? It's really a no-brainer. If they want to participate again, they can submit new applications. Then yeh can review the applications and decide whether yeh want them. Honestly, I would do the same with the kids. Less than 10% participation rate? They're really not scouts. They're a family who occasionally uses a scout event as a low-cost vacation and babysitting service. Don't see why any volunteer's time should be spent on that sort of thing. There are commercial camps and child care services to cater to that need. That's not what Scouting is for or about. Troops often grow and thrive for a bit after someone takes care of "the bad egg" that is disrupting things. Pull the trigger and move on to doin' the more fun work of building your program. Beavah

Everybody understands, WA. They just hope you don't. The SS Trust Fund was raided by LBJ to pay for Vietnam & da Medicare startup (remember Guns & Butter?). Since then, every dollar you've paid into SS has gone to pay folks currently receiving SS or for things like agriculture subsidies or a new destroyer. So it's no different from welfare for seniors, eh? You pay taxes, current senior citizens get paid. My dad was one of da early ones into the Ponzi scheme. He made out like a bandit. As benefits keep going up and da numbers of workers compared to senior welfare recipients goes down, the tax burden on our kids and grandkids to support the senior welfare system gets higher and higher. Not much different than the last 10 years of war & tax cuts. Who ever heard of fighting two simultaneous wars while cutting taxes? Ah, that's OK, we don't need more military personnel, we can borrow money for mercenaries and run da National Guard and Reserves ragged. "Hey, you young fellas gettin' your Eagle Scout badges, we want yeh to go fight for us old folks' liberty and safety. Oh, yah, and yeh can't expect us to pay for it, so we want you to to spend da next 30 years after you get back earning money to pay for the war too." But don't worry, we'll wave flags for yeh! After all, we're patriots. The health care bill in many ways is not much different than the young folks demanding that they get some sort of benefit for all their tax dollars/hard work. Why should they pay for free health care for seniors when they can't afford it themselves? On top of both fighting our wars and paying for their own ammunition by mortgaging their working life. That may be why Obama got most of the young vote, eh? About time someone offered 'em a slim government benefit, instead of just expecting 'em to pay for da rest of us. Of course those young folks don't get out to vote as regularly as da seniors. Too busy working. Much easier to vote when you're livin' off the dole. Beavah

Yah, what JoeBob said. I think Lieberman in CT and Murkowski in AK point to a real problem with da primary system. In both cases, the party primaries were more extreme than the general public. In CT, the democrats put up a lefty, in AK the Republicans put up a Tea Partier. Each appealed to the fringe elements of the party and were able to win the primary, but didn't hold up in the general election. It shows that the party primaries are generally selecting candidates too far out on the edges. Most Americans are more statesmanlike and moderate, but their desires are not being addressed by either party because of da loud fringes of each. So they spend their time swinging back and forth voting one "bad" candidate out after another, first Dem then Rep then Dem again. Or grab an independent here or there when they can. It's a recipe for a responsible 3rd party to wipe da floor with both of the others. Until then, it's a recipe for polarized blather and gridlock. I'd like to beat partisans of both sides over the head with Washington's Farewell Address: The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

Yah, hmmm... So thanks to cam for his quotes from da Catholic catechism. Based on those quotes, cam, it would seem that you Catholic folks by your own sense of moral values would be required to to accept a gay Scoutmaster who was living a life of abstinence. Is that correct? Such an "avowed" homosexual would be living a morally straight life, eh? And any unjust discrimination based solely on his orientation, and not his actions, must be avoided. So you Catholics are opposed to the current BSA policy. That's interestin'. Why aren't yeh working to change it? B

Interesting fellow. So back on track would be Legalizing marijuana Cut and run in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Allow gay civil unions and most abortions. Expanded free trade and immigration. Implement an amnesty program for current illegals and expand a guest worker program. Serious cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Serious cuts to farm subsidies, highway/transportation infrastructure, energy development and housing. Flat tax. Allow American auto companies and associated manufacturing to die. Stop the current Federal Reserve jiggering and any stimulus/bailout and allow the Greater Depression to happen. Aside from the revenue-reducing effects of allowing a deflationary Depression spiral, it's a reasonable economic program, eh? I confess I sorta like some pieces of it. Others, not so much. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

But they have grown exponentially with Bush's predecessor and there appears to be no end in sight and no stone unturned. We can't sustain the increased taxation and spending or continual erosion of our individual liberties. Yah, hmmmm.... I'm confused again. What "increased taxation" has happened in the last two years that I missed? (assumin' yeh mean "successor" and not "predecessor"). Taxes the last two years have stayed the same, except for da estate tax, which has gone to zero. Taxes for most of da country are lower than they were during Reagan's presidency. That doesn't seem like "exponential growth". What continual erosion of our individual liberties has happened? Obama has largely continued warrantless wiretapping and violations of habeas corpus. Is that what yeh mean? Stuff like TSA security scanners and patdowns? Continued abuse of da patent system by large corporations at the expense of small businesses? I'm with yeh there. But I don't see anybody talkin' about those things. And da Tea Party candidates support those abuses. So what, exactly, are the issues? The tea party has to do with following the constitution Yah, so does the ACLU, eh? What do yeh mean by that? Where do yeh think we're suddenly not following da constitution? lowering an overbearing tax burden, making the government live within their means Yah, OK... so yeh want to decrease taxes and balance da budget at the same time. So which are you going to eliminate: Social Security, Medicare, the department of Defense, the veteran's administration? keeping the government out of people's business. Yah, OK... huh? Like what? Keepin' RIAA from suing random individuals for sharing songs? Eliminating all da obnoxious surveillance and traffic ticket cameras some states are erecting? Or is it more like eliminating regulation on deep-water drilling in the gulf (oh, wait, we did that...) or preventing regulation of financial derivatives (oh, wait, did that too...) How do yeh think that the government is somehow more "in people's business" than it was two years ago? Yah, sure, we're pushing young folks to get medical insurance. But most of the states require some form of auto insurance, eh? Is there some hew and cry over that as well? We want more uninsured motorists racin' about on the highways with us as an expression of liberty? Yeh see where one could be confused, yeh know? These seem like vague excuses, rather than what is really driving things. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

getting our country back on track before it is too late Yah, this seems to be a theme that's runnin' through a lot of postings, eh? So I'm curious. What does it mean? If our country were "back on track" what would it look like? And when, exactly, is "too late?" What do yeh think? Now, in thinkin', I'd ask yeh not to be pollyanna, eh? No "a country on track would have low taxes, high social benefits, etc." Realistically, what is "on track?" B

Yah, OGE, I reckon that fellow is around here somewhere... I met the old scoundrel once or twice. Same with that guy that FScouter is talkin' about. It's ever the life of a commish, eh? Yeh have to pick your battles. Yeh defend the poor SM who is beset by nattering parents, while at other times yeh try to nudge the same SM to try somethin' new. The goal is always to help 'em improve their use of the program as a friend. I don't find tellin' 'em a policy helps, because I can't be around all the time to enforce or interpret it. I like to give folks ideas, suggestions, and reasons. Camilam, that was my only purpose, eh? Scouting is a different thing than catechesis and CCD, and a different thing than a general teen youth group. It's more open and self-directed than the former and a bit more focused than the latter. If yeh try to turn it into catechetical training, yeh really lose a lot of the positive effects that scouting can provide your ministry work. That's why da Catholic religious awards materials are written the way they are, eh? They understand both Catholicism and scouting. What yeh seem to be doin' in your local parish departs a bit from both Scouting and the instructions of your own episcopal conference. I don't know enough about da structure of your faith to say whether that's allowed or not. I'm just suggestin' that perhaps yeh should consider whether the following the NCCS and BSA materials might be more effective than doin' your own thing. That humility bit again. Yeh seem to be providing your own "flawed, individual understanding" of how to do a Catholic Scouting program. (Yah, da smillies are meant to indicate an old fellow talkin' in a gentle, friendly, smiling, chiding manner around a campfire). I like the Catholic religious awards materials overall. I find da Pius XII materials particularly well suited to Venturing. But like any of the program materials, yeh have to use 'em well to get the full effect. Clemlaw makes some excellent points in his post above. I appreciate your not wantin' to talk theology here, eh? It isn't really the place for it. But I'd encourage yeh to seek out some wise, learned fellows in your own faith to discuss your notions more deeply. I think yeh might be missing much of the richness and nuance of your Church. Einstein once said "Subtle is the Lord", and I've always admired you Catholic fellows because your faith embraced that nuance and subtlety without rancor. We separated brethren are much more bound to our books, eh? I think you'd find a deeper exploration of Catholicism both enriching and enlightening. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm.... Yeh all are starting to sound like the Mormons, camilam42 . That's a fairly major departure from da philosophy of the Scouting program, eh? And as close as I can tell it's a fairly major departure from your own religious emblem materials. It presupposes a very authoritative, top-down approach to knowledge and faith, where the emphasis is on being taught rather than on learning, on recitin' knowledge of the faith rather than on living the faith. Scouting is all about living, eh? It's about learning-in-action rather than learning-in-classroom. It's about discovering Truth rather than being told Truth. Why? Because there's a fundamental difference between learning that yeh need to do your share of the work for your patrol members to respect yeh and so that you can do other fun things together, and being told that you need to do your chores by an adult authority. The first makes for a fundamental change of heart and character, eh? The second, only for temporary begrudged obedience or limited compliance. Seems like your tweaks of da program make it less likely to reach your goals with the boys, eh? Unless your goals really are all about declaring your own authority rather than leading the children to God. It's not unusual, eh? New Patrol Leaders and new teachers tend to rely more on their own authority rather than focusing on servant leadership, and yeh seem like a young fellow. But why don't yeh try using your NCCS materials and scouting properly for a couple of years before yeh write 'em off and do your own thing? I think you'll find you get better outcomes. There's a reason why your own Canon Law refers to the primacy of the parents in the religious education of the young, eh? Yeh might also find that by following your own program and the scouting program you offer a more Christ-like example as an adult. The Teacher always met each student where they were at, eh? It was those other Pharisee fellows who took the tack that the ordinary faithful were ignorants who had to be told what to think. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

the anger started with the $700 billion financial bailout that was voted on (and failed) in September, 2008. That was what started it all. The phones in Washington were ringing off the hook from constituents telling Reps and Senators to vote against it - that's why it didn't pass. Yah, but it passed less than a week later, eh? I can understand being angry about the need to bail out the banking industry. I can understand being furious about lettin' all those people who gambled with their depositor's money get away with big bonuses and no jail time. But yeh do understand that without TARP we would have had The Greater Depression, right? And I just don't see the fury I'd expect over all da folks who got a walk, nor the anger I'd expect over the completely ineffectual "bipartisan" financial reform bill. B

Yah, I think packsaddle is talkin' about the smear campaign that was run against McCain in some southern states in 2000, claiming that he had fathered an illegitimate black child off a prostitute. The anger has been there. Obama is the head of the party that is most rapidly heading the country to ruin. The republicans are not well liked either and are seen as the problem as well. The anger is towards all. Yah, OK, I get being mad at the lot of 'em. What I don't get is the focus on Obama and the explosion of energy after his election. TARP was Bush. The GM bailout was Bush. The Medicare expansion into Rx drugs was Bush. Earmarks were the Republican congress under bush. Expansion of the Department of Education with the No Child Left Behind Act was Bush. Two off-budget wars were Bush. The largest expansion of the federal debt was Bush. Foreign nation-building was Bush too, eh? In not one but two nations. Clinton never got sucked in that way to the former Yugoslavia. Yep, Obama gets and deserves low marks for da health bill, and especially for the 3000 page do-nothing financial reform act and not prosecuting any of those bad actors for fraud. The "stimulus" was on his watch as well, which while it saved many jobs saved mostly government jobs at da state and local government levels by keepin' the states from going bust. It never was big enough to make it out to actually help those in the private sector. And at least he's been runnin' the Afghan war on-budget. What I don't see is the difference, eh? So I don't understand all the added anger and "heading the country into ruin" rhetoric. Is it just that people are slow? I can believe that. Most folks don't understand that it takes 4-8 years for any fiscal policy to really show its effects, so they're always blaming the current guy for what the previous guy did. No different than those who blamed Bush for the mess that Clinton's tech bubble created, or who gave Clinton credit for the economic boom that was really created by the end of the Cold War and da first gulf war. So is that it? This is just da unfocused anger over the 2008 mess and the near-depression it caused, and the current guy in office always gets blamed? I could buy that I guess. Ordinary voter cluelessness, not racism, with racists like my friend's in-laws comin' along for the ride. But then here's another thing I don't get, eh? If you're mad at the whole lot of Congress for being ineffective, partisan, not-too-bright, self-interested goofs, yeh think you would put up some bright, intelligent, statesman-like non-partisan fellows. But the Tea Party candidates almost to a man don't fit that bill. Half of 'em are nutters. Rand Paul is talkin' about voting against raising the debt ceiling (causing the U.S. to default on its sovereign debt), fer crying out loud. Murkowski in Alaska was one of da most consistently reliable conservative voters in the Senate. Joe Miller is another nutter. Yah, I'm really just dense, eh? I just don't get it. Beavah

Yah, vol, I agree with yeh as usual. The bill is a mess, and they used a bunch of accounting gimmickry to hide the real costs. Thing is, a lot of da problems with the system are caused by Medicare, eh? So yeh have to address that as well in some way. I certainly don't have any great solutions either, and you're much closer to the system than I am. But I don't think ignorin' the thing was the way to go, or adding to Medicare with an Rx drug benefit. Talk about a boondoggle. But yeh don't see a sudden Tea-Party induced urge to repeal that, eh? It was recent enough to be a good target for "smaller government." Beavah

Yah, I never agree with Gern, but I'm sorta agreeing with Gern. That's a long, not particularly coherent list of gripes, eh? "Ramming through Obamacare". I don't get this. It was over a year in process. Republicans refused to participate (part of why it's a mess of a bill), so the Dems exercised their majority and went solo. The Patriot Act, now that was somethin' rammed through without transparency. "How about the way the stockholders and bondholders for GM were treated?" Huh? The company went BANKRUPT. When a company goes bankrupt, the stockholders and bondholders lose their shirts. It's called "personal responsibility", eh? A good ol' fashioned conservative notion. Know what you're investing in. "Stimulus money used as a slush fund." Yah, OK, the stimulus funding was a bit of a mess. Some of it was poorly targeted, and in 20:20 hindsight it was also too small. I get this. But it's not like it's the first Congressional appropriation that was a mess. Look at Iraq war funding. "Villifying Fox News, saying they aren't a legitimate news channel." I won't go there, eh? I honestly don't think any of the modern TV networks are very good news outlets. But da former administration certainly made a regular habit of takin' shots at the liberal media. What's new? "Again, anyone who thinks the Tea Party is all about racism is just plain stupid." Nobody said that the Tea Party is "all about" racism, or that everyone in it is racist. A friend of mine expressed his view to me that the core energy of the thing is fueled by racism. I asked what others felt. "a bad economy for which they hold the congress responsible" - Yah, OK, I get being angry about a poor economy, eh? But then it doesn't take much effort to fix the blame this time. The economic crash was caused by a bank collapse, just like the Great Depression, which resulted from banking deregulation, and a bubble fueled by typical Federal Reserve over-jiggering. All under Republican control and oversight. "the bailouts to some businesses but not to others" - What, they want the government to buy MORE businesses? "the extremists appointed as 'czars' with no oversight" - I think it was Ronald Reagan who appointed the first "Czar". Clinton had 'em, both Bushes had 'em. They're just an executive branch organizational tool to try to get different agencies to collaborate. Mostly for PR, but a few have been effective. I don't get the anger. "the concern over the banks being controlled by the government" - Yah, I don't get this either, eh? About da only "control" exercised was an almost meaningless attempt to cap executive "bonuses" for running the bank into the ground. And the bank bailouts were done by Bush, not Obama. "the arrogance to say that by adding 33,000,000 people to the health care roles that the costs will go down" - yah, but in every bill congress ever passes, Republican or Democrat, they claim that costs will go down, eh? It's nothing new. They've never been right. . Why the anger now? The financial reform act is also a mess of a bill, affecting an even more important part of the economy, and arguably doin' an even worse job at what was intended. Where's the anger over that? Yah, maybe I'm just confused or just don't get it, but there's very little here that isn't ordinary politics in a democracy, stuff that's been goin' on the last twenty years. There's nothing that seems to merit the anger. I probably really am just dense. Beavah

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of Scouts who know about the Silver Beaver, Antelope, Buffalo are because they have seen either the knot or the medal on a leader. Yah... the vast majority of da couple dozen scouts that would recognize a silver critter award. Seriously, most adult volunteers don't know what all the knots stand for, eh? The kids are by and large clueless. I think there's merit in a Boy Scouter wearin' his Eagle knot (it's his "current status" because once an Eagle, always an Eagle ). I think yeh can make the same claim for a Cub Scouter wearin' his AOL or a Venturing Advisor wearin' his Exploring Silver or a fellow who is a counselor for a youth religious award wearin' the knot. Generally speakin', though, I think adults do better by earning the adult religious award for their denomination if it's available. That would seem to speak more eloquently to the nature of a lifelong commitment to faith than parading about with the award yeh earned as a middle schooler. Just as earning the Boy Scout adult awards as a Boy Scouter speaks more eloquently to your commitment to the program than parading about with your cub scouter knots as a Boy Scouter. I would think a lad who really knew the knot system would be less impressed with your Ad Altare Dei and would instead ask yeh where your St. George knot is, eh? Of course your church, more than most, places a lot of emphasis on personal humility, eh? Your religious orders pretty much take as a uniform the clothing of the poor at the time they were founded, and eschew any personal award wear. Most Catholic scouters I know are not big-time knot wearers. So yeh might not wear your St. George. I had a new Boy Scout come up to me at the last Pack meeting I attended and say that he and I shared a knot. It was the religious knot, but he noticed and made mention of it. Yah, except by that logic of "shared insignia" we shouldn't be wearin' knots at all, eh? Because the lads can't earn knots (youth religious knot aside). We should instead keep the badges of rank we earned as youth on our pockets and wear our old MB sashes. But I think you're right. You can do all kinds of things with adult association around patches, especially sharing tales from your own scouting days as a way of spurring and really listening to their tales. Best is a patch blanket on a campout. Can spur all kinds of conversations. That's why the BSA Insignia Guide recommends patch blankets and jackets over excessive knot wear. I think adhering to the BSA guidelines and to the long tradition in Scouting of subdued, tasteful wearin' of select adult awards tied to your program is the "right thing to do." Beavah

I am going to be leading Parvuli Dei and Ad Altare Dei classes. Yah, this comment from da previous thread caught my eye, eh? I think most of the trained and experienced scouters have at least some level of aversion to "merit badge classes" as being a generally weak thing to do. Yah, sure, we allow for it sometimes at camp, but even there we recognize it's a weakening of both the spirit and intent of the program. Do the folks offering religious awards to youth follow that same scouting program intent? Should religious awards be pursued individually with a counselor like a merit badge? Do we really want any award in Scouting, but especially religious awards, to be school-like classes? I'm not particularly familiar with da current Catholic awards the poster above mentions. Parvuli Dei is a cub award which yeh might imagine a catholic pack having a den pursue as a group. But Ad Altare Dei is a Boy Scout award. Wouldn't it be better, and more in keeping with both da spirit of scouting and the spirit of religious formation to have 'em pursue it individually? Beavah

Yah, so I was having lunch today with a friend. Local businessman, CEO of a mid-sized company. Former board chair of the local Chamber of Commerce. Classic, old school conservative, sorta like a furry fellow with big teeth We're talking around the political scene, and da recent elections, and the Tea Party topic comes 'round. He tells me his in-laws are Tea Partyers, and that it wasn't until he had dinner with 'em earlier in the month that he figured it out. "It's not really a conservative movement, it's core is just racism. They can't get over the notion of a black man being president, and so they just object to almost anything he does. It's couched in other terms, but when yeh dig very far those things just become nonsensical. " I confess I was a bit surprised. This fellow is not the sort to make that kind of call. Maybe it was just because it was his in-laws. So I'm asking, seriously, for some deep reflection and perspective. Is that it? I confess, I find the policy positions of the Tea Party incomprehensible. And for incoherent policy positions, there sure seems to be a lot of energy and anger about something. That's not saying that everyone in da movement is a racist, or that the movement itself is proposing racist policy. But Im wondering about da core, eh? The energy. I've never really seen anyone get all fired up about the deficit or even about health care legislation for that matter. Certainly not about "smaller government". When Ross Perot started harping about the deficit he only generated a ripple, eh? Now I'm a fellow that doesn't go there easily, much like my friend. False or overstated claims of racism abound, and I've seen some reverse racism in Affirmative Action programs and in other areas. At the same time I'm not naive, eh? Real racial prejudice does exist. I was just surprised as could be at my friend's conclusion, because I actually respect this fellow's judgment and because he'd never in a million years go out of his way to come to that conclusion. And because I'd concluded that da Tea Party was like Earth, eh? "Mostly Harmless.". Another lobbyist-driven special interest group. I'm a northern GOP fellow, though, eh? Old school Christian sort. Real racism is to be always and everywhere opposed. Beavah

Egad! Me, a big fan of Obamacare? Good heavens no! It's a mess of a bill. Of course, da original Obama proposal was very close to the Mitt Romney plan, which had its origins in the Heritage Foundation, eh? Obama essentially proposed a moderate to conservative approach, eh? That's why he was assailed by the left. Congress, quite naturally, turns everything to hash . I faulted da Republicans for not engaging, because I think we would have gotten a much better bipartisan bill if they had done their job instead of pouting on the sidelines and lettin' Pelosi run the show. Health care is a hard problem, eh? Unlike regular business, there is a much stronger moral component to health care. I personally am not comfortable with a notion that one of our scouts injured at a camporee has to deplete his college fund and his family's life savings (and risk his family's home as well) to pay for his medical care, which was da one case that got brought up here. The scouter and Christian in me just can't go there. I don't remember if his dad had just lost a job (and with it health coverage) or what, but I'm not sure it matters. Taking care of the suffering, caring for our young, those are Christian moral obligations. I think there is a lot to object to in the health care legislation. I just haven't heard any of the detractors object to it, eh? They haven't read the thing any more than the congress critters. They just seem to object to it because President Obama proposed it. That makes no sense to me, since it originated in a conservative think tank and was adopted by a Republican fiscal conservative governor. Bush passed drug benefits for seniors which was a liberal program (and also a mess of a bill), and we didn't hear a similar hue and cry. I just don't get it. Just like I don't get how so many folks who object to "socialized medicine" don't object to Medicare and da VA health system. Maybe I'm just dense. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Easy there, fellows. I think it's pretty clear to everyone that the carrier bit was a presidential publicity and photo op. At the time, a darned imaginative and impressive one. Presidential photo ops and publicity are not lying, they're just part of the job. Yeh can't expect any politician not to market his brand or image. At the same time, it's totally kosher to criticize a publicity or marketing statement that goes awry, whether it's "mission accomplished" or "read my lips, no new taxes" or "I did not have sex with that woman!". No point in getting all hot and bothered about politicians being politicians, or fellow citizens criticizing politicians for being politicians. B

Yah, I'm tryin' to think if there are any genuinely difficult badges left. It seems to me that when I read some MB requirements, there are some nice, meaty requirements.... but often yeh can get around them by choosing "Option C" which is something like go on a field trip. Sometimes "Option C" seems like it's completely out of place compared to the other requirements, and essentially lets a boy off the hook on actually achieving something meaningful (other than fulfilling a paperwork exercise). B

Yah, camilam42, welcome to the forums and thanks for your comments! Can yeh provide a citation for the claim that an adult leader who doesn't wear all of his knots is "out of uniform". That's a new one on me, but hey, old scouters like me learn new things all the time. . I note that not even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wears all of his ribbons. I provided earlier in da thread the citation that suggests adult leaders should only wear awards relevant to their current status in the program, and should strive to keep their uniform from a seeming excess of insignia. So I think we need to be a bit circumspect about approaching others either for too many or too few knots. As NeilLup suggests, I mostly don't pay attention to adult uniforms, eh? I wouldn't say a thing to anyone about their uniform unless they asked (or unless they started picking on someone else's uniform, in which case I reckon they're fair game ). But when asked, I explain the excess insignia rule, da balance of good taste, the negative first impression it leaves in people who aren't familiar with scouting, and my personal experience that the most beknotted fellows are frequently the less capable scouters, particularly at relating to kids. I also agree with other fellows who mention that the boys arent really interested in or impressed by the knots. I've sat in on hundreds of Eagle BORs, and I've never once had a lad comment on his adult leader's knots. I honestly don't think yeh could find a single lad anywhere in the program who would claim he knows his SM is doin' a good job for him because of his knots. The boys know if the SM is there for him by other sorts of things, not the uniform. Now don't take this the wrong way, but I think yeh also want to think a bit more deeply about some of your definitions. Humility in not adorning oneself or calling attention to oneself is real humility, not false. Especially at a Court of Honor where the focus should be on the boys, and not on us. Reverence, our 12th point of the Scout Law, in my opinion has nothing to do with revering the BSA or its uniform. In fact, many if not most of our religious traditions in this country would consider that idolatrous, the very opposite of real reverence. Scouting is a great movement, but it is not owed reverence. Obedience I dealt with above, eh? Wearing a full display might be considered disobedient by folks who take the guidebooks seriously, but whatever yeh think about that, it's clear that wearing a full display is not required, and therefore not doing so is not disobedient. And I don't even get the Trustworthy claim Uniforming is a method of scouting, a tool to accomplish something with young men. Can I ask what goals yeh have for youth that yeh think are best addressed by adult knot displays? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, ljnrsu, I get where you're comin' from. To my mind, though, the trust funds are just an amusing fiction. Leastways they have been since LBJ raided them to pay for Vietnam. So net, what yeh have is taxes of various sorts in and expenses of various sorts out. Our biggest expenses are the entitlements and defense. So to balance the annual budget yeh have to address those. And those expenses are also the ones growing disproportionately each year. In fact this year the SS expenses exceeded revenues, so those obligations had to be paid out of other tax revenues or by issuing public debt. Yep, from a fund accounting perspective the trust funds are theoretically solvent for the time being. But non-negotiable low interest government IOUs that have to be funded by future tax revenues do not a balance sheet make. Its just an accounting mechanism, not something real. Da fact that the AIG auto insurance reserve fund was solvent at the time the company went into federal receivership didn't change the fact that the company was bankrupt. The auto insurance reserve fund was just an accounting mechanism. ------- Gunny, I'd love to hear it if yeh can pass along any Tea Party proposal that is "real". Mostly, from what I can tell, they are predominantly older, more rural special interest lobby. They want their social security, Medicare, defense, farm subsidies, and federal support for rural electrification and communications infrastructure and roads. Anything that helps them. They want "smaller, less intrusive" government when it comes to responding to urban problems or da issues affecting younger folks, eh? Yeh can cut education, housing, urban renewal, public health,art, the Smithsonian. Those, unlike farm subsidies and welfare for the old folks are "wasteful.". Yah, the rhetoric is different. Isn't it always? But that's the substance of it. Yeh can't even put a dent in the deficit without addressing defense, entitlements, and retirement guarantees. It's not "all", but it's almost all. Everything else is re-arranging deck chairs on the sinking ship. --------- Woapalanne, I agree with yeh, eh? There are some taxes that are revenue negative. They put too big a drag on things. Luxury taxes of some sorts are like that, eh? Raise the taxes on yachts, and all yeh do is lose money by putting lots of hardworking yacht builders and maintainers out of work. Increasing other taxes, like gasoline or cigarette taxes, can have positive economic effects. But in Reagan's era, while revenues went up, the debt went up faster, eh? Reagan failed in getting the government to pay its own way, social security nearly went bust. The notion that tax cuts could stimulate enough growth to overcome da deficit spending failed. Lots of factors affect economic growth, and marginal tax rate is only a marginal factor. Productive population might be da biggest, deepest determiner of economic growth, and our young, productive population is stagnant. Changing that requires immigration and education. So if yeh cut education, yeh reduce long term economic growth. Cut the GI Bill and yeh get soldiers that have a harder time transitioning to the productive economy. Talk about wasteful! Our young people are our biggest asset. Thats why we invest our time in Scouting. Turning out guys who are good at welding when we need guys who are good at programming welding machines, that's wasteful. This stuff is hard, eh? It's not amenable to simplistic "anti-Washington" solutions. There are some things that government should do, and some other things it shouldn't. We all need to debate that, thoughtfully. And probably without being too hard on each others elected representatives. Even though "so dense that they have their own event horizon" seems to apply more often than not (apologies to Eagledad) B

I like John-in-KC's notion, eh? I think any troop that has its own gear needs to budget for depreciation of the gear. Buy a tent for $250? Then yeh have to budget $50 a year for replacement of that tent in 5 years (or $25 in ten, etc.). Don't be optimistic about tent lifetime, eh? Yeh have to take into account kid-use and stuff getting lost. Own 10 tents? then $500 a year goes into the bank as the tent reserve fund (or goes to buying two tents this year, setting up a rotating replacement). In terms of operatin' fund reserves, I'd say plan on your biggest fundraiser each year gettin' clobbered. The pancake breakfast building burns down, there's a scare about bedbugs in Trails End popcorn, your trailer gets stolen and yeh have to rent/buy some new gear on a short-term basis, whatever. Have enough to weather one such disaster. Beyond that, it's a more strategic question, eh? Are yeh doin' all you should be doing? Should you support youth with more camperships? Are yeh seeing good lads "avoid" higher-cost outings? Will some added adult training funds help yeh move to a new level? If yeh make an investment in backpacking gear, will that expand your troop's program? Beavah

Sorry to disagree, Eagledad. A moratorium on earmarks is just a pyrrhic victory, a meaningless symbol. It's not changin' a philosophy/way of thinking, it's just changin' a method. All that will happen is that people will horse-trade support for a bill for "earmark-like" things in another bill. That change-the-method or fight-the-symbol approach shows a profound lack of understandin' of social systems and governance. The Republicans set new heights to earmarking in the Bush years, eh? Yeh think that's suddenly goin' to stop because now Mitch McConnell is goin' along with it for the moment? Wallpapering over what amounts to less than 1% of the budget doesn't achieve a thing. The Tea Party folks are simultaneously asking for lower taxes, low immigration, protecting entitlement programs, and supportin' a robust national defense. That is just lunacy (or whatever more respectful, less "name calling" term yeh can come up with for inability to do arithmetic). And they'll talk about NPR or foreign aid or some such trivia and not mention entitlement programs or even farm subsidies. Dense. (or whatever more respectful, less name-calling term yeh can come up with for complainin' about da gas mileage lost powering your radio when you're driving a Humvee with da AC blasting at 95 mph uphill towing a houseboat). Da only viable solution is the one that Gunny mentions, eh? Shared sacrifice. No wars that aren't fully funded out of everyone's own pocketbooks. The Tea Party-ers proposing a sweeping cut to Medicare, Social Security, retirement and safety net programs without any cut in taxes, and then agreeing to tithe some additional portion of their personal wealth and income to supportin' the folks such cuts will put on the streets. Agreement to bring as many young, healthy, hardworkin' immigrants into the system to help pay for things as is possible. At best the Tea Party is just another special interest lobby wanting more from the government for their interests and expectin' someone else to pay for it. But since it's part of the modern Republican "borrow and spend" movement, they expect their grandchildren to pay rather than taxin' themselves. At worst, they're a bunch of folks who are being manipulated by others that are good at PR messaging and mobilization and aren't savvy enough to realize it. As an old-school fiscal and moral conservative I sympathize with their sentiment, eh? But I just can't drink that kool-aid. So maybe that makes me a RINO? Or maybe it makes me an old fuddy-duddy from da responsible, conservative Republican Party who thinks da Tea Partyers are RINOs? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

1) I like your solution, eh? Just get a signoff from their troop that they have slept in a tent, or maybe slept in a tent in a cool/warm weather month. 3) So include some LNT stuff. "Educative Test-out". Get some pamphlets with the 7 principles, and at each skill station ask 'em to apply the proper principle. Seems like a natural for firebuilding (what type for what location, when not to, transport of wood, etc.), packing (how to limit garbage by planning ahead), etc. Only real issue is there isn't a T-2-1 thing on waste disposal, so maybe insert that (no burning food/garbage in fires, how to wash dishes, how to take a dump in the woods). 2 & 4) So put 'em together in groups and have 'em review/teach each other for a short stretch before each individual test-out, then cheer for each other as they go one by one for their skills check. At the end, do a debrief with each "patrol" group, where they do a roses & thorns and give suggestions to each other on strengths and areas for continued improvement. B

Hey, promotin' the economy and tourism industry of her state is a good thing for a "personality" like her, eh? Probably one of the better things she's done.