Beavah

Right there with yeh, Brent. I think yeh tax petrol, but then yeh let the market generate the alternatives, not the government. The point is to just make the thing that's bad for us more expensive, not to tell people what to do. If diesel is the best road to efficiency, then diesel it is. If it's natural gas powered vehicles, then natural gas it is. If it's developing new domestic industry closer to the market because transport costs are higher, so be it. People are free to decide. Where government gets involved in stuff, it should do so in a simple, transparent, predictable way that lets markets do what they do best. The advantage of da "Cost of Freedom" incremental gas tax is that it's simple, transparent, and predictable. It's not a 3000 page piece of legislation that will take 10 years of litigation before a corporation can rely on it to make business decisions. It's not complex enough to hide special interest loopholes in. It's not tryin' to dictate behavior or pick winners and losers based on lobbyist dollars. And by my back of da envelope calculations, it would also get us to a zero deficit in 7 years, in combination with da other stuff. But big-government folks love da 3000 page bills, eh? Requires a whole federal agency to administer. Ensures a gravy train for lawyers and lobbyists and accountants lookin' for loopholes. That's why cap & trade is such a bad idea, where I could support a simple carbon tax, especially if yeh reduced other business taxes to match. But regardless of what yeh feel about a general carbon tax, a petrol tax is absolutely vital to our national security, and would support our domestic industry. Beavah

Yah, up here in da north yeh have to go with the gasoline stoves. Propane is weak and isobutane is just silly. Most common I see patrols using are Whisperlites. Good tradeoff in value, practicality, easy of maintenance. Yeh see some of the Coleman/Peak One stoves too, but the Whisperlite folks always seem much happier . For da Gulf Coast, yeh probably don't need to go with gasoline fuels, but yeh do have to look at da issue of fixed vs. variable cost. The butane/propane mix stoves are cheaper to buy up front, but those canisters can kill yeh over the long haul. They are easier to operate for the lads, though. Beavah

Yah, it's a nice theory, jblake. But da world tends not to be too kind to nice theories . At the core, troops really function based on Adult Association, eh? It's the adult leadership that ultimately determines the direction, size, and character of a troop. The lads are too transient. Even da best of youth leaders tends to give yeh a couple of years only. Enough to make an impact, but not enough to sustain a program. Mega-troops tend to form around dynamic adults who like that sort of operation and are good at attractin' other adults to support it. But da nature of that is that those are not adults who have a deep understandin' of and commitment to Patrol Method in the "pure" form you envision. Let's face it, even with Kudu beatin' on all of us only a fraction of the dedicated scouters on these forums run that sort of thing, eh? But when you're talkin' the adult support for a large troop, you're talkin' a lot of plain old ordinary MC and ASM parents who've never heard of 300 feet. Plus, I think what yeh also find is that even with da best of Patrol Method yeh need a higher level of Adult Association than what yeh propose. That was why B-P speculated the ideal troop was around 32 boys. Just the sort of mentoring conversations and parent de-helicoptering and occasional morale-boosting or nudging toward growth that an experienced scouter can pull off but da average PL can't... or at least not without some hands-on guidance. Once da troop gets big enough to be outside the SM's reasonable span of inspiration/control the strong Patrol Method tends to break down - either by becomin' more adult-directed or by not retaining boys. Da mega-troops do, by and large, run separate high adventure trips for older boy "companies" if not patrols, and often some separate new scout "company" events. But if yeh just think about the number of adult drivers that typically entails, yeh can see how what tends to happen is that things get adult-driven (in more ways than one ) in a lotta ways. Interestingly enough, the patrols may well be fairly independent in da small things in their campsite because the adults aren't "dedicated" to da patrol in terms of knowing the boys well, which is why you can often find more bullying. So by and large in da big troops yeh get patrols as administrative entities more than full-out Patrol Method like what you're talkin'. Now before I get lynched by a bunch of big-troop scouters, let me say that all I'm reportin' on are generalities and trends, eh? Your local mileage may vary. Cubby also raised da economics of all that gear. I'd say that most mega-troops don't maintain truly separate patrol gear for all their patrols. Beyond that, with size often comes fundraising prowess and more folks with trailer hitches, so da gear issue isn't usually a limiting factor. Beavah

Yah, leave it to Gern to think of da marketing. OK, we'll call it the Liberty Tax, for our freedom from foreign despots. And make it an increase of just 1 cent per month. Beavah

Hmmm... All those sound pretty reasonable. Except the gas tax. I'd make da gas tax go up by 10 or 15 cents each year... forever. Nothin' damages our national security and economy more than our foreign oil dependence, and da capital markets need some reliable price projections to justify investments in alternatives and other technologies. Most of our foreign oil trade funds scum and villains that we have to then spend military hardware, foreign aid, and American lives dealin' with. Once we've started chewin' some holes in the debt and made sure we can pay for our military expenditures and veterans services we could start refunding da gas tax in the form of a permanent "cash for clunkers" program and buildin' the infrastructure to support alternatives. After that, we can cut da corporate income tax on companies developing domestic jobs. Then we start exportin' our newly developed technology and do even better, eh? And just imagine the various Arab oil regimes and that nutter in Venezuela havin' a conniption. Gas went up 15 cents just in the last week, eh? We can handle gradual increases of that sort. It'd do more to enhance our national security than every war we've fought in da mideast. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, big/mega troops are an interestin' thing, eh? Usually they come as a result of a key adult leader (SM) and a group of active parents. They can be very active, fun units with a lot of esprit de corps. I think you're right, da tendency in such troops is to military-camp in one big group. Often the adults at least cook as a big group of 20+ people. But I expect if yeh had the time to look closer, Cubby, you would have seen some patrol action goin' on. Big troops do tend to have more of an adult-run sorta presence, especially for the NSPs and some of the non-Venture regular patrols. Yeh just need a lot of adult horsepower to move all that gear and help da youth with the span-of-control issues. So yah, probably more "troop method" than some, certainly tend to be a bit more adult directed, but on the other hand yeh get a lot of activity and parent enthusiasm, eh? Sorta like da youth hockey programs up here. Not da best scouting, IMO, but not the worst. Yeh do have to be alert for bullying issues in da bigger programs. My personal preference is to start a new troop in an area that has a mega-troop or to spin one off. Not because mega-troops are necessarily a bad thing (just another flavor of scoutin'), but because when the key adult(s) in a mega-troop move on or retire, those troops tend to collapse in size relatively quickly. So yeh really don't want all your scouting eggs in an area in one basket, so to speak. It's particularly problematic if one "mega" troop is killing off smaller programs, since that can leave no alternatives when the big program hits a downturn. I've seen mega-troops go from 100 to zero in less than three years after da loss of the SM. Beavah

Yah, of course "opinions". That's what the original poster asked for, eh? Our opinions on the issue. Yeh didn't think you were going to get something other than people's opinions on an Internet forum, did ya? Beavah

For him to compare somebody who is a fellow scouter who's only crime is wearing what Beavah feels is too many knots, to a former politician who committed actual crimes against society is quite surprising to me. Yah, just to be clear... My comment about Spiro Agnew had nothing to do with wearing knots, eh? It was a response to BrentAllen referring to those who expressed a different view as "nattering nabobs". For those of yeh not old enough to remember, "nattering nabobs of negativity" was a phrase coined by Spiro Agnew to refer to the press. It was, of course, the fault of the press that Agnew committed tax fraud... at least in Agnew's mind. A corrupt politician's attack on the folks who helped hold him accountable for his behavior is not an example I personally would choose for Scouting. Though I guess I did take it as a personal complement For wearing knots, I think it's just a tool, eh? What yeh choose depends on your goals. Just like over in da LDS thread, eh? If the goal is developing quorum identify, then the age-based setup makes sense, and I support 'em in doin' it. If the goal is outdoor skills development or a high level of alignment with the rest of the US Scouting community, then possibly the 11 year old YM first year program isn't as good a choice. So my question to folks is just what your goals are, eh? For my goals for boys and for workin' with adult volunteers, following the traditional BSA guidance makes more sense, or even being a bit more conservative. But I don't think anybody should be chained to the guidebooks, eh? If yeh have some goal that yeh feel a "full display" helps yeh achieve (despite da perceptions and feedback of fellow scouters expressed here), then go for it. I don't see it myself. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, dropping da mortgage interest deduction has been a component of Republican "flat tax" proposals for years, eh? And increasing da retirement age for SS is inevitable. It seems like they're at least makin' a go of things, though I can't say I'm particularly fond of a plan that still shows a deficit 10 years out. Slowing the rate at which we're mortgaging the country to China is not a victory. B

The purpose of the embroidered knot is to replace the medal it represents, and thus help keep the uniform neat and uncluttered. So by that characterization, are yeh suggesting that folks be limited to no more than 5 embroidered knots (since that is the limit on the number of medals that may be worn)? I can see that, though I think 6 (two rows) is also a reasonable limit for a fellow with a lot of years serving one program. As for da rest, I always find it so enlightening when those who frequently quote guidebook passages at others find it "high and mighty" when others do the same to them. As someone else pointed out in da last thread on the topic, the BSA materials haven't really changed over da years, eh? The instruction to adults to be "tasteful" and avoid "overdecoration" of the uniform goes back to da SM Handbooks of the 50s. So "decoration" is the BSA's term, FScouter, not mine. Feel free to express your disgust to that infantile fellow Green Bar Bill. The "proper" way to use the knot insignia is what da guidebooks have been saying for at least half a century: keep it simple and tasteful, avoid excess, display what's relevant to your current status/position. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, BrentAllen, da section is called "Special Regulations" and applies to everyone. It refers variously to scouts, scouters, venturers, cubs, etc. Da specific paragraph on Excess Insignia says "Members", eh? Not "Scouts". And "status" is pretty self-explanatory, especially with the "every effort to keep their uniforms neat and uncluttered" comment. What's your current position in da movement? Wear only those things relevant to your current position. Put da rest on a patch blanket or somesuch. Except, of course, "at functions where such a display is invited". So there might be special occasions. Of course nobody is goin' to play uniform cop, and we all will find ways of justifying our views no matter what the guidebooks say, based on da values we have and what we feel is most important to teach the lads. The BSA doesn't really care about this stuff, so you're free to decorate your uniform as much or as little as yeh want, with official, unofficial, earned, unearned, or just plain amusin' badges and doodads. It's a kids' program, eh? Yeh can have as much fun with it as yeh like, call as much attention to yourself as yeh like, choose what sort of example yeh personally want to be. I've chosen mine, and Eagle92 asked why, and I gave him my answer. You can choose differently, eh? Just like yeh can choose to emulate the style and words of a former Vice President who resigned in disgrace for tax fraud. We all decide what example we want to set, and what we feel is important to teach the boys. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Why wouldn't you wear Cub Scouting leadership knots on a Venturing uniform? Because it's contrary to the uniforming guidelines, eh? To whit: With the exception of the Cub Scout badges of rank and Arrow Points (which get worn until no longer a cub scout), members wear only the insignia that show their present status in the movement. Members should make every effort to keep their uniforms neat and uncluttered. Keep those old awards around on a patch jacket or blanket, eh? They can make great mementos of your time spent in scouting. But yeh only wear those that are relevant to your current status in the movement. So when yeh move on to Boy Scouting, time to follow da example of the youth and take off your Cub Scouting awards. You need to be trained and earn your stripes in Boy Scouting. A boy would look silly in a Venturing uniform shirt sporting all of his cub badges of rank, eh? No different for adults. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... A thanks to Gary_Miller, BartHumphries and others for takin' the time to share with us brothers in Scouting and try to inform everyone from their perspective. As with any such sharing of perspectives, each takes away what revelation his or her own soul is ready to hear. God speaks, our friends and fellows speak, but we aren't always ready to listen, eh? Sometimes da negative experiences of each individual's past get in the way; other times the language trips us up. Same goes both ways. BartHumphries, I think you'll find that most of us fellow Christians still believe in all da things you mention. We might at times use different words or have a slightly different perspective, but da essence doesn't differ at all from what you describe as LDS belief. And while not all Christian denominations tie their Scouting program as tightly to their religious education program (in part because most religious education is co-ed), many do use da Scouting program the way it was intended - as a component of their youth ministry work. In fact, yeh see a fair number of ministry-focused Venturing crews. I do think there are a few ways that LDS tends to implement Scouting that don't make as effective a use of the program as is possible. Of course that's true of everybody. But it's unique in da LDS case because it's a pattern that repeats across a lot of troops. It's interesting and heartening to know that some modifications are possible on da local level, and that the direction from above is consonant with movin' toward that sort of more effective scouting model. For da rest, it's just hard for folks with different perspectives, language, and goals to hear each other well, eh? Thanks again for takin' time as brothers in Scouting to share. And thanks for all yeh continue to do for the youth in America. Beavah

Yah, I'm with E83, eh? This stuff can drive yeh nuts if yeh let it, radfordjr. Often times yeh find that parents are more petty than their kids are. If you're going to be effective as a leader in a youth program, you have to have feathers. Make like a duck, let the random rainstorm roll off. Don't get any more upset about it than you would about a two-year-old throwing a temper tantrum when he's tired. It's just the way two-year-olds are, eh? Same with some parents. It's just the way they are, and yeh aren't going to change it. All you can change is how much you let it bother you. So don't. I wouldn't hold meetings over old stuff like this. It'll just cement the bad attitude. Keep an eye on it, and if somethin' substantive comes up again (like the alcohol), then hold a meeting when it's "fresh". In the future, I would echo Scoutfish and not be shy about medical conditions. Nothing embarrassing about it, and the explanation to the boys is a good one, eh? We want to be an example to the boys of being helpful, so when we can't be because our bodies won't let us it's good to give them an explanation. And then thank them for being especially helpful for you! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, great advice from da crowd. The new TLT is really pretty lame. Get in the field, use segments of the old JLT and Green Bar Bill material. IMHO, da best TLT is when you tailor it to the lads that you have participating. Got a young group? Review and challenge basic skills. Got an older group? Review and challenge how to teach younger fellows, or run safety. Had troubles with planning recently? Dream up and plan some outings together, or have 'em plan a weekend just for the junior leaders and go do it! To answer your specific questions: (1) Usually yeh just invite those who are going to be serving as junior leaders. That allows you to focus on their needs, and push 'em along. That way when they turn around to lead their patrols, they know something/are more confident than the rest of their patrol, and can be an effective leader. (2) It's really up to you. As others have mentioned, if yeh do an effective TLT program instead of the canned current syllabus, the boys will learn something new each time they take it. And being an SPL is just different than being a PL or QM or Scribe, so makin' them do it again is probably the norm for most troops. (3) I think it's always best to tailor a TLT to the boys, eh? But you do want to repeat key stuff. Just because you've taught it once doesn't mean that they've heard it . B

Yah, and da irony of the whole thing, John-in-KC (and moosetracker) is that there's not much of a correlation between trained unit leaders and any of National's metrics of successful troops. And what correlation there is is what moosetracker describes ... volunteers in small units who don't have much help or much time to give also don't have time for training. So training really doesn't seem to improve da quality of unit programs. The thing that's driving training just seems to be legal CMA not any demonstrated program benefit for the kids. Rockford, I hear you and other folks on da YP issues. But that's not IOLS, eh? Let's not get things confused. And honestly, YPT hasn't seemed to stop da many molestation cases we still hear about, leastways not the adult version. Beavah

Most councils are not yet part of a pilot "required training" program yet, Rockford8070. You are our guinea pigs. So far, da guinea pigs have been reportin' that the required training bit has been a real pig. Several councils have abandoned or delayed it, just because of the inability to accurately track training records. Most are runnin' into what you describe as well. Now, don't take this the wrong way, but I think yeh need to take a step back and get a different perspective. Instead of thinkin' about it like a council or district fellow, think about it like a unit fellow. During the 2 years that the SM has "had" to meet this requirement, he's done somethin' like 20 successful outings with his troop, eh? Plus his "hour a week" at 80 or so reasonably successful meetings. What about your OLS training program is a good "sell" to a scoutmaster who has just done 20+ successful outings and 80+ successful meetings? What about your OLS training program is so all-fired important that you're willing to fire a fellow who has just done 20+ successful outings and 80+ successful meetings? And in all that time, if this was so important to yeh, why couldn't yeh just send a district trainer along on one of those 20+ outings to do the IOLS test-out option (while givin' a few hints here and there on how to improve ). Wouldn't that have been a lot friendlier? We commish folks are supposed to be friends to da unit, right? What rational person wouldn't be pissed off about da approach your DC took, especially from an organization that they were paying money to for support services? I think your DC blew it, and you all need to re-think your approach. We don't order da unit leaders around, we serve them. We don't browbeat 'em, we work with 'em and encourage 'em. If you make your IOLS training really exceptional, word will get out. If you deliver it to them rather than makin' them come to you, you will get more cooperation. If yeh make da test-out options clear, up-front, and easy you will demonstrate respect for da fact that they are taking boys out in the woods every month and that big, fat DC is not. Our role as district and council scouters is one of support and service. Never, ever forget it. And don't fall into da trap of believing that the unit folks have to listen to or obey or do things so that we can "make our numbers." Yeh can catch more flies with honey and good scoutly companionship than with a lot of vinegar and bluster, eh? Take your DC out for a cuppa Joe and introduce him to honey. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, and I'm still curious whether a local ward can implement a different, more traditional scouting program along the lines I suggested, eh? Extended webelos II for 11-year-olds. Boy Scouting / Varsity Scouting for 12-13 and 14-15 with a goal for First Class by age 13 and Eagle by age 15, using da 14-15 year olds as PLs/leaders for the 12-13s. And 16-17 Venturers, who help in JASM/Guide/Instructor roles in the younger programs. Maybe it's that "quorum identity" thing bacchus mentions. But it seem this would be a better, more effective use of da BSA materials without as many safety / advancement mill concerns. I fully support your ability to run a BSA unit as you see fit to reach your goals, and I think some here are being unfair in their criticism. But there are some areas where the departure from what we'd generally consider a strong BSA program implementation seems also to work against your own goals. Beavah

Well, acco, now you're forgettin' about da employer's contribution. So assuming jblake could bargain for da same net salary cost, you'd double all your figures. Startin' in 1963 as you say, and assumin' a rate of return equivalent to just the principal growth in da S&P500 over the period (6.5%), that would give jblake just shy of $900K, or at da same 6.5% an annual income of $57K without drawing down da principal. That's not including dividends, eh? If yeh add in even modest dividend yields, it puts his principal well up over $1M at retirement, or an annual retirement income in the $75K range. By contrast, da maximum social security benefit from the same hypothetical individual would be $2346 per month, or a bit over $28K per annum. So private investment returned between 2 and 3 times what social security did in terms of retirement income, even given da dismal performance of the market for the past 10 years. And of course he has no principal to draw from with social security, where with private investment he still has a million or so dollars in the bank to use as he sees fit. Drawing down the principal would of course yield a retirement income vastly in excess of social security. Now, yeh could say he'd probably have been less aggressive than 100% in equities in his later years, in which case he'd have done even better. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I just don't get da social Darwinism bit, eh? What yeh have is a limited resource: high end medical care. Whenever yeh have a limited resource, yeh have to allocate it somehow. There are lots of ways. Yeh can do it by market economics. Those who can afford da limited resource are able to purchase it, others can't. That has the advantage that it provides capital for the resource to expand to meet the needs of the unserved market... as long as there isn't a monopoly control of da resource. Da market does need some regulation, though, to guard against fraud. Yeh can do it by having da government allocate the resource. That doesn't provide capital or incentive for expanding the resource (or for shrinking an underutilized resource). And while yeh can point to some successful versions of this, governments by and large are interested in themselves, eh? Like as not the resources are goin' to go to the "friends" of those in power... or to buying such "friends". Yeh can have "experts" allocate da resource. That can work better than government at deliverin' the resource where it's most needed, but again it doesn't provide incentive for expanding da resource. And a lot of technical experts aren't used to dealin' with the sort of personal and political pressure that comes with such a role. Packsaddle is right, of course. From a "health of the national economy" perspective, the best investment is to fully fund health care for children and young people. Anything yeh do to extend or improve da quality of their productive years is good for the nation. Just like investing in education. By the time yeh get to my age, it's a worse investment, eh? Diminishing returns. Will that open heart surgery really give me enough more productive years to merit da economic cost? Is multiple surgery and radiation and chemo really warranted if I got Stage IV cancer? Not economically. It would be bad investment for the nation, unless perhaps I was involved in a research program that might help others. It'd be a poor risk pool for an insurer. Of course, I'd want da open heart surgery, eh? I'm on good enough terms with my Maker, but I'd just as soon not test that quite yet! And frankly, I'd just as soon someone else paid for it. But I'm not sure that's a reasonable thing to ask; certainly it doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to demand, especially if I were to need a bypass because of my love of a good prime rib. Charity, of course, is a different matter, but I'd never consider receiving other people's charity a "right." What we've done with Medicare is create a right to high end care for the group that provides the least economic return for that national investment. Essentially, da cost of Medicare is causing young people and families to go uninsured or without medical care, which is a terrible social policy. It's like cutting K-12 schools to provide a free public education to 90-year-olds. And frankly I'm appalled by da mores of my generation that thinks nothing of considering it a "right" to rob our grandchildren and impoverish and weaken da nation that our own grandparents built at great sacrifice for us. Beavah

Yah, of course it's da media's fault, acco. Ethics means not just doing everything yeh can to grab an easy buck. Whether you're a banker or a news outlet or even an attorney . Yeh have to think about what your role and responsibility is to your clients, to your country, to your God. And it definitely is your fault if yeh go for the quick and easy buck at the expense of your Duty. Isn't that what we teach every day in Scouting? Even well off and well educated Americans don't have the time or sophistication to read and discern a 3000 page law by themselves. I'm an old pro at this and I gave up after around 500. . Da thing is like a welfare act for lawyers and bureaucrats. I'm sure nobody on this list even tried, and there are a lot of bright folks here with good civic values. That's where an independent media has to come in. Yeh can't expect the populace to do it on their own, eh? Part tim, untrained folks cantvkeep up with a full-time, highly paid and staffed bunch of slime balls. Beavah

Yah, I don't think either you or Kudu are bein' unclear, OGE. I think you're just comin' at things from a very different philosophical starting place. A bit like givin' directions to someone over a radio. He says "turn left" because where he's at left is clearly da way to go. You look up from da radio and you see nothing but a cliff to your left. In order to see da path he's pointing to , yeh first have to get where he's at. In order for him to give yeh good directions, he's got to figure out where you're at. Right now, he's just yellin' "Trail!" and you're just yellin' "Cliff!". Of course it doesn't help that he spends most of his time on da radio ranting about how you must have one of those 1970s issue maps that always leaves people stranded on the side of a cliff. Honestly, I think both of your views lead to reasonable scouting, and I can point to troops that start where you are that I think are great and ones that are poor, and same for where Kudu is at. Of the two, though, yours might be more adult run/guided. Hey, it has to be when you're on a cliff with a map that has a few holes chewed in it. . This is why Kudu rants so much, though. It's because those that adhere really strictly to the current BSA materials do tend to get in an unproductive mindset sometimes, like da First Class First Year curriculum that ol' BobWhite once presented here. Unlike him, I don't see da BSA materials as that bad, but then I come at 'em with a different perspective than someone who is new to Scouting. I do have more of an issue with our training program, which really is pretty poor by any measure. Maybe it would be interestin' to do a thing from a kid's point of view.. Beavah

Yah, gotta agree with Calico, eh? Da Fourth Estate has really let us down. One of da reasons we allowed a completely ineffective, 3000 page monstrosity of a "financial reform" bill go through is because everyone in da press was too lazy or stupid to read and understand the thing, and then alert the American people to what was goin' on. So we got 3000 page of smokescreen, and no accountability. Glass-Steagall was only about 30 pages and protected da system for 70 years. But no, no, we can't possibly expect the banks to make money the boring, slow, old-fashioned way. Not when they can gamble with other people's money with complete immunity. Da health care effort was similar. 2500 pages? Just another smokescreen. Make it too long for the lazy press to read, too complicated for the stupid press to understand, and then yeh can tell 'em whatever yeh want and they'll print it as the story. Beavah

Yah, you can probably find a half dozen threads on the topic, eh? But hey, this one is more fun than talkin' about health care. Or gettin' a root canal. In da real American military you most definitely do not need to wear all of your ribbons on either your dress or service uniform under ordinary conditions. I don't remember that ever bein' the case in the past, either, but then even I haven't been around forever . For a youth program like da BSA, the uniform is a tool to achieve some things with the youth, so I think yeh have to think about it that way. For da kids and community and CO that yeh have, what's the best way to use the adult uniform as a tool to help kids learn and grow? Some folks are of the "wear all the bling" camp. Show da kids that you're committed, show the kids what they can some day earn if they stay with scouting, show the kids that it's OK for them to pursue awards for their uniform too. Some folks, and the historical and current BSA materials, are in da "understated" camp. They feel wearin' too much adult bling looks tacky, is reminiscent of a banana republic general, is more about da adult wanting to be recognized than really being about the kids. Knot-free uniforms for Wood Badge are also part of this tradition, eh? Me personally, I'm more in da latter camp. I don't tend to wear knots at all. When I do, I limit 'em to those relevant to da position I'm serving in, eh? No cub leader knots if I've got a Venturing Advisor patch on, or vice versa. As a council scouter, only knots relevant to that position. There was a time where I had a mess of 'em on a backing that I could pin on when visiting a unit that was into full formal wear (on da "when in Rome" theory), but that just became too tiresome. And though I merit at least one of 'em, I refuse to wear da "buy yourself a knot" knots. Offhandedly, I reckon that da main reason for that is that my personal experience has been that the more beknotted a fellow the less effective he is as a scouter. Just my observation over da years. The beknotted folks tend to be more into da trappings of scouting than actually being good at working with kids. And if yeh take a step back and look at it from da point of view of a youth or parent who didn't grow up in scouting, yeh have to recognize that it looks perfectly ridiculous, like Halloween Saddam Hussein costumes. Grown men playin' at being kids or military wanabe's. Beavah

Congratulations, Gern, for admittin' that you enjoy lowerin' the level of discussion to da level of Sarah Palin. They say the first step to a cure is admitting you have a problem. I liked your comment about da VA. Maybe you're not old enough to remember what the VA was not so long ago. For years, the Department of Veterans Affairs' sprawling health care system was criticized by veterans groups and government investigators as a dangerous backwater of medicine. Report after report portrayed it as suffocating from top-heavy bureaucracy, dirty and unsafe hospitals, and little or no accountability. Thousands of eligible patients opted to get their care elsewhere. - Washington Post Remember da decomposing bodies of three missing patients found on the hospital grounds? Remember da Tom Cruise movie "Born on the Fourth of July"? The VA did pull a remarkable turnaround, due to some remarkable individuals. But of course yeh also remember that the fellow most responsible for the VA turnaround was forced out by special interest politics. So which do yeh suppose is da norm for a government agency? High efficiency? Or special interest politics forcing out the best people, limited accountability, and suffocatin' bureaucracy? It's a great act of unquestioning religious faith to "believe" in government. Beavah