Beavah

There's no such thing as solving all da problems, Gern. But nobody's goin' to get anywhere with da present irrational nature of da dialog. Yeh can make a case for socializing medicine, or at least basic care, but if yeh do that then yeh have to allow for sovereign immunity, eh? Yeh can make a case for free market medicine, but not with a monopolized supply, and not without being willing to watch da uninsured scout in your troop be crippled for life because his family can't afford his treatment after da Camporee incident. What we can't have as a nation is everything. We can't have exceptional high-end care and low costs and limited supply and universal coverage and large awards for mistakes and excellent drug research and low drug costs. Most nations have made a compromise where they drastically reduce access to high-end care (either directly or through long delays in scheduling) and have very limited legal remedies for medical issues (either by law or by culture), in exchange for universal general care. They rely on da US funding drug research rather than investing in it themselves. Some of those options we don't have, eh? Da rest is just a question of our public policy views and priorities. Beavah

Yah, I like that quote. A Scout Salute to all da members, past and present, of the USMC for their service. Happy 235th! Semper Fi!

Nah, your freedom ends at the point where you are imposing a social cost on others. Doesn't matter what da mechanism is by which you demand others' resources, by stickup or by manipulation. It's not a freedom issue, nor is it a legal issue as Blanc implies. It's a public policy issue. No different than Good Samaritan laws or statutory immunity for NFP volunteers or immunity for reporters of suspected child abuse. Or are yeh in favor of repealing those "limits on freedom" too, Gern? This is, of course, an example of why this nation finds it impossible to build a rational, economically efficient health policy, eh? Everyone turns their particular issue into a Sacred Cow involving "freedom". Can't make me buy insurance, can't make me stop suing, can't make me not get da most aggressive treatment at your expense. You're taking away my Freedom! Puhlease. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Unofficial answer is that all kinds of scouters substitute out da pants for OD look-a-likes. Honestly, I prefer it a hundred times more than just wearin' jeans. Columbia, REI, Cabelas are all common. Venturing grays are even easier, because it was da intention in Venturing to allow any gray pant, IIRC. B

Yah, Gern, da thing of it is that the plaintiff is suing for the doc improperly performing a service that the plaintiff didn't pay for in the first place. That's a different thing then when someone runs a red light and hits your car, eh? Tort law is designed for those cases where another citizen has damaged you and therefore should make you whole. In medicine, yeh have something that's being paid for by the state or by an insurer/employer that is a contracted service with no guarantees. Leastways, I've never had a doc or hospital guarantee a risk-free outcome. If yeh choose to engage the service under those terms then yeh assume that risk. If yeh weren't even paying for da service then what exactly is your claim? It should be Medicare or da insurer that is suing for a refund. Or, in a single payer system, it should be da insurer who decides to stop authorizing services from a provider who doesn't have good outcomes. What you're proposing instead is that the person has a right of compensation from his neighbor if his surgery doesn't work out. Because that's what happens, eh? The man sues the hospital, whose liability insurance goes up, whose charges for services in turn go up to cover, resulting in more expenses for health insurers, who in turn increase premiums, who pass da charges along to employers, who take more out of da neighbor's paycheck. And along da way, a lot of lawyers and administrators get paid a lot of overhead . That's just enormously economically inefficient, eh? And I'm not even sure it's just. But it's an absurd public policy. B

Yah, Amen. I see that despite da shellacking they got in 06 and 08, the borrow-and-spend-and-deregulate-and-bailout republicans haven't learned a thing. Within a day of da election they've promised to make da Bush tax cuts permanent, further cut taxes, and reduce the deficit, with not a single proposal for cuttin' spending. Maybe they're goin' to switch to a cut-and-run strategy in Afghanistan? Cut services to veterans? Only answer at this point is what we're already seeing, eh? They're goin' to collapse the value of the dollar and monetize the debt by inflation. That's da dishonest way of raising taxes, eh? Yeh can still claim yeh didn't raise taxes, yeh just cut everyone's buying power by 10% per year. Just a huge tax on da middle class and poor, so that the AIG tycoons can pass the money they stole from da taxpayer down to their children without paying a dime. It'd be nice to see some real leadership from one side of da aisle or another. Instead we've got kindergarten. Beavah

Yah, I can see da benefit to a certain limited social safety net. Especially in our more mobile society it's hard to rely on family who might live out of state (or out of country). And there are some real family tragedies where I think we all would admit that it's a good thing the person or family had something to turn to for help. But is it really necessary for every one of us old folks to be on the dole? That's all social security is, eh? Da welfare dole for the elderly. Expecting whichever young people are working now (our kids and grandkids and all those young immigrants we love to hate) to support us with welfare checks. After our generation spent da Trust Fund on guns and butter. Where is da personal responsibility? We elected da folks who spent down the trust fund. Our mistake. We were younger and less responsible than we should have been. So after spending our contributions to the system, now we feel we deserve welfare checks from young workers who are struggling to make ends meet? B

Yah, quazse, a couple of years ago da Safety Advisory Committee reversed the laser tag rule. There was even a version of G2SS that was published without it. They in turn were reversed by "staffers unknown" in Irving. So da mechanism yeh have left is to 1) convince the CORs to shop up and vote as a block at your council annual meeting in January to vote down the slate of officers and national representatives. 2) after three more votes and funding a lawsuit against your council, manage to actually replace the officers and national representatives with ones appointed by National. 3) repeat #1&2, and hope for a different outcome. 4) repeat 1,2, and 3 for a majority of da councils. 5) at the national meeting, get all those council reps to show up and vote down the national slate. 6) after three more votes and funding a lawsuit against da national council, manage to actually replace the officers and board. 7) find da staff responsible for the odd G2SS rules, and move 'em to the mail room at double pay. 8) have the new staff fix da document. Or yeh can just ignore the thing, which is what most do I reckon, or just run "unofficial" outings. Beavah

Yah, in da original thread on BSA v. Dale, BrentAllen started talkin' about health insurance cost increases, "Obamacare" and other things. Seems like the topic of da economics of health care is in order, because it's a complimicated thing, and I reckon we all misunderstand it a bit. As close as I can tell, da health care cost increases by private insurers are being driven by Medicare and by the uninsured. With da limits on payment for services by Medicare and the need to cover emergency services and other care for the uninsured, health care providers have to keep increasin' the fees on the private insurers. On top of that, the billing overhead for private insurers, and the laws that mandate a lot of very expensive care for da terminally ill/aged, add to the unnecessary cost. Da increases come from more people getting older and shifting to Medicare, resulting in increased fees to private insurers because of how Medicare underpays for its services. Yah, and there's also a liability insurance burden that matches our out of whack tort system. And in general, da system also encourages expensive procedures and docs not spending time with patients, because the billing and payment is by the procedure/visit. So there's incentive to order procedures, and great incentive to be a "specialist" providing expensive procedures, whether needed or not. If yeh want the costs to come down, you have to do a few things. 1. Yeh have to increase the pool of people who participate in insurance coverage, especially the younger, lower-risk folks. Simply put, yeh need da young people to pay for the old, and yeh don't want da burden of the uninsured increasing costs. 2. Yeh have to reduce the billing overhead, which is out of control. Single-payer does have its merits in this regard. 3. Yeh have to break da AMA's control of the supply side and open more medical schools. Supply and demand markets don't work if yeh allow monopoly control of the supply. 4. Yeh have to be willing to do the hard thing, and not authorize expensive treatment for the aged and terminally ill, unless they pay for it out of pocket or through some gold-plated private insurance. 5. Yeh have to be willing to limit civil liability for malpractice to something equivalent of willful neglect, not simple or gross negligence. 6. Yeh have to change da payment incentives to reduce the shift into procedure-based specialties. Number four is the hard one, eh? In some ways, America has the best high end, research-driven health care just because we're willing to shell out so much money to give grandma another 4 months. But that also means that one of our scouts who is hurt at the camporee bankrupts his uninsured family tryin' to pay for his expensive treatment. B

Blancmange raised some discussion about Social Security, so it seemed worth spinning it off over here. What says the group? Is the Social Security Trust Fund real, or is Social Security a Ponzi scheme where da money that was contributed is gone, spent on government programs, and da future obligations to an ever-larger group of retirees will be taxed (or inflated) out of an ever-smaller group of working young people, thereby impoverishing the nation? Beavah

Yah, we try that with Quality Unit (now "Journey to Excellence"), eh? A "national certification". Doesn't really get at what IM_Kathy is talkin' about, though, just as with school accreditation yeh still get a really, really wide range of of quality. B

You're surprised, BrentAllen? I'm not. I was surprised that da Iowa court jumped that far out on a limb given da nature of their electorate. IMHO courts that do that should have da rug pulled out from under 'em. It should be hard to do, mind - sometimes yeh want a court to make a tough call. But it should be doable. It's a check and balance that we lack in da federal system, because by and large da founding fathers did not trust the "masses". They figured allowin' the mob's emotions to swing the House of Representatives back and forth was enough. Beavah

you know that a 1st class scout has done A, B, C and so on... you know that an Eagle scout has done the specific merit badges and then selected a certain number of others to complete. Nah, yeh really don't. There's a huge variance between the skills of different First Class Scouts, or Eagle Scouts, as yeh see from the forums. Some units run kids to First Class in a year with only three single-night outings. Some take two or more years with 60+ nights out. Some units yeh can rely on a Tenderfoot being able to do a pull-up, others yeh can't. Some units a boy with First Aid MB will be completely at home as a first responder to a major auto accident, some the lad will have a hard time puttin' on an ankle wrap. I can pick up an advancement report from my council and tell yeh at a glance which is which. There are some units where da average work hours for an Eagle project is less than 50, and some units where it's never less than 400. Some where every lad earns First Class on the same day and others where some lads finish 7 years of scouting at Tenderfoot. Yeh can sit some EBORs where yeh know that even the shyest kid will talk at length and with passion about Scouting, the Oath and Law, etc. And yeh can sit some EBORs for some units where yeh can be pretty sure that even outgoing lads will stumble through the Oath and Law and not really be able to say that much about how it applies to 'em without prompting. Heck, even da schools where there are big, expensive efforts to "standardize" never succeed, eh? A high school diploma at one school is goin' to mean somethin' different from a high school diploma at another. Not sure why we'd be any different. Beavah

Yah, sherm, it probably is. But then I live in "flyover" country. Actually, close as I can tell from da election results it's an urban-rural-suburban country. Da urban folks, relying on government infrastructure just in order to live in an urban area, are more apt to be supportive of government programs. Schools bein' what they are in urban areas, there can be quite an entitlement mentality - "the government should do this for me" kind of thing. Da rural folks, who are a bit more ethnically homogeneous, a bit more self-reliant on basic services, are more apt to be supportive of the "government should leave us alone" view. Except when it comes to huge farm subsidies, big government work projects like rural electrification, and "defending the border" in order to preserve their ethnic homogeneity. Then, solidly in da middle, are the rest of us suburban folks, who are increasingly angry at both sides and swing our vote back and forth just to punish the last bunch of nitwits in office. We see some merit in government regulation to prevent Wall Street from takin' down the national economy or BP from destroying the livelihood of fishermen or Pennsylvania from dumpin' acid rain to destroy the lakes in Vermont. At da same time, we're not that fond of subsidies and inefficient government programs, and would like to see some accountability, fiscal responsibility, and statesmanship. Da primary system we have is set up so that only the first two groups get to choose who is running in the general election, eh? Then da last group casts the deciding votes, usually while holding their nose. If someone were to start a Moderate's Party in the middle, it would marginalize both the Dems and the Republicans, and the country would probably be all the better for it. Gets tiresome swingin' between Pelosi-liberals and Palin-Teabaggers and then listen to 'em behave worse than most cub scouts in da halls of Congress. But I reckon that group would be slightly right of "center". Of course, Palin could win da Republican nomination for 2012, in which case the Democrats will sweep the nation. Seems that with each victory, neither side realizes that the country is really moderate. Beavah

Yah, figured I'd spin this off for BrentAllen and everyone. About what I was expectin' so far. A bunch of angry independents, particularly in da rust belt states that got hammered in the economic collapse followin' the 2008 financial shenanigans. Most Americans don't understand that the economy lags political leadership by 2-6 years, eh? I'm happy to see some of the more extreme democrats get clipped, disappointed to see some of da extremes on the other side. Amused by da Tea Party folks. One of these days folks will figure out that by and large the country wants moderate statesmen, not party idealogues on either side. I think a Republican house might help Obama and the nation. And it'll be fun to see 'em try to decide what to cut in order to be fiscally responsible. Anybody betting that they decide to tackle social security and medicare, da biggest "socialist" deficit programs . Not quite a repeat of 1994 but close. If da Republicans gridlock things as they're posturin', should guarantee an Obama win and swing back toward da middle in 2012, right in line with 1996. Beavah

Yah, that's part of da fun, eh? If people hear similar things but in different ways from different folks, one of the ways they hear it may "click" and give 'em a good idea for their program. I figure that's da only real purpose of forums like this one, eh? Just to spread ideas around. I'm a total Darwinist about ideas. I figure the most successful ones survive and reproduce. Beavah

Do we know for certain that there will be no eye damage as a result of exposure to this item through play in the hands of a Scout? Yah, this isn't rocket surgery, eh? If it's a Class II laser device it's fine. If it's a Class IIIb laser device it's still fine, for da type of exposure you'd see in a game of tag. I can't remember how many times I've been accidentally hit in da eyes by someone wielding a laser pointer. More than I can count. Other than bifocals from gettin' older, my vision is just fine, eh? Not sure what this has to do with laser tag though. As I mentioned, laser tag toys don't use lasers, they use infrared television remotes. And yeh can bet that da commercial laser tag center has done its homework on laser safety. Beavah

Who said anything about "exercising?" Climb trees, climb rocks, chase each other through the woods, ride mountain bikes, go snowshoeing. Making it about "exercise" shows a lack of imagination on da part of the adult leaders. Yeh see that a lot with BSA advancement. Have to "teach to the test." Point is that your son's sports actually pushed him, eh? Pushed him physically, pushed him socially. I've never heard anyone call runnin' suicides for soccer "fun", or consider a wrestling practice "easy." It's hard, eh? It's only "fun" because it's with friends, and because you're being pushed hard enough to start seeing results. Scoutin' can be "fun" much more of the time, but if yeh want lads to grow it also has to be hard. We have to push 'em a bit. Make that 5.9 climb. Do the mile swim at camp. Paddle a 50-miler afloat. Bike a century. Win da patrol obstacle course relay. In fact, if yeh have effective patrol method and patrol competitions, it's a lot like sports, eh? The kids push each other to improve, so they can "win" at da next patrol contest. If yeh follow the topics on da forums, it seems like there are always folks lookin' to interpret things as narrowly as possible. For cycling MB, what's da minimum way I can complete da miles, overlapping with other trips? How do I count camping nights to get the most to count? For climbing MB, yeh only "have" to do one climb, don't add to da requirements... For da 5 mile hike, can that be only 2.5 miles one way? Can I do it on a track? Bah, humbug! If yeh really get kids climbing, and paddlin', and cycling, and hiking then yeh actually see some growth and results, just like if yeh actually get kids workin' hard at soccer or wrestling. If the lads don't have other incentive or opportunities, provide 'em the incentive and opportunity in Scouting. Can't see that just givin' 'em a "bye" - "ooh, I saw his elbow bend" - really accomplishes much. Beavah

Boy Scouts of America is a national organization and an Eagle Scout from Seattle should be the same as an Eagle Scout from Key West and so should any rank in between. Yah, this was a great quote from da parent thread, eh? And yeh see that sentiment a lot on da forums, whether it's about laser tag "rules" or LDS scoutin' or whatever. I'm curious, what do other people think? Is this somethin' we should be aspiring to? For every little thing, or just for advancement, or only for "big issues"? If we wanted to "standardize" for rank, to really make First Class the same everywhere, we'd have to establish a standardized test of some sort. No New Scout Left Behind. To get your First Class, yeh have to pay da testing fee and go to one of da designated test centers. It'd be really funny to see those Florida scouts show up with da gear for a real standardized, national, winter campout, eh? Of course, you'd still fall into people tryin' to teach to the test, eh? Just human nature to be lazy. So you'd have to only offer da test at certain times, and add new test items every time. I wonder, can we point to anything even in da professional world where performance is truly standardized on a national basis? I think everyone knows my take on it. I'm an old conservative fellow, eh? Never surrender to the federal government what should properly be a local issue. Same with Irving Yeh can try to help people with their program by convincing 'em to try a different approach, but not dictate details from 8 states away. A few "big issues" are fine, but not much more than that. The stuff that makes for really good scouting is stuff yeh can't measure or mandate easily anyways - da character, skill, and youth-friendliness of the adult leaders. And of course, really "standardizing" would require us to go to the GSUSA model of owning the troops directly, and abandoning the chartered partner concept. That national approach, especially for outing "rules", has really worked well for GSUSA, hasn't it? Beavah

$100 for a belt test? Yah, maybe we should do somethin' like that for rank tests in Scouting, eh? We could get rid of popcorn. B

When you hold those CoH's and your off thanking all the ASM's, giving out mugs, etc... Yah, or better yet yeh can stop takin' up time patting each other on the back. Courts of Honor are for the kids, eh? I can't tell yeh the number of times I've sat in COH's or (worse) Blue & Golds where the adults spend almost as much time congratulatin' and awardin' each other as they spend on the kids. Boring. To my mind the only time a COH should honor an adult is when the youth unanimously agree. Somethin' like a brief thing at the end of the CoH to say goodbye to the SM of 50 years who is retiring. Otherwise, save da mugs and plaques for a committee meeting, and spend your kid-time focused on the kids. Your CoH's will be better, and as a bonus you'll avoid the "pissed off" adult volunteer who didn't get her mug. Beavah

Very personal experience - son 2 was a bit of a chubster until he hit freshman year. Marching band and soccer, then wrestling, then volleyball ... So in other words, he needed to get fit in order to make da requirements. Doesn't sound like an age thing. Sounds like he hit a place (high school) where the activities he was involved in actually pushed him to reach a decent level of fitness. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing in Scouting? Fitness is one of our Aims.

Yah, roger on da "no logic" bit. I love all da various explanations various people offer as apologists for the almost incomprehensibly written simulated firearm rule. Of course, none of those are official BSA explanations. Irving has never issued an "official" explanation or interpretation. As written, if yeh believe the "no pointing a firearm look-alike" interpretation, then yeh have to eliminate things like squirt guns and rubber suction-cup dart guns and marshmallow guns and those sticks that we're talkin' about in da other thread. Seriously, for any lad a stick is either a sword or a gun, eh? So the "no pointing a firearm look-alike" interpretation is patently absurd, unless yeh really believe that da BSA buys into the feminist/liberal/Quaker/extreme anti-gun thing nation-wide, which doesn't match its sponsors or what it publishes in Boys Life and such. Then there's da safety interpretation, eh? Pointing certain kinds of lasers at someone else does pose some small risk to eyesight. Laser Tag, however, doesn't use that kind of laser. In fact, from what younger engineering-type friends tell me, laser tag doesn't use lasers at all, eh? Lasers are too narrow for da detectors to catch reliably and make for a fun game. They use infrared TV remote technology (though some high-end equipment uses a weak diode laser as a special effect, but not actually for the "tag"). So if yeh take the safety interpretation, then clearly laser tag is OK (no lasers, no safety issue). One might assume that da Guide to Safe Scouting is concerned only with da safety issue. Then there's those that maintain that it's only simulated firearms that use paintballs, dye, or lasers that are prohibited, "just because." Which means that laser tag is OK because it doesn't really use lasers. It also means that some other things like Airsoft are OK, which are definitely firearm look-alikes. I think each unit in its own programs makes a choice, and that by and large da majority of units are just ignorin' the simulated firearm bit as being unworkable. I know all da laser tag and paintball places around here have regular scout unit deals and yeh rarely can go to a Blue & Gold without a mention of da laser tag outing. In fact, the lasertag and paintball folks tend to be strong supporters of Scouting, so I'm not sure why we'd want to boycott their businesses. So if yeh feel that allowing the kids to play with toy guns ain't appropriate for your CO or unit, I reckon we'd all support yeh in that choice. For da rest, since it's not a safety or image issue of any significance, I can't see why any unit would waste its time on it. Beavah

Actually, pack camping is 2:1, eh? Sort of. A parent must be responsible for each boy. Or another adult can be designated by the parent to be responsible for a boy, but that other adult can only be responsible for one such "added" boy. Leastways, that's my memory of it. B

Yah, Gary_Miller, those are da goals I would expect. But now that we've got the goals, we're left with the question of whether how well your implementation of da Scouting program is contributing to the achievement of da goals. I've no doubt that all the other things yeh mention also contribute, but I can't offer yeh any advice on how Sunday Fireside Chats are supposed to work. What we in da BSA can offer are suggestions on how to best use the BSA program materials. They're only suggestions, of course, and to the extent yeh have goals that are different than the BSA's you're goin' to have to change the program, and that's fine. But a lot of your goals seem to be the same, and the way you're implementing da Scouting program doesn't seem consistent with those goals. The 11-year-old YM Scouting seems a particular aspect of that, because of its adult-driven advancement focus, where there really isn't enough time in da field to develop the skills required, or the behaviors expected, or the friendships forged. My guess is that yeh get to some of the behaviors and friendships through other aspects of the YM program, but da skills and some of the outdoors behaviors are left very weak. Hence the safety/supervision issues with da 12-13 program. The youth leader selection is certainly a novel approach, but seems quite consistent for your CO. Again the only thing that's a bit different is the lack of focus on skills and abilities, but that too may be religious in character (does a prophet have skills or abilities or does God give him what he needs when he is called?). Still, I reckon there's some need to encourage a habit of self-improvement in skills and abilities, rather than (just) waiting for God. So in these ways, particularly the 11 year old YM program, yeh do depart from the BSA program and program philosophy fairly substantially, and I expect that continues with the older YM programs. Having been a fellow who was once almost killed by a group of unsupervised LDS scouts throwing rocks off a cliff without regard to da trail below, I'm not sure that yeh get the full benefit of the program in terms of character and citizenship as a result. Anecdote, of course, is not the singular of data, but there do seem to be a lot of "incidents" in the intermountain west. How much freedom do you and your local bishop have to re-envision things? Could you, for example, choose a different path locally, one where yeh used an expanded Webelos II program for YM-11, then built a 12-15 program that went TF to Life? The 14-15's could be the PLs and other troop positions while they worked for Star and Life and the 12-13's could be the patrol members workin' toward First Class under their direction. The 16-17 year old YM venturers could provide support as JASMs and TG's and instructors while they worked toward Eagle (and their own adventures), which would be a good prep for their mission. And the 11-year-old YM's would remain more tightly tied to family involvement in an expanded webelos program just da way the church desires. Is that possible in your structure? For a local ward or stake to make changes in that way, as a pilot for the rest of the Church? Care to give it a try? Seems like, given all we know about how to do good Scouting, that such a change would do a better job for yeh. It would also likely reduce a few of the negative perceptions yeh find in the broader scouting/outdoors community. Beavah