Beavah

Besides, these frozen chosen could be saved simply if a sufficient number of women would just 'adopt' them and bring them to term. Yah, if only da laws in the several states would allow it, eh? Most don't. The law would rather see the embryos destroyed as unwanted property, experimented on as lab animals, or harvested for body parts/stem cells than actually adopted and allowed to become someone's children. And we have been strugglin' to put some genies back in bottles, eh? Since Nagasaki there have been no atomic weapons used in anger. It's becomin' taboo, unthinkable to most people. Poor philosophies and da promiscuous ideas of an individual culture do die, or at least wane. We have the technology to harvest organs from unwanted orphans, eh? That "genie" was let out of da bottle ages ago. We just choose not to. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Where does this fall, PRO-CHOICE, or PRO-LIFE, or ASSISTED SUICIDE? Yah, can't say as I have an opinion, but AFAIK da Vatican does, eh? (or the "guy with the pointy hat" which even as a non-Catholic I find to be an inappropriate and childish turn of phrase). I do lunch about once a month with a Jesuit canon lawyer. Kinda fun, and the chap is a good friend though our interests are in very different kinds of law. My understandin', and folks like OGE and TheScout can correct me if I'm wrong, is that there is nothin' which supports or requires usin' extraordinary means to prolong life. Natural death is a part of life, and respectin' life means accepting natural death and the journey home to God. Which I expect is why your Catholic hospital is willin' to support such choices, providin' it first works out all da potential pitfalls and traps. Make all da jokes yeh want about da Vatican types, but they are intellectually rigorous and consistent. Yah, and packsaddle, before yeh keep prodding TheScout, perhaps you'd be kind enough to share your well-reasoned and testable position on when life begins and is worthy of protection? Heartbeat? Neural activity? Surely yeh agree natural birth is a ridiculous threshold. Or is there a self-realization threshold? Age of reason perhaps? Beavah

Nah, TheScout, just additional checks on the power of government, eh? If yeh make government a lot smaller they're not needed, but with government consumin' 40% or more of GDP yeh need checks on the power and influence of government officials. They remain perfectly free to pursue private enterprise to their heart's content. Maybe that way they'll remember to protect private enterprise when they're in office . Beavah

When finally OK'ed, they have a shortened period in which to re-coup their costs. Yah, but that's their choice, eh? They could choose not to file the patent until later in the process. Da fact that they choose to file so early is an effort to grab the monopoly protection early. It's a strategic gamble on their part. They shouldn't whine about it. Furthermore, drugs not uncommonly fail during clinical trials which leaves the company with enormous costs for each product actually brought to market. Yah, that's what happens with companies that innovate, eh? Apple might bring out the iPhone and it can be a smash, Apple might spend as much time and effort on AppleTV and it can be a dud. Wasted money, uppin' the cost. Pursue enough dead-ends as a company and yeh go bust. Have a corporate culture which encourages and selects for innovation yeh become rich. That's the way it's supposed to work. So if the total accumulated costs for the next product brought to market is X then those costs will typically be re-couped over the years on patent - Y or X/Y. Obviously, the cost to the consumer will be less if Y is larger rather than smaller. Yah, I think yeh need some revisions to your math there, eh? Obviously the company's profit will be higher if Y is larger, but dat's not the same thing as the cost to the consumer bein' lower. Da reason the profit is higher is that the government's grant of monopoly protection is costing the consumer more for more years. All monopolies always hurt the consumer, includin' government-guaranteed monopolies through patents (or copyrights). We agree to those monopolies only when they serve da very narrow purpose of encouragin' more innovation and ensuring the technology becomes generic relatively quickly. As if in confirmation of my theory, I see Roche is now startin' a hostile takeover of Genentech today. Beavah

Yah, to my knowledge there are some camps that haven't been all that responsible. Particularly when a council was lookin' for money. As always, da few problems give everyone a black eye. And then there's times when responsible logging just isn't liked. Looks like the papers are goin' to run a part 2 and part 3 this weekend, includin' developers on council boards with conflicts of interest, sales of land for condos when preservation organizations were willin' to buy and the like. It'll be overhyped and unfortunate, but it also points us to a few spots that really merit attention and improvement. No organization our size is free from those who are playin' games. Beavah

I wonder if there should be limits on Congress like we have in the Presidency. What do you all think? Yah, I know one I'd like to see, eh? I think no law passed by congress should go into effect until it has been enforced for two years exclusively on congressmen, their families, and their business associates. Enforced vigorously. That includes puttin' 'em on regular folks medical care and 401k's. Second one is no dynasties. Members of da family out to first cousins aren't eligible for office. No Kennedy clan, Bush clan, Clinton clan, etc. Third is no gerrymandered districtin'. All it does is guarantee loudmouthed extremists have a higher chance of occupyin' lots of seats in the House, on both sides. Last one is no lobbyin' or featherbedding. Ever. If you serve in public office, yeh are permanently ineligible to ever work for a company that receives government money, or to lobby the government in any way. Same with your immediate family. Beavah

None of that other stuff is going to change the fact that she will decide and that her decision will be based on how she weighs the factors in her life. Yah, exactly. So da question is only what do we choose to help and encourage, eh? A lad in a troop will always have the ability to choose to steal, or not. He will decide and his decision will be based on how he weighs the factors in his life. Our choice is only on what we stand for, what example we give, what credo we teach the lad ("A Scout is Trustworthy..."), and what organizations we support (like scouting). Yah, sure, and our compassion for da small fraction of scouts who are tempted to steal because of their personal poverty, as well as for da scout thief when he repents and makes amends. The issue of choice ain't just for da person making the choice to commit a particular act or not, eh? We can't control their choice. Da real choice is da moral question for each of us about what we personally care for and support, and what example we set for others. Me, da example I hope to set is one where sex is somethin' special that is shared with Mrs. Beavah, that havin' kids is a great gift to the world not to be discarded just so yeh can avoid inconvenience or preserve your lifestyle, that both a man and a woman stand up and take responsibility for their acts, and that da only community worth living in is one that cares for its kids. All of 'em. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm amused by da "Bush kept the country safe" refrain that's become the last gasp apologetic for his disaster of a presidency. No evidence of that. Fact is, da al-Queda nutjobs are an odd bunch, and only manage to pull off somethin' in the U.S. about every 8-10 years. Sayin' Bush kept us safe after 9/11 is like sayin' Clinton kept us safe for the rest of his term after the WTC bombing. Ain't nothing but an amusing fiction. I don't think it was just da borrow-and-spend economics that told a sad tale of the last administration, funscout. It was the micromanagement of the military, the abuse and nationalization of the Guard and reserves, tax cuts during a war, willful strategic errors, puttin' stupid cronies in positions of important responsibility, odd and unnecessary violations of law. The man was a disaster. I voted for him, I supported him, I'm not a "Bush hater" but I have to be honest, eh? If in 8 years Obama is able to undo 2/3 of the damage without creatin' too much more, I'll consider his presidency a resounding success. And I pray he succeeds. I once used to tune into Rush occasionally. No more. The man is just a shock-jock and an angry soul with little sense of Christian values. Even where I agree with him on policy I think he's shallow, and does more harm than good. He's one of da biggest forces behind the Republican party becoming the party of the uneducated. I reckon our next job as conservatives is to flush this lot of pseudo-republicans out of congress. We need a smart, focused opposition to keep the more nitwitted congressional dems in check. But we don't need most of the current crop of dumb partisan neo-cons. Beavah

I disagree with Lisabob entirely here when it comes to "hypocrisy". I think da pro-life folks are entirely consistent. Abortion is the murder of innocents. Funding an agency that promotes the murder of innocents just because they also provide health care to others, or contraceptives to help prevent those in the group yeh want to murder from being conceived, just isn't enough to excuse the murder. Almost all murderers do somethin' good in their lives, eh? Da argument you're makin' is not that pro-lifers are hypocritical, it's that they're not pragmatic or good strategists. That might be true, eh? Faced with a culture which condones the murder of innocents, shrill opposition is provin' to be an only partially effective strategy. Reducin' the numbers through smaller steps, providin' support for the working poor and working women, better education and all that might help put abortion further on da fringe of society, and therefore render it less culturally acceptable. Dat's a pragmatic, long-term, strategic view of workin' to end the monstrosity of abortion, eh? To change practices and change hearts until the practice is increasingly seen as unnecessary and then as disgusting. Social taboo works better than imposed law. But yeh have to admit it's hard to be the general lookin' at the slaughter of millions and stick to that kind of long-term strategic vision, eh? Anyone with a heart who is not a hypocrite wants desperately to do all they can to save each individual kid. Happily, da global gag order change Obama made won't change much, eh? It's not like we could do a good job monitoring these organizations anyway. It's mostly symbolic. But it does show da racism inherent in abortion. Let's be sure to try to reduce da surplus population of blacks and poor people around the world, eh? Beavah

The problem with the drug innovation has to do with the short time a drug can be sold prior to patents expiring. The democrats have tried to destroy small businesses in favor of large businesses which is much of the same issues for the drug companies that find that they must get bigger in the false market. Nah, gotta disagree here, knowin' some good folks in the business. Patent length is just fine, and we don't want to be givin' anybody a government-protected monopoly like that for too long, eh? It's the government's interference through the patent system which is da problem, not the solution, along with greed. Pick a big pharma company, and then identify one current drug they've made themselves. Yeh can't do it. All these guys do is buy out and destroy smaller firms who really are innovating, just in order to get the government-protected patent monopoly on individual drugs. Never to encourage more innovation. Lengthening patents would make it worse. Better to make patents non-transferable. Only the company that innovated gets monopoly protection to encourage further innovation. Otherwise it's a free market with no government interference in da form of patent protection triggerin' greed. Agree with yeh on the other, though. The costs of flogging patients with poor prognoses just because their families can't deal with da loss is phenomenal. Emotionally painful for health care workers too, eh? There needs to be some mechanism to curtail that. I don't know if cost alone (like eliminatin' Medicare) would do it or not, since it's so emotional a decision. Don't want it entirely on da docs either. Should be some sort of combination in a way that limits physician/hospital liability exposure. Just speculatin'. Somethin' similar might be done for frequent abusers of emergency services. B

Yah, apparently no better ideas from da scouter community than from da pols, and no less partisan bickering either! Some aspects of medicine are like commercial markets, eh? Private pursuit increases innovation. Just look at cosmetic surgery . Some other aspects of medicine show da greedy downsides of markets. Just look at how big pharma as quashed small, innovative companies while producin' nothing themselves. A big piece of medicine are folks who are mission-driven, and supported by charitable and government grants. That's where most of da fundamental research happens, eh? I reckon the advocates of personal responsibility would be very upset if they were denied the new-fangled treatment that came out of NIH-funded research. At da core, the problem is that medical care is a limited resource, eh? Whether by rationing or raw dollars, there's always goin' to be a resource allocation problem and some horror stories. In terms of resource allocation, it occurs to me that Medicare subsidizes entirely the wrong group. Folks in retirement should have to pay for their own care, eh? They've had an entire life to plan for it, and subsidizin' their care is a drain on society, rather than an investment. Personal responsibility all da way. We waste a lot of dollars on folks my age who are "walking wounded." Where we should be subsidizin' care is for kids. That's a good long-term societal investment, eh? Plus, as a Christian, I can't really see denying a child care because his parents were stupid, or drunk, or just poor. That's not encouragin' responsibility, it's just mean. We'd never get it passed, though. Too many of us old folks are wedded to our entitlements or have become so irreligious that they're afraid of goin' home. We'd rather impoverish our grandkids in exchange for a few more years of bein' flogged by docs. B

Yah, hmmm... I think yeh have to be prepared to think of yourself as one of those adults with an agenda, 2eagles. All of us are, but especially former Scoutmasters who are still in the same unit. Havin' the old SM around is a real challenge, especially the founder who had the initial vision, eh? You've got big feet. Easy to step on somethin' unintentionally. Lots of times after a dynamic founder a unit needs an administrative type to consolidate gains, organize stuff, and set the ground for the future. Before yeh critique the current SM too hard for not being you in terms of vision and action, stop and consider what his/her contributions have been that you didn't do. There's real merit to administration sometimes. Havin' those ways of doing things put in place allows a troop to grow to the next step. Now, it might be that sometime soon it's time to switch back to a more dynamic leader, eh? But until that happens, I think yeh want to be pretty good about supportin' the Scoutmaster. The older boys who joined with you as leader and grew up with that experience are always goin' to be loyal. No other SM will ever measure up in their eyes, but especially not if they think you don't support him. But what's the lesson you want to teach those lads, eh? I'd humbly suggest that it's loyalty to the troop, not loyalty to you as an individual. An administrative-type leader often leaves space for boy leaders to step into the light. All of us have strengths and weaknesses, eh? A scout is kind, he looks at both youth and adults to find their strengths without calling too much attention to their weaknesses. Now, if yeh do start a crew, given your feelings about this matter, I'd encourage yeh to think about holdin' the crew advisor job for a long time. Yeh care a lot, and you feel real ownership. Do everyone a favor and don't pass the reins on until you're really willing to step away. Beavah

I do not want to end up with universal (socialized) health care. Yah, da health care thing is a bit of an awful beast, eh? I honestly don't know what I want. I think health care is a limited resource, eh? So in the end, there needs to be some way to allocate that resource. I firmly believe that markets do a much better job of allocating resources than governments. It is a fundamental aspect of liberty to allow people to choose their own priorities and expenditures, eh? At the same time, I recognize that havin' 800 different billing mechanisms for health insurance is ridiculous overhead, especially for hospitals that typically run on somethin' like 0.5% margin. I also recognize that insurance is meant as a way of sharin' risk. A few variable charges for personal choices (like smokin') are OK, perhaps. But how far do we go? Variable pricin' for obesity? For high cholesterol? For prior history of problems? For havin' bad genetics? The more we allow insurers to subdivide and skim the cream, leavin' the rest of the population on the ER and da taxpayer, the less we achieve. I also recognize that sayin' "no" to health services is often just not possible, eh? Yah, sure, not havin' health insurance or havin' crappy coverage might be dumb. Which one of us is goin' to stand at the hospital entrance and not allow a 12-year-old Boy Scout to be treated because his parents couldn't afford coverage, or chose cheap coverage? Then there's employers, eh? Private health care costs are bankruptin' businesses. It's nice to be with scouts on international trips, where yeh honestly don't have to worry about insurance cards or permission-to-treat or HIPAA or whatnot. At da same time, if a lad ever had anything serious, I'd want him back in the U.S. because he just might die before his turn for advanced treatment comes in those countries. Unless he didn't have insurance here. Maybe we need a single billing system and tight regulation to reduce overhead and prevent insurers from just skimmin' the cream. Maybe we need universal baseline care. Maybe care for those under 40 who are more likely to contribute long-term to society should be cheaper or provided, and then old folks like me should have to pay full freight for our extra drugs and services, or die off if we can't afford 'em. Lots of health care dollars these days are spent on the "walkin' wounded." I confess it's complimicated enough that I'm not sure what I want. Beavah

Yah, eisley, are yeh really sure about all that? Geithner was Director of da IMF's Policy Department, eh? That's not an "independent contractor." He was a full-out, senior executive employee of the IMF, not self-employed. I think you're assuming he was an independent contractor because they didn't do withholding, eh? But my understandin' is that the IMF is one of those oddball, special-case organizations. Even though he was employed in the U.S., they do not do withholding because they're an international organization with special status by treaty. Now I wonder how many accountants and software programs would actually know to look for the special status of the International Monetary Fund? My guess is "very few" for accountants and "none" for software programs. It seems like you didn't. Remember, the only issue for Geithner was FICA, eh? Not income tax. He paid his income tax. And from da looks of it, the IMF kicks U.S. employees an odd "tax equalization payment" to offset U.S. taxes (so as to treat all employees across jurisdictions the same). How many regular accountants and tax programs have to deal with that mess? One professional accountant said even his $4K software doesn't flag it, let alone TurboTax http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17468.html That's why it's credible as a mistake, eh? I generally agree with vol, eh? There are lots of bright people in da U.S. Can't figure why we need Hillary for State, for example, though I figure she'll do OK. Plus it gets her out of da Senate . But in this particular case, there really are only a handful of experienced folks who have had direct and recent contact with the current situation, who are well versed, and who are trusted/respected by all of the players. If the market madness were a year out, we could spend time on it, or on havin' a new person come in and learn and get up to speed. The house is on fire now, though. I similarly respect Obama's decision to leave Secretary Gates in place for the same reason. Yah, yeh might say that there are 300 million other folks, but the same bit applies. Wars on multiple fronts, high tempo ops, immediate needs. There's only a handful of people who could fit the bill. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, that video just repeats da stuff I reported on in my previous post, eh? I love the way the phrase they claim means "he was born in this village" is done as a cutaway and a voiceover in a different voice. Only after that do they actually show video of the woman talkin', where she doesn't say that. Honestly, don't let me or any bit of rationality stand between yeh and what yeh want to believe. Just know that there's treatment available. Beavah

Yah, vol, I remember those dumb bumper stickers, eh? Felt the same about 'em as you do. Didn't care for the na, na, na goodbye thing at the inauguration. And I'd certainly agree there are a lot of left wingnuts out there. But at some point, it's got to STOP. Folks who adhere to a higher set of principles have got to stop pointin' at the other party and rememberin' grievances of days of yore, like we're some modern reincarnation of da Hatfields and McCoy's. Look what Democrats did to Reagan! Look what Republicans did to Clinton! Look what Democrats did to Bush! Enough already. All three of 'em to some measure deserved some just criticism, and there will always be nutters. The job of us regular citizens is not to be nutters. I see Obama tryin' to stop the crap, and I'm all for that. Because I'm an American first. Bein' a conservative and a Republican comes way down the list behind that, and always will. I do my bit to push the policies I want and campaign against policies I don't think make sense, sure. Recognizin' I could be wrong. Or at least that my ideas could be made better by others. But da president gets my support, until he doesn't deserve it because he's harmin' the country in a big way and failin' to fulfill his oath. Not because I disagree on policy. I reckon, though, that it's perfectly OK to heckle Reid and Pelosi. As to Geithner, I honestly couldn't give a hoot about the tax thing. The man is an intelligent moderate (started out workin' with Kissinger, has Republican affiliations) who has as good a handle on this current mess as anybody. Certainly better than Paulson. When your house is on fire, you want the best fireman, and yeh don't particularly care about a 4% mistake on his 1040 years back. This is right up there with the folks trying to sink Clarence Thomas' nomination with the odd sexual harassment complaint from years before. We Republicans can be better than that. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

but then try to look at it from an outsider's view. Imagine the harried band director, trying to prepare for an upcoming performance. Yah, that "harried" band director is a professional doin' his paid job, eh? There are times when I'm "harried" in my profession. It's part of the gig. Scouters are volunteers, giving their time for free. And yah, often "harried." Are they somehow to be treated with less respect and value because they aren't bein' paid? Talked briefly to another band lad last night when I stopped by one of da troops I help as they were packin' for a weekend in the snow (yah, da silly commish keepin' an eye on a fairly new troop for safety issues and too few drivers, but they had it well wired). This lad is part of a school jazz band, very interested in music. "Required" to participate in various gigs, but the gigs seem to be scheduled about 1-3 weeks out all the time. Said he, "Yeah, I go to the scout stuff because it's my duty as a patrol leader, and I get way more out of it. The jazz band teacher will just have to deal. Maybe he should come to a JLT and learn how to plan better like I did." And yah, Jazz Band class is for a grade. Beavah

You have my word that I will be at least as fair and supportive of of our president as you were with our previous president. Yah, excellent. In my case, then, you've got a year and a half of being enthusiastically supportive, and another year and a half of bein' cautiously supportive, before yeh can start becoming disllusioned. I seem to remember that his argument was that the government should buy the bad mortgage debt, that it should restructure the debt, and if anyone defaulted on a mortgage, at least the properties could be sold to recover the money, and he thought that 95 percent of the mortgages would be repaid Yah, I don't remember that argument, eh? But if that was really the case, then the man clearly was as clueless as he looked on the subject. Default rate on subprimes was runnin' near 20% at the time, and on near-subprimes upward of 12% and climbin'. And these were tranched and leveraged instruments, eh? Given a choice between flushing $700 billion of taxpayers' money down the toilet and flushing $700 billion of taxpayers' money down the toilet but getting ownership of the bank, I'll take the latter, eh? Maybe I'm a greedy taxpayer to expect somethin' for my money, but at least if we own the bank we have something of residual value. There is no marketable residual value in most of these toxic credit default swaps, eh? They're just insurance contracts on houses that are already on fire. Beavah

but a big part of what is driving it is one of Obama's relatives claims he was born in Kenya Yah, this stuff is hysterical,eh? The nutjob filin' the lawsuit claims that a minister whose name he won't reveal interviewed Obama's grandmother. Obama's grandmother only really speaks Luo, but in the pseudo-transcript provided, the translator is speakin' kiSwahili. Her answers aren't actually included in the transcript, just the no-name translator's broken English. The man supposedly got this tape through an itinerant preacher who believes himself to be an Anabaptist minister (even though he isn't), and who is distinguished by such astute insights as claiming the 9/11 Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania is a "monument to Islam." Honestly, yeh can't make this stuff up it's so rich. Beavah

Band doesn't have backup positions. Yah, and that's somehow teachin' planning, leadership, and teamwork? Without even considerin' conflicts, kids get sick, kids have deaths in the family, kids have flat tires on the way to the performance. Learn how to adjust da formation. Sorry, I see it as a specious argument. In any activity or organization, a player and especially a leader will be missed if absent. Absence of a team member will always affect the entire group. For sure in Scouting! GKlose, I sent yeh a personal message, eh? None of my comments have been directed at you, and no disrespect or "attack" is intended, eh? You're readin' stuff that just isn't there. I'm arguin' my disagreement with certain ideas related to the issue raised by the original poster. Da issue of the thread is that sports/band "trump" Scouting, eh? "Trumping" somethin' is always a value judgment on superiority of position or claim. It's not the same thing as choosin' between two equally valuable activities. So where I'm sittin', claimin' superiority for sports/band is exactly the issue, and I do think it's bunk and the arguments are codswallop. If yeh disagree, I respect you and your disagreement. Just don't expect me to modify my real, honest feelings without more evidence. Or my charmin', old-fashioned vocabulary. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

As luck would have it I was sittin' an Eagle BOR last night for a just-turned-18 year old young man from an active troop in da suburbs of the midsized city hereabouts. He was band vice-president for his high school, which has what by reputation is one of da best programs in the state, also a varsity baseball player and had been a JV athlete in some other sport. The usual full run of other extracurricular activities! Since I had this thread on the brain before I left for da BOR, I brought it up. Now of course the lad might have been playin' to his audience, but I don't have any reason to believe he was being less than honest. The quotes that stuck with me were: "Band really helped me find friends and a place to hang out in high school. Sports too, but a bit less. But my best friends, the guys who I know will still be my friends 40 years from now, those are my friends from scouts." "Band was great, and I really became a better musician. I'm going to stick with band (but not sports) in college if I can. But I couldn't imagine what kind of person I'd be without scouting. So much of who I am, of what I'm interested in and what I really care about came from my scouting experience. " "I was a good leader in band because I learned how in scouts." "One of the things that's cool in baseball is I'll often stay around and help with the JV players. I kind of learned that from being a patrol leader - how important it is to pass things along to those who are younger or who will come after you." "The most important adult in my life who isn't family? No question. My Scoutmaster, "Mr. T." For seven years he's been there in all kinds of circumstances. And he cared about me, not my grades, not my performance. And it's funny, you know. The thing I think I remember the most isn't like the high adventure trips or stuff. It's the car rides with him." Only one witness, and one point of data, eh? But we've got a lot of band and sports kids around here. I'm goin' to keep askin', just because now I'm curious. Beavah

Yah, I'm not sure anyone cares what Rush says except for comic value. It was George W. Bush who led us whole hog down the path of Socialism, with socializing the banking industry, the mortgage industry, the auto industry, and on and on. Where was Rush? My preference would have been to let 'em all fail (and then rescind director immunity and let the shareholders confiscate the personal wealth of every director who allowed that behavior). They're failin' anyway, eh? But given the course that was set by W. & friends, all I can hope for now is that Obama will succeed in managing this thing better and pulling us out of the fryer. And then empower a Justice Department to prosecute some of these crooks, and the regulatory agencies to get control of this game of highly leveraged gambling with other people's money. The antidote to socialism is law and prudent regulation, eh? Law and prudent regulation allows private enterprise to thrive without allowing private enterprise to cheat or steal. That's somethin' that Bush and his big-government neocons were always too intellectually challenged to understand. Beavah

Yah, sorry, vol, you're gettin' things all backward. Birth Certificates/Certificates of Live Birth are issued by the state, not by the hospital. The hospital's certification to the state may or may not be on file, but honestly there are plenty of home births as well. The state officials in Hawaii have dutifully indicated that all of Obama's birth records are in order. A State's certification by law establishes citizenship (which is why yeh can use the state's certificate to cross international borders). And no, some completely unrelated party should not be granted standing in some cockamamie lawsuit. All this is trumped by the fact that there's a birth announcement in the Honolulu paper published at the time of Obama's birth. Unless yeh figure that Obama's parents, the hospital, and the newspaper were all colluding 47 years ago just in case this boy might some day run for president, that's da final nail in the coffin for this nutty racist claptrap. Beavah

This sense of moral superiority isn't likely to win over many boys to the program. Of course not. If yeh want to win boys over to the program, dump the uniform and emphasize dangerous adventure! I saw kraut-60's initial complaint as being exactly da reverse of what you're claiming, eh? Sports/band programs asserting their superiority over Scouting, and demanding higher levels of commitment which compromise a lad's ability to fully participate and contribute to an active troop. The thing kraut was complainin' about was essentially that people bought into this superiority of sports/band argument, which is at least unsubstantiated and some of us feel is total bunk. That's the argument I'm hearin' from folks here, eh? It's perfectly OK for band to demand two hours a day, 5 days a week plus weekends at 100% commitment, but it's completely unreasonable for a troop to expect 50% attendance 1 night a week and stayin' for the whole event on a campout. Participatin' in band instead of scouts can be a fine choice for a lad, even a great choice if his passion is music. I would never discourage it. Boys should follow their interests and bliss, eh? Just don't overstate the case with codswallop about teachin' leadership/character/grades etc. being the reason. Beavah

Section leaders have real responsibility within the units (do you want them listed?). Yah, sure. But I think a more import thing is to imagine yourself followin' a lad around who is involved in each program, and lookin' at the skills, talents, and choices that come into play. The most incredible display of Esprit d'Corps I've ever seen was at a rehearsal of the OSU marching band. Any unit, scouting, military, varsity team, band or otherwise, would probably see a display like that and have chills running down their spine. Yah, I'm sure. It's just that esprit de corps is not da same thing as character, eh? The easiest way to achieve spirit is to narrow the task and up the volume, so to speak. When the task is very narrow, the differences between people are very small, and there's a single, externally imposed vision. Win the game. Play the song. People tell yeh what to cheer for, and you cheer. All kinds of spirit in a college football stadium, eh! Lots of drunken foolishness too. Been involved in some music, lots of theater, and all kinds of other organizations over the years. Yah, there's all kinds of things each one teaches. Yah, a really strong character-filled adult leader can instill some sense of values and character in each of 'em, even if only by example. They're all valuable. But they don't hold a candle to Scoutin'. I submit pedantic Scoutmasters "be here or be gone" don't have the strength of program in their Troops Would yeh say the same thing about those band directors and sports coaches? Or that high school chemistry teacher? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)