Beavah

Nah, SP, what you're hearin' isn't a liberal voice, eh? Even old Rooster agreed I was a solid conservative. What you're hearin' is a fellow who is willing to speak truth to his friends. . Although I do have to admit that da modern conservatives and a big chunk of the Republican Party have moved so far away from traditional conservative positions that I find myself politically homeless. Problem is that you modern conservatives are so much into the "us vs. them" thing that yeh can't even recognize you're old friends and fellow Americans anymore. I'm OK with a flat tax, even an advocate for a well-conceived one. Also in favor of consumption taxes on things like gasoline instead of income taxes (though that's a position that modern conservatives seem to have abandoned). I believe we should pay our own way, but that paying our own way actually involves some paying. Da thing is, a flat tax only works if there is some sense of honor and responsibility in business. Honor, in accepting compensation only in an amount that truly reflects one's own labor and contribution, not what you can "get". Responsibility in payin' da full cost of your operation without a public subsidy - to pay your share of the roads and bridges, to pay your share of da regulators and services, to pay to restore the areas affected by your pollution. In full. And to value and be responsible for the way yeh treat your employees and their families. The farther we move from a position of honor and ethics, the more important it is for our misbehavior to be limited and reigned in by laws designed to recoup what we weren't honorable enough to pay in da first place, or regulations to require us to do what a person of honor would have done without being told. That is the true conservative position, eh? It begins at home, with personal honor and responsibility. Beavah

Yah, it's funny. To me, workin' in da fields I do, what really doesn't make sense is people thinkin' they can work a NFP fundraiser in order to reduce their personal fees for anything. Whether that's camping or uniforms or gear. Da "big" COs who have people who knownwhat they're doin' prohibit this any time they get wind of it. Put more simply, why should we be allowed to host a chicken dinner and compete against all da restaurants in the area who have to pay taxes, and pay withholding, if all we're doing is logging the same sort of personal profit in the form of goods and services we want? The reason we are exempted, and da reason we get donations, is because we are meant to be a community service. So to my mind, da issue isn't so much the civil law, although I think if yeh ask anyone for an official legal opinion I'd know what they would say . It's an issue of the Scout Law and Oath. Yeh can't go into the community and compete on special terms with folks making a living, and yeh can't solicit and accept charitable donations, if in practice what you're really doing is putting money into your own pocket (aka "account"). That's what we call "panhandling" eh? Or fundraising fraud, or tax evasion. But by any name, it really shouldn't be an OK thing for scouts. Beavah

Yah, do you guys even listen to yourselves? Da whacky characatures of each side are really hysterical. The left wing favors what economists call "price discrimination" in taxes. That's where you charge people different prices for the same service. Charging an adult and child different prices for an airline seat would be an example. Or providing government-funded health care only to senior citizens? How much police and fire protection do yeh think a fellow renting an apartment needs compared to a corporation running a large physical plant? Da fellow who is making $10 M in bonuses from the market is benefitting from da stability created by several whole divisions of the federal government - SEC, Treasury, Comptroller of da Currency, FDIC, plus the quasi-governmentals like da Fed or Freddie and Fanny. Whole divisions of the federal government to serve just a small number of people. Then yeh have a typical family that doesn't fly anywhere or go yachting anywhere compared with those bonus folks. So add in disproportionate service by the FAA and Coast Guard. On and on. It's a complete myth that folks are receiving the same service from government. As a conservative, I'd be all in favor of teachin' people to be self reliant and feed themselves as SR540 suggests. I'm just not seein' that in "modern" conservatives. Where are the proposals for education? For research funding? Cut. Cut. Where is the investment by the bankers in facilities to make more pies? Nowhere. Funds are tied up gambling in da derivatives market, creating wealth on paper. They claim to defend da law and Constitution, but where were they on torture and suspending habeas corpus and signing memos? Nowhere. They favored dismantling da constitution whenever it was inconvenient. By and large, da folks who claim to be conservatives right now really aren't people who understand business or built anything in their lifetimes, eh? They are people who are old enough and lucky enough to have benefitted from a series of bull markets, and as happens so often they confuse a bull market for their own personal genius. I guess that's da downside to preventing Great Depression II. If we had just let it happen and all those geniuses had lost their entire savings and their jobs at age 50, they might have been reminded to look at their fellow man with sympathy and compassion. There, but for the grace of God, go all of us. Now, none of that means I agree with da liberal approach, mind yeh! Beavah

Yah, lighten up there, Francis. I mean packsaddle. Bankers are human beings, not systems. I reckon it's just fine to expect 'em to behave like ethical ones. A similar thing for boards of directors and brokers and such, eh? Da proper ethics is not to maximize short term shareholder value. It's to represent da shareholders as their agent, and to do only things they would approve of as though they were there representing themselves. So that means that as a board member, you should not screw your workers or dump toxic sludge in ds river even though it enhances short-term shareholder value - because the majority of your shareholders would not approve. It is just da same old question of honor and fiduciary responsibility that we try to teach the scouts. And that kind of honor, common sense, and good judgment can indeed be present in economic systems of all sorts. In fact, it's vital to their successful functioning. Models of economic systems are cold and impersonal in da way you describe. That's a fun game for economists and earns 'em tenure. But in da real world there are real people, not cogs. I agree with Eamonn, eh? It's very clear that both da Tea Party and da OWS people are frustrated, and for some good reasons, but neither has da education or training to actually understand what's goin' on and how things work. So they don't have any idea how to focus their frustration into productive action. Instead they latch onto favorite media soundbites or a single facet of da issue and become a tool for some of the very things they would oppose if they had a clue. Yah, da TPers are frustrated by the deficits and Fed interventions run up in da effort to prevent Great Depression II, and blame them on President Obama. But da alternative really was Great Depression II, eh? Cascading bank collapses. Deflationary contraction. 2 to 3 times as many people out of work. Just da wind down of the stimulus program has nearly put us back into recession and caused serious political fallout in a number of states. What they should be upset about is da complete lack of follow-up with criminal probes and re-regulation, because we're most of da way to setting up the house of cards again. Do yeh know that da 4 biggest banks in da U.S. Are currently exposed to over $400 trillion dollars of notional derivatives? Yah, yah, they claim to be hedged, but they are once again ignoring da counterparty risk. They think they're too big to fail, and that they're free to gamble on this scale knowin' the taxpayer will back them up. So while the Tea Party whines about deficits, their representatives sit and allow da Mother of All MegaDeficit Bailouts to build without challenge. Good people, being completely duped. I expect it will be no different for da OWS crowd. They'll be co-opted by the left and promised unending benefits that aren't sustainable, and so they'll spend on short term benefits instead of spending on ds infrastructure and investments that will lead to the long-term growth that lifts all boats. Beavah

Yah, easy there moosetracker! Helpful, Friendly and Kind! . No fair usin' grumpy pills. I don't know how in da organization we get so many anal-retentive types at da district level in so many places. It can be a bit frustratin'. Da thing of it is, while maybe this will help break up a logjam in a few places, it really carries its own poison. Yeh can see da same folks rejecting a boy's excellent proposal because he couldn't fit what he wanted to on the form and submitted it as a Word document, or rejecting a boy's proposal because there was a line on da form that didn't apply to his project which he didn't fill out. Any of us doin' this work for long enough have seen such things. And, too, there often are some legitimate local issues boys need to be aware of, eh? Da form and process for a solicitation permit in a town that demands one of everybody. Specific instructions on contacts or processes requested by the town park for Eagle Projects. Information on the council's policies with respect to Tour Plans and Fundraising. The notion that one-size-fits-all for an entire nation is ludicrous on its face. Yeh handle da logjams with good instructions and occasional well-placed use of dynamite, eh? . Not by allowing only one boat on da river. Beavah

Yah, chaoman45, what BoR expectations are yeh referring to? I did catch where they have moved away from only unit committee members serving on BORs at all levels. Now parents and other adults are clearly permitted if/when TCs aren't available. That's a common sense change since it's what everyone was doin' anyways. They haven't (yet) gone back to havin' youth members participate on BORs, though. It's also interestin' for BORs that they seem to have toned down the "don't retest" language a bit. Again, that's a common sense change since everyone was doin' some of it anyways, even if only about da Oath and Law. Overall, I like the tone on these things and through most of the book. It seems to support a balanced, common-sense approach to most things. Only traps so far seem to be the new overemphasis on no adding/subtracting (just because it will inevitably get misinterpreted by da "precision" novices) and da loophole on "active.". But I'm only part way through. Mrs. Beavah had me doin' too much work over the weekend. Thanks again for da post, bnelon44. Beavah Overall

Yeh missed reading da original poster's message, where he had a link to a draft copy of da new workbook. The new version is not on scouting.org yet, so you downloaded the old one. While I agree that a number of districts, councils, and individuals went hog-wild on da Eagle Project proposals and it needed to be trimmed, I (as usual) disagree with da "don't change one dot or tiddle" paint-by-numbers approach. We want boys to learn real skills, like how to take an example or template and use da appropriate pieces of it to build their own argument or plan. Having them use a one-time-only proprietary BSA app for planning/reporting doesn't teach 'em a useful skill. That lack of utility is just goin' to cause most boys and units to do what they do now, and just ignore da workbook, building their plan in Word and Excel and writing "see attached" on every page of the proprietary form. Beavah

Yah, I once had a UUA scouter tell me that da cub scout sign was the "quiet coyote". Then he joked that if da adults didn't respond to the quiet coyote it could become da angry unicorn. Beavah

Personally, I expect they wont be able to avoid turning it into a fight with police, which will destroy this as a possibly serious political movement. Nah, it works either way, eh? Prior to responsive democracies, da norm in feudal societies when the wealth disparity got out of hand was to throw a riot. Yeh burn da rich and their businesses to the ground. Either that, or yeh start a pogrom or a war, which really has da same effect. It works to resolve the wealth disparity, but it's not a particularly productive way to do it. Sound business ethics, taxes, civil discourse, and political involvement are much better options for everybody. Again, it's worth takin' a look at Greece. Huge spending cuts of the sort da Tea Partiers advocate, fixed monetary policy of da sort the Tea Partiers advocate, and what has happened? Their deficit has increased because of further economic deterioration and consequent loss of revenues. And they've had riots and general strikes, with still further economic losses. Da question is, given such a timely and relevant experiment, why would we want to recreate that situation in da U.S.? Beavah

Yah, this is a pet peeve of mine, too. Like nails on a chalkboard, only worse. Sometimes I just pull the scouter aside and ask 'em to let me try something. Then I give the sign and just wait. If need be, I give a glance to an older lad who gets the hint to nudge a few boys in a group that aren't lookin' around. Easy peasy. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Da problem, BS-87, is that those "other people" in those poorer communities are our countrymen. Yep, for a bit it's possible to withdraw to our gated upper middle class suburban pseudo-Christian enclaves and plant trees for da local community center and pretend that those poor urban and rural folks don't matter. Da thing is, our economic fate is linked to theirs. If they aren't workin' and buyin' goods then they aren't supportin' da white collar jobs keepin' us in our gated communities and suburban enclaves. Or they're goin' to be entrepreneurial and start sellin' drugs to our kids or stealin' our cars. Economic collapse and deflation through lack of general employment disproportionately affects da upper middle class and upper classes, eh? By and large, it levels the playing field again, because almost all well-off folks have confused birthright and a bull market for their own ability. When it comes down to actually havin' to demonstrate their own ability they get clobbered. Wealth disparity after da Great Depression was a lot less than before it. "Do unto others as yeh would have them do unto you" is ultimately a social law written into da very fabric of the universe by its Creator. Sometimes da lesson is learned and practiced with civility. Other times, it comes with a whiff of grapeshot. Or, to put it another way, packsaddle's Darwinian selection doesn't just apply to individuals, eh? Natural selection also works on groups and societies that fail to function well. Now you're quite right that there are lots of other and probably better ways of addressin' these issues than government involvement and taxation. Basic business ethics and responsibility for one. Judeo-Christian-Islamic call to self-sacrificial personal charity for another. There was a reason why the Creator ordained da Jubilee, eh? Every 50 years, a massive transfer of wealth from da rich to the poor in the form of forgiveness of all debts and return of purchased lands, ordered not by big government but by Big God. In da Christian world, it can also work when some of da population answers Christ's challenge and in their personal life gives more than their 10% tithe to help those in need by takin' vows of poverty or otherwise livin' a life of holiness and service. Like da Christ, they redeem the greedy of society for their sins against God's natural order by their personal sacrifice. Problem is, I haven't seen many of da Tea Partiers goin' off to live in da urban slums with their fellow Americans to demonstrate how well livin' da real Christian message works better than "big government." Better to let those uninsured workers die and reduce da surplus population, eh? Leastways, that's what seems to be garnering their applause. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Boy, this beastie is long! Flipped to da bit TwoCubDad mentioned and I have to agree with him. Da new section on PORs is much more sensible. Looks like our good volunteers took the ball back from da folks in the office who were directin' things the other way. Scout salute to 'em. As skeptic reports, for some reason they didn't just keep the same sort of common-sense thing for the infamous "definition of active", though. That would have made it straightforward and understandable for everybody. Looks like they tried to, but someone inserted a loophole da size of Montana to try to preserve "active=registered." Be interestin' to see what happens when da first round of appeals hit over not being given credit for band when that's allowed and seemingly encouraged. Nice that they included lots more information on special needs exceptions. Despite da added length, lots of districts and councils fumbled around lookin' for how to handle these things when they'd come up. Probably could have avoided pages of descriptions of cub scout and venturing awards that are described in other literature. Da long additions to sections on BORs, appeals, and da Eagle process I'm sure are goin' to keep council and district advancement committees workin' for da next year or so until they get comfortable with da new stuff. Since it seems like yeh were on da committee, bnelon44, do yeh have anything in particular to highlight? Some of our cub scouters might want to take a look at da new section on cub advancement, which didn't really exist before. Beavah

Hey there, vol_scouter! We're in complete agreement! BS-87, I agree with yeh that local folks are apt to be more responsive, and that da churches and private charities are apt to be more responsible. So local action works, but only for a fraction of the country. Da problem we have in da country with only acting locally is mobility. By and large, folks move into like-minded and economically homogeneous communities. Rich folks live together in the wealthy suburbs. Poor folks live together in the ghetto. Working-class folks live together in subdivisions. So what yeh get by only acting locally is wealthy suburbs with great schools, working-class suburbs with mediocre schools, and poor urban and rural areas with lousy schools. That in turn leads to wealthy municipalities with good administrators and lots of government services, working-class towns with mediocre managers that are doin' OK in up-times, struggling severely in downturns, and scrapin' by the rest of the time. And of course, da poor urban and rural areas end up with da corrupt and incompetent officials and the worst resources. The result is a weak economy where we're makin' very poor use of our human and other capital, eh? Especially when those rich suburban folks are havin' fewer kids and gettin' older, so they're contributin' less to the economy. Same with da churches, eh? Most churches are congregation-based. Wealthy congregations do fine, but da congregations in working class or poor areas don't have da resources to be able to help in substantial ways. The exceptions are the hierarchical churches that can pool resources across different congregations, but even they are gettin' strained. Da Catholics and Lutherans together used to educate somethin' like 15% of the country in their parochial schools, now it's down well below 10%. Hard to compete with da funding of government schools with a shrinking pool of people who have taken vows of poverty. And we all know da country is aging, and older folks as a rule are much less willing to vote for education than young people like yourself. So while I agree with your sentiment, simply relyin' on churches and local governments isn't enough, given da other forces and factors involved. B

Yah, OK, I can buy a distinction between da Tea Party citizens and da representatives they elected. At some point, though, don't the people have to take some personal responsibility for their choices? For the harm they're choices are doin' to civil discourse, and for da near disastrous foolishness of "their" representatives? I haven't yet seen any of 'em step forward and take that responsibility or change their tune. Quite da opposite, eh? They'd prefer to elect more people who would rather run the economy off a cliff than work with their fellow Americans on a solution. As for da "occupiers", they strike me as about as incoherent as the Tea Partiers were at the beginnin', or even as many are today. Tea Partiers want smaller government, but don't touch Medicare, da military, or Social Security! No socialized medicine, but keep the VA! It's hysterical in its own way. With da possible exception of Ron Paul's folks, ain't nuthin' more than da special interest lobby of us old rural white folks protectin' our personal government subsidies. Occupiers I expect will work out to be the same. Now, da movement that has caught my eye and that I reckon could get some real traction is the "I am the 99%" thing that has grown out of the occupiers. Real, powerful stories of ordinary Americans in hard times. Da expectations aren't the end of democracy or capitalism, but more akin to what OGE and Eamonn's Catholic bishops once wrote in their pastoral letter on the economy, eh? That capitalism is not an end in itself, but a means for serving people and a nation. And those who participate in capitalism at all levels must be bound by honor and loyalty to their clients and their employees and employers - their fellow citizens. Beavah

Yah, that's pretty much what it is already, BadenP. Relatively few countries have da pseudo-military style uniform we do, and they tend to be countries with governments we're not too crazy about. Most use da necker over generic outdoor or youth-wear, or a low-key "official" shirt with similarly low-key patches. As in most things in worldwide scouting, da BSA is the oddball. B

Could you post a site with some pics of several varieties, maybe I can use it as a conversation starter? Yah, qwazse, just point 'em at da youth pages on the WOSM site (scout.org). You'll see uniforms ranging from T-Shirts to BSA style, but da one thing that will be ubiquitous will be neckers of every style and color, worn over everything. Some kids wearin' a dozen different ones they have been given by international friends. It'll make it very clear that it's a youth thing, not an adult thing. Interestingly, neckers play even better in coed groups. No problems with fit da way Lisabob describes . Beavah

Well, the CC and I figured that donations were free money, and not the same as ticket sales, so we thought about putting aside all donated money and splitting it as 70% for the scout, and 30% for the den that the scout is in. Holysmoke! Yah, Scoutfish, see da other recent thread on scout accounts. Personally, I don't think it's ethical to divvy up any portion of donated dollars to individuals for what amounts to personal benefit. That includes personal benefit in da form of personal scouting or camping gear, personal discounts on fees, etc. If yeh want a legal opinion on da practice, yeh have to pay someone . Generally speakin', though, the law tracks pretty closely with da ethics in these things. Honor the intent of da donors and reserve donated dollars to the program as a whole. Use da funds for group gear, or for reducing costs for every boy, or for paying for lads in economic difficulty. Avoid even da appearance of committing fundraising fraud or tax evasion as incompatible with da principles of Scouting. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, vol_scouter, I wasn't suggestin' that there's no merit to defense spending or R&D. Just that there's no economic merit beyond securin' da country and trade routes. Yep, some military research eventually makes its way into civilian use, but nowhere near as fast or as effectively as regular civilian research funding. It took years before DOD turned off SA for the GPS system makin' it useable for modern civilian applications, for example. Civilian research always yields much faster and much higher return. Similarly, aside from securin' da country and our trade routes, military salaries are a poor investment. They don't produce anything in terms of economic output or growth. It's a true "governement job", eh? Even a fellow flippin' burgers does more for da nation economically. He produces a product that adds value. There are a few exceptions, of course. If yeh intend to use your military to invade and steal other countries' assets, for example. That can, under da right circumstances, yield a substantial positive return on investment, at least in da short term. Long term, it tends to be a loser, but not always. Yeh can go mercenary, and rent your military out to a wealthy client state for hire. That's sorta what we did economically in da first gulf war. Or yeh can go arms dealer, and sell hardware to anybody anywhere lookin' to kill each other (includin' folks just as likely to kill us with it). That's been our main route to try to eke out some return for quite a while. Still doesn't pay anywhere near as well as civilian investment, because yeh can only sell your older stuff. So given a choice between the two, it's clear civilian research, and well chosen civilian government jobs or subsidies is the better investment if yeh care about da economy. Again, provided sufficient government military investment to secure da country and its trade routes. The Tea Party representatives in Congress were willing to destroy or severely damage da country by defaulting. That's far worse to me than a few protesters out of many behaving badly. We've all seen da stupid and racist signs occasionally at Tea Party rallies too, eh? That's just dumb individuals. Yeh can't paint da movement with that brush. But I do think you're right on one thing, eh? Historically, wide disparities in wealth coupled with economic desperation in young folks and families leads to riots and insurrections if not addressed. And sometimes to worse. Beavah

Dog and cat bowls work well. Me, I used to have some old speckled plastic bowl from da early 60s. Used that campin' for decades. Lexan spork, plus one of those 12oz plastic insulated mugs yeh get from da gas station for a buck or two, but only in da cold weather. Old bowl finally died, so now I just use one of da cheap lexan bowls. Gotta agree that those aluminum mess kits are worthless. B

Easy, there, BS-87, I'm not tryin' to paint you at all. Besides, Mrs. Beavah insists I'm a lousy painter. My comments are all directed at da Tea Party-supported representatives to Congress. They were willing to default rather than accept the best deficit reduction deal ever offered. Like a bumper sticker I saw recently. Republicans 2012: Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job. However, there is no return on investment for government subsidies, war, or payoffs to campaign donors. Of course there is, for da right ones. We had an enormous ROI from da First Gulf War. Dropped da price of oil to record lows for 10 years. Cemented our position at da end of the Cold War and secured da Pax Americana, opening trade and leading to a huge economic boom that eliminated our deficit and put us into good-sizes surpluses. Any company or nation can make good or bad investment choices. Just because there are some bad choices doesn't mean that there aren't also good choices. Taking out bonds to build a local school at a low interest rate strengthens communities, draws new residents, improves property values and thereby increases tax revenues leading to a net gain over da life of the bond. Even though it's also "catering to teachers unions", it's still a good investment. And that's for full-out socialized education, not even subsidies. Subsidies get yeh farther because they also trigger more collateral private investment. All kinds of things government can subsidize that yield excellent returns over da 30-year life of a negative-interest loan. Education. Basic scientific research. Transportation infrastructure. Energy infrastructure. Health care and safety for young people who have many years of productive work ahead of them. Proper regulation of da financial industry to ensure investor confidence and transparency. Improving and increasing immigration of young, desirable workers and families. Great investments. Huge payoffs. Well worth takin' out an enormous loan at da current interest rates. Yah, sure, and there are also poor investments. Aggressive health care for the terminally ill. Military research, hardware, and salaries beyond what's required for defense of our borders and our routes of trade (because unlike civilian scientific research, military research and spending gets "locked up" and can't be readily built on and commercialized). Unlimited campaign spending. Allowing banks and bankers to gamble in da markets rather than invest in individuals and companies that produce things. Tax relief for those who are only engaged in that gambling rather than actually investing and employing people. Building an armed border along our southern frontier. Buying tens of thousands of X-Ray scanners for airports. We have to be smart enough to elect people who know da difference between good and bad investments, and also know enough about business to know that yeh don't hesitate to borrow at good terms when there are excellent investment opportunities. Used to be da Republicans had a lot of people who had worked in da real world and understood that, and were worth supportin'. Beavah

You didn't have a computer on your desk - you logged into a mainframe that could be located in a different room, a different building, heck, a different town - and typed away to create a program. Whippersnapper. Real men program usin' punch cards. Beavah

That's the hard line approach. There cannot be compromise in which we promise to pay Tuesday for a hamburger today. Yah, that's what we call the "hard line like a blockhead" approach. You're mixin' up entitlement commitments with debt and debt interest payments. A company with aging machinery that's carrying some debt can choose to pay down its debt and let da machinery decay in further deferred maintenance, and stop trainin' its workers or let 'em be attracted by more lucrative positions with other companies. In other words, it can choose to reinforce its own decline. That might be its only choice if da credit markets are such that it can only borrow money at a very high interest rate, but it's a grim choice. Alternately, if da company can borrow more money at an extremely low long-term interest rate, the company is far better off borrowing further and investing in improved machinery, efficiency, and retaining its key employees. The debt service on such an additional loan is insignificant compared to da benefits of keeping the company from declining and positioning it for recovery. Da company CEO would have to be an idiot not to borrow more. Right now, da U.S. can borrow money long-term at what is effectively a negative interest rate. Yields on treasury securities are such that we can borrow at historically low rates, well below any likely long-term rate of inflation. While cutting taxes and thereby dramatically increasing the deficit going into two wars was phenomenally stupid, not borrowing money and investing in infrastructure improvements and da future workers of the country when effective interest rates are negative would also be phenomenally stupid. But defaulting? Deliberately going into bankruptcy when yeh can get a negative interest rate long-term loan to rebuild and position yourself for recovery? That is something only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would contemplate. Beavah

Yah, BS-87, da problem is that they're also standing up against any spending on investment too, eh? I just read recently that back in Reagan's day a federal Pell grant paid for more than 2/3 of an average student's college tuition. Now it pays less than a third. If yeh wander 'round da campuses of the U.S.'s major universities you'll find students from everywhere from China to Turkey whose governments are paying the full, out-of-state tuition, board, and travel costs for their nationals because they know that's one of the best investments they can make as a nation. And at da same time, the Tea Partiers are goin' all in for the worst, most ugly parts of da Republican party. Self-aggrandizement without honor, private profit with public risk, wavin' flags to support our troops but not paying for their salaries or gear, and an almost maniacal commitment to ensuring the bankers and CEOs that cost da country trillions maintain their bonuses at the lowest possible tax rate. That they hide this under a veil of Christianity is an affront to all who remember that the real Christ warned the rich young man that not only must he follow the precepts of the bible, but he also must go, sell all that he had and give it to the poor in order to truly follow Christ. Most of us who began being fairly supportive of da Tea Party crowd because they seemed to echo our conservative notions of fiscal and moral responsibility have come to see 'em as a bit of a cancer. A sort of anti-intellectual rot on da country that attracted da lingering legacy of da Strom Thurmond Democrats. For me it became clear when they were more willing to default than accept $4 trillion in proposed cuts and mild tax increases from this president. Responsible people can't continue to vote against their own best interests and those of the nation. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

And just like last time I wouldn't be surprised if half of New York's pot dealers are right there Yah, no doubt. They already had shop fronts set up along with da coke dealers and madams to cater to the Wall Street banker crowd. This will just be a mass-market sideline to their regular business. Beavah

The financial crisis that unfolded in 2008 was the direct result of government interventions that forced banks to make loans they would not have made without that pressure. Nah, it wasn't, and no matter how many times da partisan blogosphere repeats that deliberate misinformation campaign it still won't be true. There was no need for "government interventions" for banks to make those loans. Regular old unregulated capitalism did just fine. They were raking in money hand over fist, while passin' da risk off to others. Rakin' in money hand over fist is incentive enough. Folks seem to have a canonical list of demands from da OWS group. Is that online somewhere? B