Beavah

The right thing used to be that marriage was a lifelong commitment. The right thing used to be that bankers had a fiduciary duty to safeguard depositors money as they would their own. The right thing used to be that parents supported teachers and scout leaders when they had to discipline their kids. Times change. The idea of what the "right thing" is changes. And always throughout history those changes are driven by small groups of people driven by a slight sense of arrogance and selfishness. But the majority can decide in favor of that sort of approach, even if it is destructive, with a few die-hard traditionalists throwing up walls to keep things by their standards and beliefs. And in a few generations, the young look back and cannot even imagine what the hoopla was about. You mean kids used to grow up in intact homes, banks could be trusted, and teachers were treated with honor? You must be kidding! Not every societal whim or fashion is a good thing, eh? Lots of societies go off the rails. The last 100 years we saw the rise and fall of communism, eh? The well-meaning and zealous reformers truly believed that abolishing private property was a righteous and holy thing. How'd that work out for 'em? For the world? Da same arguments that get made for homosexuality could, after all, be made for pedophilia. Have been made, in fact, in past societies. A loving form of mentoring. Long term relationship that benefitted both partners. If you're attracted to boys you only have the choice to be celibate or be in a monogamous relationship or be a swinging single (right now we use da term serial molester instead of swinging single, but that just shows our societal peda-phobia). Oh, and da witch hunts that people used to have over pedophiles! Just tryin' to get a pay day by robbin' churches and youth programs. So da argument is spurious. There can be good changes or bad changes to societal mores, eh? The hard part is deciding which is which. Conservative folk start with "first do no harm" and want to proceed slowly. Liberal folk start with all change must be better than where we're at so let's experiment. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, those physicists are dangerous, eh? In theory, any micro black holes should "evaporate" before they interact or grow. Why are they doin' the experiment? Well, because they're not sure if their theories will hold up or not in real life. Makes yeh wonder. Perhaps da reason we haven't found any intelligent life in da galaxy is that eventually each civilization gets to the point where some tom-fool government-supported Eagle Scout physicist builds a collider that drops their planet into an artificially created black hole. B

Like it is a choice? Of course it's a choice. I'm a heterosexual and I do occasionally find ladies other than Mrs. Beavah sexually attractive. That doesn't mean that I am obligated by virtue of my very nature to go fornicate with all of 'em! Nor does it mean I'm a one-night-stand-aphobe. Merlyn, by "get over it" I meant they should get over their whining. As women they can't be Catholic priests, as Anglos they might not be eligible to represent the Latino community forum, as physicians (or whatever) they're not eligible to join the state bar association. Get over it. I made my choice at da altar with Mrs. Beavah. That means I can't do some things. Not welcome at da Single's Club any more, eh? They made their choice in their relationship, that means they can't be an adult leader in a conservative Christian youth program. Presumably the benefits outweigh the downside. Their kid is still welcome in Scouting and is happily pursuing his scouting activities with everyone's support. Again, what's the issue? And again, what about our position being different for youth and adults can't yeh get through your head? Adults have required training, youth don't. Adults get background checks. Youth don't. Youth can earn Eagle Scout. Adults can't. Adults are expected to behave themselves responsibly, and will get removed if they don't. Youth we expect to misbehave, and they get a lecture on Scout Spirit and a round of cleanin' the latrine. We treat youth and adults differently. Why is that so hard to understand? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah does not perceive the problem in manufacturing. Nor, apparently, does the Wall Street Journal. But I'm willing to listen, eh? How exactly does steady or increasing manufacturing output in the U.S. constitute a problem? What we've lost (textiles, steel) were low-skill, low-profit manufacturing. We're no longer making T-shirts. That's been completely offset by the fact we're making a lot more John Deere tractors and slant-drilling oil rigs. What's the problem? Pack, Calico, and Beavah, the more heavily that the federal government has become involved in education, the more expensive it has become and the worse the performance. Even now, da federal government isn't that involved in education, eh? They provide college scholarships, monetary help for impoverished urban and rural schools, free lunches for poor kids, privacy and civil rights protections, and special education funding and mandates. That's about it, along with da No Child Left Behind mandates, but even there the curriculum and the tests are still up to the states. Nah, the problems in public schools are with da state and local governments, not the feds. The feds can't fix it top-down, but then that's no surprise, eh? If yeh want to fix the schools, get government out of the monopoly business. Provide vouchers for every kid, and let 'em go to the government school or the parochial school or the private school or the university charter school or whatever. Just like colleges, eh? Provide scholarships to let the kids and the families choose what's best for them. That, and treat teachers like honored professionals. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

How odd. And kinda creepy. First, if yeh haven't already, yeh tell the district director that his behavior is unacceptable and that he is to cease it at once. As COR, he works for you, not the other way around. Second, if he didn't respond to that, yeh call the council field director or the scout executive and you let him/her know that the district director is not to contact you or any of your volunteers in person or by phone again. If he wishes to get in touch with your unit, he is to email you and only you and only once. You make it clear that this is a situation which may compromise your unit charter if not addressed immediately. Third, if necessary because the SE hasn't dealt with it, yeh approach the council president with the issue, and let him know that yeh need him to address it through the council executive committee. Lastly, yeh let your building principal and school security folks know, and yeh have the fellow escorted off school premises or arrested if he tries that trick again. If for some reason yeh don't think you're getting traction along the way, have your principal (who I assume is the IH for the unit) do the calls. Principals are good at that sort of thing. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... what an oddly written and poorly researched article. They can't even get da simple things right like the difference between Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs, that a den leader doesn't run a troop, etc. And I love the bit about ASM training usually taking a full year. I wonder in what alternate universe that is? So here we have in essence a lesbian woman sign up as an ASM for a conservative Christian church's scouting program, despite what has to be by now the completely well known and obvious policy of the BSA and of that church. She is quickly found out, and the conservative Christian church removes her as a leader from their program. What exactly is the problem? Yeh don't really believe that a conservative Christian church should be forced to take all comers as leaders in their program, do yeh? And they feel "bullied" because someone asked 'em what their sexuality was? Surely yeh jest. Her son is apparently still welcome and happy in the program. What exactly is the problem here, other than a bunch of public whining that some people don't agree with their lifestyle choice? Some people don't agree with my lifestyle choice or profession either, eh? Make all kinds of jokes about it even. Get over it. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Interestin', BS-87. Why does the media seem to focus exclusively on the Tea-o-cons? Yeh rarely hear a peep about the libertarian Tea Partiers. B

Yah, hmmmm.... Givin' a cash payment to people for selling popcorn? That's either a commission wage (in which case yeh have to comply with the child labor laws, withhold FICA, and collect tax info) or it's fundraisin' fraud. People are selling popcorn claiming that it's benefiting scouting but in fact they're pocketing a share. No different than the people who claim to be soliciting for hurricane relief but pocket the donations. Are yeh too small for anybody to bother with in terms of enforcement? Probably. Whether "I can get away with it" is an appropriate answer is up to how yeh approach the Scout Oath and Law. Basementdweller, the language you're lookin' for is from the tax code: "no part of the net income of the nonprofit agency may inure to the benefit of any shareholder or other individual" (41 CFR 51-4). That's in the section on qualifications of a NFP entity. In other words, any entity that allows any part of the income of a NFP to inure to the benefit of a member or individual loses its NFP status. "Inure to the benefit of" is a legal term of art that roughly means to be of personal use or benefit. That would apply to cash as well as goods that became the personal property of a member. Yeh can see why, eh? It's a way for the individual to make personal income while avoiding tax. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, there's some truth to that, BA. Da reasons the Detroit auto worker or the unemployed Georgian aren't willing to pull up stakes and go join the migrant worker community are quite a few, eh? For one, they're used to havin' a house, so they're tryin' to hold on to it. Take away mortgage subsidies like da mortgage interest deduction and other financial manipulation, and you'd have less of that. Homeless citizens would be more available for migrant work. Trick is that to get there yeh do a lot of collateral damage, eh? Homeless citizens also don't tend to be big contributors to the economy, yeh see. So you'd have another huge round of Super Recession, falling demand and falling stock prices and falling home prices and puttin' more pension plans further under water. Probably another round of bailouts too, eh? Legislators love their banking pals. I agree that there should be a phase-out of unemployment benefits, and that 2 years is gettin' to be too long. But there has to be hiring demand, and there isn't right now for da blue-collar side of the economy. Again, if someone is willin' to loan you money at 1% interest for 30 years, that's a good deal. Yeh should take it and invest it. Pay for job retraining instead of unemployment or somethin'! Beavah

a true grassroots movement of ordinary people Yah, hmmm... Sure seems like there are some big-ticket funders, eh? I have yet to see anything that I would call economic conservatism from the Tea Party crowd. Maybe I'm just not listenin' to the right sorts of folks, or maybe that's just a reflection of how badly our education system has failed "ordinary people". They don't even know what economic conservatism means any more, just like they don't even recognize that socialism and fascism are fundamentally different. I picked up a copy of Rick Perry's most recent book, "Fed Up!". Gotta keep up my due diligence about each candidate. From those of you who feel you're closer to the Tea Partiers, I'd be curious to know if yeh think that book represents da basics of the Tea Party positions on things. Perry is often described by da media as a Tea-Party friendly candidate, after all. Does that book resonate with da group? Beavah

You got to be kidding me! We now import most of our steel. Textiles have left. The chemical industry has left. In fact, this country is incapable of building a large nuclear reactor without importing large components! Nah, I wouldn't kid you. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104576122353274221570.html U.S. manufacturing output, aside from occasional drops from economic downturns, has doubled over the last 40 years, and continues to rise. Yep, you're right, we're not makin' cheap stuff like T-shirts or rolled steel anymore. U.S. manufacturing has shifted to high-end stuff that pays better margins and needs a sophisticated work force. But durin' the same period, manufacturing jobs have dropped by almost a third. That's a gain in efficiency, not a loss of manufacturing. From World War II through the 1980's, the science journals were dominated by USA researchers. That is far from true now. Yah, that's because our schools aren't doin' the job, and because our culture values sports heros, lawyers, and loud-mouthed media and political "personalities" more than it values scientists. So why would a young boy or girl choose to do the much harder work of becomin' a scientist when the pay ain't great and the candidates for president tell everybody that scientists are nothing but cheats and villains? Also, the brain drain has slowed or ceased because we are no longer a haven of democracy - we are becoming a socialist disaster like the rest of the world and the resulting decline in the standard of living coupled with improvements in their home countries mean that they no longer stay. Yah, hmmm... Well, da number of foreign students at U.S. universities is at an all-time high, eh? Often times their governments are willing to pay 100% of the tuition and travel costs to get their young people a high-end U.S. education. If I remember correctly, you're the fellow who wanted to cut 100% of the Department of Education, so that we'd give our promising young people zero. And then yeh look at a study like this one and yeh discover that the actual evidence is that foreign students are staying at essentially the same or higher rates than before. http://orise.orau.gov/files/sep/stay-rates-foreign-doctorate-recipients-2007.pdf I know, I know. Why actually look at real evidence when we can cringe in fear, point fingers in angst, and babble about pseudo-science? If I get a chance, I will try to find references for the medicare/medicaid beginning and end of life costs. I look forward to it. Mine BTW are: Emanuel, E.J. (1996) Cost savings at the end of life. What do the data show? JAMA 275(24):1907-14 Hogan C, Lynn J, Gable J, Lunney J, O'Mara A, Wilkinson A. Medicare Beneficiaries' Costs and Use of Care in the Last Year of Life: Final Report to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, 2000. or if yeh want some easier reads, try http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/05/60minutes/main6747002.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-18-end-of-life-costs_x.htm Also, I originally proposed a fair tax. I don't mind a fair tax, but below a certain income level yeh just can't get blood from a stone, eh? Also, with freeing up the jobs taken by illegal migrants and providing incentives for people to get off of welfare, we can decrease - not increase the welfare rolls. Find me an unemployed auto worker who is willin' and able to move his family from his house in Detroit to a migrant camp in California so he can pick oranges. Then tell me what the enforcement costs are goin' to be, and how much those enforcement costs will add to the deficit and create "bigger", more intrusive government. Everyone has to have a national ID card? Surgically installed citizenship chips? What? We only get to socialism or fascism when folks are so dense as not to actually consider the implications of what they are proposin'. It's like the balanced budget amendment, eh? It sounds good in a sound bite, until yeh realize that all it does is give the power of the purse to the courts. Beavah

I have read over the years several times that ~80% of the costs of medicare/medicaid occur at the beginning and end of life Yeh have a reference for that? It just doesn't pass the smell test, especially when every report and study I'm able to find says that only 27% of Medicare costs occur in then last year of life. That's huge, and show great opportunities for savings if we stop rewarding docs for procedures instead of care quality. Only a few are upset by it, eh? The rest are gettin' paid handsomely. But 80% is just poppycock. These measures will result in an upswing of the economy as heavy industry begins to return and business gets moving. Heavy industry never left. We're producing the same dollar amount of manufactured goods that we have for many years. What has changed is that we can do it more cost effectively without human workers. Bolting things together should pay about the same as picking oranges, eh? In fact it's easier and takes less skill. As manufacturing unions have faltered and failed, that's where it's headed. But lots of low-wage fruit picking and bolting jobs aren't goin' to add that much to the economy. We are never going back to the 1950s economy. Now, it is true that our exports will increase as we devalue the dollar (or China allows its currency to rise), so long as we get our oil imports under control. That will improve revenue and provide some incentive for domestic manufacturing, provided it's automated and efficient. But that's inflation, eh? It does help yeh get out from under debt, but it won't help with current expenses. So you're still stuck with more than half a trillion dollars of annual deficit with your cuts just to balance the budget (not to actually begin paying down debt). Also, I said that there could be an across the board modest tax increase so that the proportion of the population that pays no taxes diminishes. Yah, hmmm. Well, to make up $500+ billion, yeh need more than double what you'd get by ending the Bush tax cuts. That's not unreasonable, but are yeh sure thats whst ye mean by "modest". Its the sort of thing the courts might impose under a bslanced budget amendment I suppose. I'm sympathetic to the sentiment that everybody should pay some tax, and of course everybody does in excise and non-income taxes. But if yeh take a family of 4 making $35K per year and add $3500 in additional tax (their share of your remaining debt), then the impact on that family is pretty high, eh? Enough so that they can't make the mortgage payment or choose not to send their son to college or opt not to insure their health or their car. So now you've increased their tax rate by 10%, so they're paying a much higher percentage of their income than Warren Buffett and most of the bankers who caused the crisis. And don't forget yeh cut most of the support programs for those families, eh? What do yeh think is goin' to happen? You're going to increase the welfare roles, because you've dis-incentived work for low income folks. That's what conservatives have been saying for decades, eh? Income taxes on workers disincentivize work. And the resulting debt, and mortgage losses, and all the rest is goin' to be a drain on the economy, not a benefit. I get how da brainless media and partisans want to think this ain't hard. But it really is, eh? Like most things it takes real expertise and very careful thought. There aren't really any easy answers, and anyone who claims there are yeh should immediately dismiss as a fool. Beavah

Yah, again, so what are yeh goin' to cut? Are we goin' to cut and run in Afghanistan and Iraq? Remember the war expenses were "off book" in your 2007 figures, eh? That's part of the reason your numbers look the way they do. Da rest is stimulus and other recession-related funding outside of Health & Welfare, as well as increased homeland security costs, increases in veteran's benefits as a result of the wars, and da usual out of control growth in Medicare and growth in Social Security. So what do yeh drop? B

Yah, I'm with Scoutfish, I had never heard of the "three". I'm not as sanguine as nldscout about cases like this, because I believe there is a difference between law and justice. Yah, yah, for all practical purposes an Alford plea is a guilty plea under the law, and therefore these folks were "guilty" under the law. Some folks stop there. For me, I think da law should serve justice, and that regardless of da legal definition of "guilty" there may still be a practical case of innocence. If anything, the advent of DNA testing and the work of various groups like the Innocence Project has shown us that our courts are nowhere near as good as we think at determining justice. It's really quite depressing, and should cause any citizen and especially those of us involved with da law to pause and reflect deeply. Even lots of cases with full-out confessions turn out to be innocent folks duped or intimidated by law enforcement or aggressive prosecutors. I think I saw a study recently that claimed with the right circumstances and approach well nigh 70% of folks will admit to something they didn't actually do. And right now SCOTUS is reviewin' a case on the lack of reliability of eyewitness testimony. Simply put, by focusin' too much on "winning", and by officers of the court bein' just plain mentally lazy, we convict a lot of innocent people. And then far too often when other evidence comes to light otherwise good people stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la... not listening!". It's hard to admit yeh might have been wrong about somethin' this important. That even led Texas apparently to execute an innocent man. Now that doesn't matter to the law, eh? But I reckon it should matter a lot to anybody who cares about Justice. Beavah

Yah, vol_scouter, sorry but you're nowhere near there yet. 80% cuts in Medicare just from start/end of life doesn't pass the smell test, eh? Best data I could find show that 27% of Medicare costs come in the last year of life. There's room for savings there, to be sure, if you are willing to allow the government/doctors to override family wishes, but not as much as yeh claim. Especially since the family can shop docs to find one that will agree to more care (and therefore more reimbursement), so it really comes down to the government makin' the cut-off-care decision. I wasn't really talkin' preventive care so much as da overuse of ERs for things that really just merit a common office visit, and early detection. This isn't my field at all, but da argument of the public health folks seems logical to me. We even teach scouts the importance of regular check-ups in required MB, eh? I agree with yeh on the welfare cliff, but yeh haven't demonstrated any savings from that, eh? Replacing illegal immigrants with unemployed folks to get 'em off welfare roles sounds nice and all, but how are yeh goin' to do that, exactly? More enforcement costs more money, and they don't tend to live in da right places, eh? Yeh goin' to pay moving expenses so unemployed auto workers in Detroit can go to California to pick oranges? And remember, doin' what you're describing won't result in more people payin' taxes. You'll just be replacing someone who pays taxes but is not eligible for benefits with someone paying the same taxes who is eligible for benefits. Same deal with tax increases, eh? I'm glad yeh realize they're necessary, but yeh have to specify what's goin' to generate all the remaining difference. And nope, yeh can't do the politician thing and project vague "economic growth" to get out of things by magic revenue. Especially when both your cuts to programs and your tax increases are goin' to depress the economy in the short term and therefore reduce revenues. We'll give yeh credit for the savings for dropping the mortgage bailout program, though. Dropping HAMP gets yeh $30 billion in savings... but one time only. So it's a savings, but not somethin' that really helps balance da budget past year 1. So you're still need over $600 billion in cuts to get to balanced. I'll even be generous and give yeh $100 billion for additional vague hand-waved savings for end-of-life / start of life care from Medicare/Medicaid. Let those defective babies die. If we abort 'em earlier we can save even more. Yeh still need over $500 billion in cuts (or tax increases, but those are "off the table"). So what goes next? Eliminate Social Security? Or finish the job and just eliminate Medicare and Defense? And throw in Representative Ryan's cuts to veterans benefits. You're experiencing what everybody on every commission, Democrat or Republican, has experienced, eh? There is no way to do this responsibly with just cuts. Nor can yeh do it just with "taxes on the rich". It demands a balanced, responsible, intelligent approach, eh? Not a bunch of demagoguery and hand-wavin'. Or hand raisin', or pledge-taking. But I'm still game. Find the missing half a trillion if yeh can. Beavah

More information here. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=14353009 He was out doin' a nature hike with two scouts, age 11 and 12, and another adult. Good on the other adult for protectin' the kids. God be with him and all who held him dear. And may da Great Scoutmaster welcome him home. Beavah

Yah, I gotta agree with BS-87 on that, eh? Representative Paul is a straight shooter. I actually sat through the Iowa candidate's debate on YouTube. Just part of doin' my homework. What a bunch of pandering weasels. Did yeh check out the Daily Show bit on Ron Paul last week, BS-87? A friend sent it to me. Pretty funny. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier Beavah

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts. Yah, as funny as I find BrentAllen readin' the Huffington Post (does anyone really read that?), the report is just a special interest piece, eh? NABE is an association for "economists" that work mostly in da business field as corporate advisors and support that view. It's not a cross-section of general economists or economists who specialize in government effects and monetary policy. Besides, I've always wondered at the wisdom of takin' the average of a bunch of folks. If yeh have cancer, do yeh take the average of a bunch of general physicians about what to do, or should yeh listen to the top expert in that particular field? Consensus is one thing, if almost everybody agrees. But average only gets yeh mediocrity at best. Beavah

Yah, well, we can score vol-scouters proposal pretty well, eh? My scores are below. So far, he's got savings of $337 billion on a deficit of over $1 trillion. So youre about a third of the way there. That's not figurin' in the loss of revenues that would result from this kind of contraction, of course. In reality, we're probably only a bit over a quarter of the way there. So what do we cut next? Or are yeh just leaving it to the courts to decide? Yeh do realize thats what a balanced budget amendment means, right? Da courts get to step in and dictate cuts and revenue increases. Why any conservative would want that is beyond me. So what goes next? B ------- Cut NPR. Da federal government provides 2% of NPRs operating expenses, through things like the Department of Education which pays for childrens education programming. They also provide some direct funding to keep rural stations on the air where communities arent well served by other radio. If yeh cut both (cutting off news radio to many U.S. communities), total savings is about $95 million. If yeh just cut education programming, its a million or two. Cut department of education, $68 billion. Yeh do realize that about half of da departments grant programs affect college funding, not K-12, right? Pell grants, student loans, work study, also civil rights enforcement in schools (like the Boy Scout equal access act, Family Education Rights & Privacy Act, etc.). Most of da rest is Title I funding for high-poverty districts, which would probably bankrupt most urban and poor rural school districts in da U.S. Cut and run in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, but increase defense spending on weapons development and deployment and intelligence. $170 billion in savings. Dont know how much youre allocating to R&D, but one weapons program like da F22 cost about $30 billion in development and a bit more for procurement, call it $65 billion or so over 10 years. So lets say yeh do 3 F-22 sized programs (one for each branch) and some additional smaller stuff. Might get net savings of $130 billion. Of course, thats not allowing for da cost of instability in the region and resulting indirect costs from a cut-and-run, and it requires some military downsizing. Cutting all foreign aid gets yeh $47 billion, but that includes things that affect security, intelligence gathering, counterinsurgency and such. Lets be aggressive and cut most of those, too. $37 billion in savings, with a huge loss of U.S. prestige and a big opportunity for China to expand its influence. Yeh do realize that most illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes but are never able to collect on those services or file for refunds, right? They definitely pay excise taxes as well. So cracking down on illegal immigrants is an estimated $9 billion loss to social security per year, and about $11 billion loss on income taxes. Now they do receive some back indirectly through dept. of education and such, but yeh cut that already. Medicare estimated cost savings from introducing death panels like you suggest is about $17 billion. Thats cutting treatment that had no meaningful impact during last two months of life. If yeh just cut all end of life care, call it $50 billion. Its hard to say because yeh could probably get more savings by just restructuring the billing system so as not to incentivize procedures across the board. Cut Medicare funding for exams, routine procedures, immunization. As far as I know, most public health professionals project that this would cause an increase in costs as people waited and relied on emergency departments for care. Take back $10 billion of savings. Repeal Obamacare. Obamacare is back-loaded in terms of demographic risk, but up front it brings in more low-risk payers. So a repeal of Obamacare at least for the first 10 years will, on the face of things increase the deficit a bit. However, the whole bill is such a mess that makin predictions is very hard. Net savings: zero, but da repeal would reduce long-term risks to the government while increasing costs to employers. Cut all social security supplements (social security paid to disabled workers, disabled children, etc.). Savings $80 billion. But youre puttin a lot of families on da street, eh? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I confess I hate popcorn, too. It's an almost embarrassingly overpriced and poor quality product. Da microwave stuff in particular doesn't hold up to comparable store brands. I buy from cub scouts, too much of the stuff, but every year I swear I'm just goin' to give 'em cash instead. Additionally, the whole popcorn thing tends to drive executives and council folks a bit whacky. What IM_Kathy says is also da pattern in these parts, eh? People buy from cub scouts. People would probably buy goat turds from cub scouts. Older boy scouts, not so much. I just think it's sorta embarrassing to have cub scouts sellin' goat turds. Beavah

Yah, vol_scouter, yeh seem to be an intelligent fellow, despite tarrin' the Democrats and not acknowledging that the Republicans resist cuts to their favorite programs just as much. So maybe you can answer da question that nobody in the Tea Party movement seems to be able to answer. What cuts? Yah, yah, I get that they don't want any taxes, and think it's just great if Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher percentage in taxes than he does. And I get that they want a balanced budget. What I haven't yet heard from any of 'em is what they would cut to get a balanced budget in this economic environment. You're not allowed just to wave your hands and say "waste", now. And yeh can't just cut NPR and cheer and say you're done. They have to be identified, and they have to add up. Remember, every single Republican candidate has said they wouldn't increase revenues even if they got 10 times as much in cuts. So how 'bout it, eh? What cuts? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I confess I haven't been doin' my due diligence and watchin' the early debates. And it's hard to get good info from da press or propaganda operations. But I figure some folks here are closer to da ground, so to speak. They've actually lived with some of the candidates in their state or district. So I'd be interested in sharing insight. Information on stuff that is practical and real and doesn't make da media or gets spun wrong. Or just your thoughts. Like we tell scouts and venturers during roses & thorns, every person's perspective is valuable, eh? It gets us information from a different viewpoint, and even if it's not information we agree with ourselves, it at least helps us understand how other folks are thinkin'. B

Yah, I like many conservatives was opposed to much of the Bush tax cuts at the time. Not all of 'em, but most. The right thing to do was to keep things stable and keep payin' down the debt. After 9/11, the right thing to do would have been a hefty gas tax (back when gas was less than half of what it is now) to pay for the war and fund alternatives. I reckon there are some systemic problems in how we choose leaders and make decisions. Right now, da worst are district gerrymandering and da partisan primary system. Together, those create both executives and a Congress who are at da fringes of American thought on both sides, so ideology is more important than doin' the practical right thing for the country. Didn't used to be as much of a problem, 'eh? Fringe folks couldn't get coverage. But with da death of good reporting and the Internet allowing fringe folks to organize (and da more cynical and manipulative to confuse ordinary folks with "stories" that never would have been printed by old school responsible media), it's come a bit unglued. A lot of what we see even from good, well meaning folks here on da forums is just quoting from da worst sort of manipulative propaganda. So I'm in favor of a few systemic changes, eh? But really, da biggest fundamental issue is that folks who grew up with responsible old media haven't adjusted to da freewheeling propaganda of new media. Like the debt debate. Nobody who understands anything would ever consider voluntary default, or mandatory, unnamed cross-the-board cuts in a weak economy. That kind of uncertainty at that magnitude causes what we're seeing now in the markets, eh? Any business or individual with money pulls back from da markets until the uncertainty is resolved. Too risky otherwise. Market capitalism thrives only in stable environments. Stable politics, stable regulatory environment. Instability only benefits financial looters, gamblers, and those with inside information. In the old media world, anybody who talked about voluntarily defaulting would have been dismissed as a loon by da press and gotten no coverage, except in propaganda pamphlets mailed to small fringe groups. And no money. I figure the young folks who grow up with modern media will be better at it than us old folks, though. At least more immune to da propaganda stuff. So more than da system changes to stop electing polarized fringies, I figure educatin' is a good way to go. Though I wouldn't mind a responsible 3rd party in da middle. B

Yah, cuttin' 40% across the board is just foolish, eh? That would involve mothballing the entire navy and grounding the entire air force and putting 'em all out of work with no benefits, and cutting everyone's social security check by 40% (with da resultant homelessness and bankruptcies), and cutting 40% of Medicare (with the resultant thousands of deaths and temporary increase in expenses due to lack of basic care), and shutting down all airports and air traffic control in 20 states, and firing all customs, emigration, and border folks along either the Canadian or Mexican border and leavin' it completely open, and letting 40% of da prisoners free and stopping 40% of the crime fighting and ... And.... And... And after da economic contraction all that would cause, you'd find yeh needed to cut an additional 15% because da lost revenues made the situation worse. Here's an adult question for you Beavah, do you borrow 40 cents on the dollar every month to pay your bills? If da interest rate is 1% for a 30 year loan, so that the effective interest rate is less than zero? You bet I'd borrow money! Yeh could put it in almost any investment and do well in da long run. Real adults routinely take out bigger loans as a fraction of their net worth just to buy a house, eh? First time I did that, I think I was payin' around 10%, not less than zero. Businesses routinely borrow money for investments and to pay their bills to get through economic downturns. That's just common sense, eh? What would be really stupid would be for 'em to not pay their bills and go into an unmanaged default/bankruptcy, or to downsize so severely that they compromised their ability to recover as a goin' concern. People who advocate that are looney toons who have never run a business. Stop with da silly media-induced gloom and doom crap, people! It's self-fulfilling foolishness. If there's a debt crisis in our future, it's a moderately long-term one, and only if people are so absurdly stupid that they maintain a notion that they can't raise revenues. Just lettin' da Bush tax cuts expire would take us more than half way there. And let me tell yeh, as a fellow who has been around a while, da taxes in the late 90s were not a big deal, cheaper than what they were in my younger days by quite a bit. A real adult doesn't cut payin' for education for his kids or put his elderly mom on da street if his revenues exceed expenses. He mans up and gets a second job to bring in more revenue. Da whole thing is not immediately urgent, and it's readily solvable by just manning up. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Again, this was the first time in 35 years that happened. Yah, hmmm.... It's so very hard to troubleshoot this stuff from afar, eh? But generally speakin', lots of bad behavior at once isn't often coincidence. Tends to be a bit of a unit culture kind of thing. An instigator perhaps, causin' other kids to act out, a sense that da expectations aren't firm enough or are inconsistent, so yeh have to test the limits, etc. Might be worth reflecting about. I don't often agree with da Ask Andy ninny, so it won't be any surprise that I don't agree here. What he's proposin' is just another adult lecture in a SM conference wrapper. Bah. Humbug! I think yeh have to stop thinkin' in terms of "punishment" and lectures and such. External control. Yeh have to start thinkin' in terms of relationships and teamwork and such. Self control. Scoutmaster conferences only work if there is a deep and personal relationship there, eh? A Scoutmaster conference that really tries to get a lad to change the way he looks at the world is askin' the boy for an enormous leap of faith. Only way that works is if that faith is already there. If the SM has stored up a big supply of respect and admiration and positive vibe in the lad's head to draw on. If that isn't there, then yeh have to begin by building it. Drawin' on peer pressure and the team only works if a lad feels he's respected as part of the team, and thinks of himself as part of the team. So yeh begin by finding what's good about a boy, not what's bad. What's that ADHD fellow have that's special? Find it. Talk about it in public. To him. Tell him the good you see in him, and smack yourself upside da head any time yeh even think of describin' a kid as a sarcastic smart-alec. Find him tasks to do that are worthy of his ability and talents. Not make-work. Not run around da building. Man jobs, because yeh see him as a fellow man. He'll eventually listen to a fellow man who is cool. Lecture him like a child and he'll act like a child. Now sometimes particular kids crawl up our nose in a special way, eh? I like young rascals myself, but I know adults where they just get under their skin. There's other kids that just annoy me. I have a hard time handlin' the whiners. So that's why the Great Scoutmaster made different scouters, eh? If yeh can't be with a kid without get annoyed about his bein' sarcastic, then yeh leave that boy to an ASM who doesn't have that disability Find an adult to work with him who does see the good, and only the good. Same way with the team. A lad who feels a respected part of the team will learn to support da captain. So what opportunity and condition can you and da SPL arrange that makes use of each lad's talents and strengths? Titles don't matter so much. Respect and responsibility matter a lot. That's why the SPL has to ask for their help and ideas about communication, not lecture them on it. If he values them, they will value him. Self control, not external control. Maybe none of this fits. Maybe all of it does. Hard to tell from afar. Take what yeh need, discard the rest, and ask more questions! Beavah