Beavah

Gee what a surprise, a lawyer who thinks we should litigate our way to prosperity, very conservative. If yeh read more carefully, you'd have noticed that I was not arguing in favor of litigation. Quite the opposite, I was saying that relying on litigation was exactly da wrong way to go. The proper way is through regulation and law enforcement. Bankers who commit fraud shouldn't face civil lawsuits. They should face 30 years of hard time. Same with oil drillers who skimp on safety to turn a quick buck. Yep, da civil litigators love giving to the democrats, just like da corporate lawyers love giving to the Republicans, eh? Not sure what that says. Probably just that lawyers are a self-interested lot like everybody else . I haven't a clue what you think a Neocon is, but Neocons are generally liberals turned republican Yep. The old southern socially conservative, pro-military democrats who defected from the Democratic party during the LBJ Great Society/civil rights years, and all the folks who adhere to that intellectual tradition. Since yeh have been with us for a couple generations now, you've gotten to thinking that you're "true" Republicans and conservatives. It's a bit funny, actually. >>Easiest and best thing to do would be a hefty gas tax....That is not a conservative position my friend. Yah, actually, it is. It addresses the problem without creating a regulatory mechanism, the way a convoluted liberal cap-and-trade system would, nor does it follow the liberal path of telling manufacturers what to make or consumers what to buy. It also doesn't just stick our head in the sand as long as we can make a quick buck now (someone will bail us out later), rely on drill-baby-drill corporate welfare or think about how we can invade oil producers the way a neocon would. Instead, it provides just da sort of thing all of the businesses like our manufacturing and drilling industry need to make intelligent capital investment decisions with reduced risk, and it's a properly directed "fair tax" on consumption rather than on income or investment. So it uses da strength of the private sector to generate solutions, not the government, and it pays our bills rather than continuing borrow-and-spend. In fact, yeh can even use it as a step toward the fair tax, eh? Of course, I'd sequester the revenue for debt reduction and infrastructure investment (and funding our military action in da Mideast and the long-term veterans services that will require). Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

When yeh talk to boys in real youth-run programs, yeh often find that they get very frustrated by the "part timers". Being a part timer in an active program is pretty selfish,eh? It means your patrol mates can never plan a more adventurous trip that requires some skill and preparation. Either that, or they have to find time to remediate you because yeh missed the last two skill sessions. Or they feel like they did all the work, and the part-timer just leeched. Da recreational programs can work OK for 6th graders and immature 7th graders. Generally after that kids are lookin' for more challenge. There's a reason why middle school extracurricular activities have da requirements they do, and why high school activities have the expectations they do. The schools have found about what works best for each age group. For middle schoolers, that's something less than the full-time professional sports travel team nonsense, but also more than the elementary school Rec program. For high schoolers it's a higher level of responsibility and commitment, but still not all-consuming. If yeh set your scout program at about those levels of expectation, I reckon it's about right for most. But there's room for differences across da spectrum. My only problem with da purely drop in "recreational" troops is that they tend to be very adult-run. MattR, I've never seen what yeh propose. I think it's more common to go the way BrentAllen describes and just be up-front about expectations. But give it a whirl and report back to us on how it went! Maybe you'll have found something others can use. Beavah

Hard to say, Troop82. How many kids are yeh talkin' about? What's their level of experience? How familiar are the climbers with the area? How familiar are they with working with kids? With teaching novices? The guideline for climbing leader is that the person should have training from one of the major national bodies or a college/university outdoor program. Do any of your climbers fit that description? If not, what do they have to demonstrate equivalent experience working in a youth climbing environment? Generally speaking, the indoor rock gym belay instruction is pretty worthless, IMHO. Outdoor climbing is considerably different. So I wouldn't consider those four adults as leaders/instructors for supervision purposes. That means you're really relying on the three climbers for all of the instruction and supervision. If one of 'em is an experienced former guide who has a lot of experience working with young people and novices and he has a good working relationship with da other two, then I'd say you were golden (as long as you don't have too many kids and the climbers know the area). OTOH, if all of the climbers are just recreational sport climbers who don't have any formal training or haven't worked with youth or novices, then I think yeh have a problem. Given your area, your council may have a climbing director yeh can call and talk to about this stuff. Philmont Training Center also runs a 1-week climbing director's clinic every summer. UNH and Dartmouth probably have programs as well. But this is not da sort of training you take in a weekend, eh? So I'd start with a call to your council climbing director. B

Oh, those regulations like worker safety and no dumping of toxins into da groundwater supply? Or the ones that require blowout preventers on underwater rigs so that da fisheries of entire states aren't destroyed for several years? You're right, I don't want to give those up. Like all old-school conservatives, I believe there's a role for government in creating and enforcing laws so that unscrupulous people don't cut corners or try to shift costs of doin' business onto others. Law enforcement is the proper role of government in society. I don't believe it should be left to individual families to try to sue oil producers for damage incurred, any more than it should be left to private citizens to investigate and prosecute grand theft auto. We believe in a system of common laws, eh? Leastways, I thought we did. Me thinks you've been hittin' the neo-con Koolaid a bit hard there, eh? Us old-schoolers are OK with sacrifice for the common good. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Thanks to Calico for runnin' that other silliness to ground. I figured it was just some congressman making a request of CBO. That's what da CBO is there for, eh? To give congressmen financial data and projects they ask for. But there's nuthin' that can't be turned into mindless hysteria if yeh work at it.

Ahh, the opinion of the self proclaimed conservative. You betcha! Actually Beavh, the most significant thing we could do is let our oil companies drill in the US and build more refineries. We have the resources. The oil companies can drill in da U.S., and can build more refineries. What yeh don't seem to understand is that oil is a commodity, eh? It's traded on a worldwide market. It doesn't pay for the oil companies to drill more here, because it's much harder (i.e. more costly) to extract oil here than in many other areas of the world. Of course if we waved our magic wand and suddenly we had full pumping access to 100% of the known and projected oil reserves in da U.S., it could be simply offset in the world market by the Saudis reducing output by 15%. In other words, what you're proposing wouldn't achieve a thing. We just don't have anywhere near enough easy-to-access/easy-to-refine oil in the U.S. to even put a dent in our current demand. Which is why our private sector is not pursuing it in the way you would like. The market knows best. Now you neo-conservatives, like the liberals, would much prefer federal subsidy. Seems like there's nary a corporate welfare system yeh don't love, no matter how much debt it puts us in. So yah, sure, if the taxpayer foots the bill and the risk for drilling while givin' the oil company the profit, that kind of market distortion might yield a domestic drilling increase. At least for the drillers that have cozied up to their congressman. It still wouldn't mean jack to the worldwide supply. So us real, old-fashioned conservatives look at that and conclude that when there is a limited supply of a commodity compared to our demand, and the supply is controlled by our enemies or those who might easily become our enemies, it is necessary to reduce demand in order to ensure our own security. And the best way to do that is not to have the government pick winners or subsidize one approach over another, it's simply to create a market pressure that companies can rely on to make competitive decisions. Like a steadily increasing gas tax. Yeh ever read da OPEC statements in detail? For 30 years they've consciously set oil production quotas so as to deliberately prevent U.S. conservation/demand reduction efforts. That's not lubricating freedom, eh? That's our enemies manipulating us into depending on them, so that we risk our sons and daughters and national treasury on defending their lands. Us real, old-fashioned conservatives don't like being dependent on folks like that. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The polite scouter part of me is going to answer you and say that what these people did, they did under legal orders and therefore are exempt from prosecution. Yah, nld, not sure what you're talkin' about. If you are talkin' about the crew that shot Bin Laden, that was JoeBob not me that was arguing they did something wrong. I fully supported their actions. If you are talkin' about the CIA operatives who tortured captives, then 1) they are civilian, not military, so your bit about "orders" makes no sense. 2) even if they were military, the order would be illegal, and following it would also be illegal in da UCMJ. 3) there is no "wartime exemption" on mistreatment of prisoners as JoeBob implies. We call mistreatment of prisoners in wartime "War Crimes" and we prosecute them with vigor. That's why da folks who proudly wear the uniform of the United States and use da expression "Huaah!" would never condone such acts. They believe in honor, and an honorable man does not torture a captive. To do so is an act of cowardice, that undermines the values of the United States, puts our fellow Americans in uniform at risk around the world, encourages the enemy to fight rather than surrender, and provides an enormous propaganda victory to the enemy. It is against the law. It is contrary to our values. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It is fundamentally an act of treason. It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I would say No. There are way too many kids that don't have access to the gear and if it was required would try it with a big duffel bag and be miserable and might quit Why are we always so all-fired worried that if we ask boys to do anything hard they will quit? Can't expect 'em to be accountable for their behavior. Can't expect 'em to remember what they "learned" last week. Can't expect 'em to swim in a strong manner. Can't expect 'em to go 1.5 miles with a pack on in a day. Really? I think da reason most kids quit is that their soccer coach expects 'em to run a few miles a day, do suicide sprints, and learn good ball handling that they can use the following week during the game. They feel like what they're doin' is a worthy challenge. It's hard. It's cool. It feels like an accomplishment. In Boy Scouting, they're not expected to be challenged. They're just supposed to do chores. Haul the tent out of the trailer. Clean da dishes. We should expecting a First Class scout to be able to plan and execute a solo 15 mile backpack trek that includes at least 5 miles of off-trail hiking and has to be done in bad weather. And if we can't get there because the kids or adults aren't physically fit, well, then that's what Tenderfoot fitness requirements are for, eh? Shouldn't be "show improvement". Should be "show a level of fitness that allows you to keep up with your patrol peers on a challenging outdoor activity." Beavah

In my mind is the Application is stating that the Six requirements need be complete by the deadline, but the signature do not. They just confirm that the required items were complete on time. Correct. Another question is is there a reason that these four signatures need to be received in Order as listed on the form? No, though it's not a bad order And where in the time deadline does the new Pre-certification fall? Huh? Do yeh mean the council registrar's certification? That can happen anytime, but many councils expect it to be done before the EBOR to avoid any problems. Beavah

We should joing the Youth Program at our church instead. Of course, like as not, unit scouting IS a youth program at a church, eh? The BSA may be non-sectarian, but that doesn't mean da CO or its scouting program is. I think it's fine to do what Basementdweller suggests, and engage the boy in friendly conversation. Challenge, debate, question, encourage inquiry! I wouldn't confine it to the lads who profess atheism. Oft as not, it's the boys who possess a shallow and untested religiosity that are more in need of this kind of mentoring. Our role is to help 'em grow and deepen their own understanding. So that's a good question for BD: Do yeh also hold a boy back from first class who attends church, but can't give anything more than a hem and a haw when asked what Duty to God means to him? Beavah

I think da celebration was not because we killed someone but because we won an important victory. Da most common expression mentioned in the media was "relief". That's the sort of thing that's typical of winning an important victory. And as I mentioned in da other thread, combat is not the same thing as a cop arresting someone on the street of an American city. Being unarmed is irrelevant. An unarmed officer can still order an artillery barrage. Da question is whether or not you have surrendered. And I think the outpouring of good will for our men and women in uniform is a much more attractive thing than what I remember from the early 70s. That's also why I think not releasing the photos is the right thing. They won't convince anybody if Osama's wife and daughter's testimony won't. But they will put a gruesome image on the event that will make it seem like we are celebrating violence and death, and thereby will help the enemy. It's bad propaganda. I'd rather have the image of the day be college students celebrating a victory and praising our armed forces than the image being a snuff photo with a masked SEAL standing over a body. B

Yeh really should get out more, BS-87. I reckon da key fine print in da article that you missed was: "This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the presidents senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president. Nice nonsense fearmongering, though. Easiest and best thing to do would be a hefty gas tax. Doesn't take any additional hardware to collect, and taxes the proper thing that we want to reduce: use of foreign oil which funds our enemies. Unlike a mileage tax, it rewards those who keep their cars in tune or purchase more efficient vehicles. I'd support such a tax in a heartbeat, especially if it was phased in in a slow and steady manner. It would be the most significant thing we've done in 20 years to safeguard national security. Beavah

Nice try, JoeBob, but nope. Da folks who participated in the raid on Abbottabad were military and CIA operatives engaged in combat operations consistent with congressional authorization, the UCMJ, and U.S. law and policy. OBL and that compound were a legitimate command-and-control target, and yeh don't apply the same standards to members of the armed services engaged in combat operations that yeh do to the civilian police force in the U.S. The fact that bin Laden was unarmed might be relevant if he was shot while being arrested by NYPD in Manhattan. Da only thing that mattered in combat was that he had not surrendered. By contrast, torture of captives is a clear violation of U.S. law, both da civil law that governs the CIA and the UCMJ. As it should be. And da participants in those activities all knew that, which is why they tried to set up legal fictions and excuses like doin' it outside of the country, and why they hid and destroyed the tapes. They should be prosecuted, and if convicted, should serve the maximum. Personally, given the amount of damage they did to the country in our struggle against terrorism, there's a part of me that wishes we could hang 'em for treason. But da duty of the executive branch is clear, eh? They swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and that demands that these folks be brought to justice. Now, do I think that President Obama takes his oath seriously enough to see this through? Nope. I'd like to be surprised, but I think both he and Mr. Holder will put political expediency ahead of honor and duty. That doesn't change what's right. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Of course not. If they broke both US and international law, they should be tried and, if convicted, punished. The attorney general's job, and the rest of the executive's, is to enforce the law. Failing to enforce the law puts US citizens and service members at greater risk, and serves to give aid and comfort to our enemies. B

The scout said Stibal fondled and performed oral sex on him at his family's cabin near Paynesville, Minn., and at a drive-in theater in Cottage Grove. That led to the first-degree convictions. Two second-degree counts involved sexual touching at Stibal's home and at an Eagan movie theater. Yah, hmmmm.... So I'm not sure how da BSA's policies or enforcement of the same could have prevented these incidents, eh? Not a single one occurred within scouting. Two deep, no one-on-one and all the rest didn't accomplish a thing. And that's the way these things normally go, eh? Because bad guys do the same sorts of things good guys do. They are friends with the family. They are trusted adults in the boy's life. They babysit for the parents when they have to go out, they employ the boy for work around the house to help him earn money for camp, they take the lad out for ice cream when he just needs someone to talk to. All those are good things for kids, especially so for boys who don't have a father (or mother) in their lives. Then they cross the line. Sometimes alcohol, sometimes soft porn, sometimes hugs that are a bit too much. Most often they try to isolate the lad from other people to make the relationship dependent and exclusive. And if they succeed, they keep goin'. Ain't an organizational policy in the world that's goin' to prevent that without taking some vitally important relationships with good people away from kids. All we can do is be alert and supervise, and give the boys the tools to resist. I'm with BS-87, the best parts of da BSA's YPT are the youth materials, not the policies, and they're the most under-utilized. But by far the most important preventative is to have lots of other alert, caring adults in a boy's life who listen to him, are alert to his feelings, are there for him and care about him. That way no one can make a single relationship dependent and exclusive. I worry that in our fear, our policies sometimes make it easier, rather than harder, for a predator to gain access to kids, eh? Because all of the good, caring people spend so much energy keeping the boys at arms length or farther. If only a bad guy gives a kid a hug when he needs it, then I reckon that bad guy is goin' to look pretty good to the boy. And since those are the only hugs he's gettin', it's goin' to be a lot harder for him to tell what crosses the line. Beavah

Yah, double jeopardy refers, as do all enumerated rights in da Bill of Rights, to limits on the power of the government. Not limits on the power of parents or private organizations, eh? And in this case, they refer specifically to not having two trials for the same offense, not two punishments. Two punishments is allowed, as often a single act breaches more than one law, eh? Not giving someone an award is never a punishment. People don't "deserve" awards and recognition from others. They earn them because in the view of the people giving the award the person deserves it. Because we using scouting awards specifically as a method for teaching character and citizenship, it is very important to proper use of the method that they be awarded only when a lad has shown good character and citizenship. That's not evil, bad, punishing, trampling on rights or any such nonsense. It's just proper use of one of Scouting's methods. Beavah

Splitting the hair mighty fine, eh, Calico? . I'm not sure a kid would buy your distinction between saying no to a POR and sayin' no to Scout Spirit. In both cases it's the boy holding up his own advancement, and in both cases it's you saying no. Only difference is that PORs are supposed to be decided by the boys, not by you, where Scout Spirit truly is your call. I'm fine with people setting different expectations, because different organizations have different goals and different notions of character. A VFW post might put a bigger emphasis on uniforming, a church might put a bigger emphasis on taking the Lord's name in vain. Just be clear, offer boys support where needed, and allow for exceptions when those are truly called for. Da problem comes when adults start mixin' up true out-of-the-control-of-the-boy exceptions, like da young Mennonites, and just being too loose to develop the character or outcomes that they desire. It's when it shifts to the latter that a boy comes up for Eagle and da disappointed adults suddenly try to block it, and the other boys learn the wrong lessons by example. Exceptions should be relatively rare, and balance da needs of the individual with the needs of the group. And da rest of us should be careful not to argue that everything should be an exception. Beavah

I feel that punishments should be handed out when the incident occurs, not months after the fact in a BoR Not receiving an award is not punishment. It's just not receiving an award. A lad doesn't get valedictorian or MVP or Eagle Scout is not being punished. It's just that he hasn't met the expectations or requirements for those awards. So a boy who vandalized a car might be convicted and punished by the state, and might also be punished by his parents. That's not "double jeopardy", and if yeh think it is then yeh must be one of those folks the news is reporting on who would fail a citizenship test. . If a scout troop then decides he's violated his conditions of membership or has not met the expectations for Eagle rank because of his behavior, that is right and proper. Now for kids, two things often happen, eh? We don't hold kids fully responsible for their actions. We expect 'em to make mistakes and to learn. So we ground them more than imprison them. When kids are sorry, and sometimes even when they're just sheepish, we give 'em second chances. That's a normal impulse. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Da other thing that happens is that people often feel it's inappropriate to discipline someone else's child, eh? So if da parent doesn't do it, the scout leaders tend to uncomfortably let it slide. That's lack of moral fortitude on da scout leader's part, but perfectly natural. Nobody likes conflict. Both good and reasonable instincts can be da wrong choice, eh? The message that they can send to the boys is that the adults don't walk the walk, they don't really care about those values they talk about. Teenage boys have a very acute sense of Justice. And it's really disappointing to see that a lad hasn't come round, and has in fact manipulated or taken advantage of the kindness or the weakness of adult leaders. So as an adult, yeh look at that and learn from it, and promise yourself and (silently) the rest of the lads that you'll never make that mistake again. You'll demand justice and contrition as part of forgiveness. You'll be courageous for the sake of teaching the right lessons, even if it's socially awkward, even if it causes conflict. If yeh let it slide up to now and gave your word that things were OK, then yeh live up to your word. But yeh don't make that mistake again. In da future, you take the "Scout Spirit" requirement as an honest-to-goodness requirement, and if a boy has not yet demonstrated living by the Scout Oath commensurate with the rank he's seeking, yeh say no. And explain to him why, and help him improve. Not earning an award is not a punishment. It's just not yet deserving to be rewarded. Our job is to teach character and citizenship, and yeh can't dodge that responsibility. Yeh were selected and empowered by a Community Organization for your character and commitment and judgment, and yeh are expected to use 'em. Beavah

Yah, way too late, eh? Our role as adults in bringing up lads of good character is an ongoing one. If yeh don't like the outcomes you're getting, yeh need to look to yourselves and da program that you're running, not try to jigger things at the last minute. If this lad was such a problem, why did yeh sign off for First Class or Star? Why did yeh approve him to go off and represent your troop by leading a project for the community? Shame on the committee and the SM for letting the lad get by without learning the only really important lessons we teach in scouting, and then whining about it afterward. If yeh don't like the outcomes, you and the SM need to fix the program. As for signatures, your signature on the form represents the approval of the unit committee on the boy's Eagle, not your personal opinion. If yeh have a personal opinion, write a letter of non-recommendation to the BOR. But da signature reflects the recommendation of the committee. So if your troop committee is recommending the boy, then you sign. If your troop committee is not recommending the boy because they don't feel he met da requirements, then yeh don't sign and on behalf of the committee you explain your decision in writing to the boy and the district, and let the appeal proceed. Yeh only resign if da committee is consistently taking things in a direction you as CC don't want to go, so that they would be better served by having a different chair. Not over one disagreement. Of course, as COR if yeh think the committee or SM is taking things in a direction at odds with da goals or values of the Chartered Organization, then yeh replace the committee. Any way yeh cut it, your job as both CC and especially as COR is to look at your program, not micromanage one Eagle award. Beavah

Yah, moosetracker, did I miss somethin'? I think da OP was only suggesting exiling the problem dad, not all the parents. The only reference to da rest was a general statement on trying to get folks not to hover so much and give their kids some room, which seems reasonable... if done with a little sensitivity and finesse. Beavah

5yearscouter is right you cannot demand the parents no longer attend Of course yeh can. Nothin' in the rules implies that you have to allow disruptive adults to harm your program or the experience of the kids, or to participate in activities where they may jeopardize their own or others' safety. If dad doesn't pass the swim test, no canoeing. And if dad can't sit and observe quietly without being a turd, no cub camping. Parent is welcome to comply or leave the program. Now in this case, I think K1986 should take a step back from the edge. Yah, this fellow is a bit of a pain, yah, he's not my idea of a model dad, but he is out with his kid. A lighter, after all, is a small thing. I expect that this whole incident became inflated in everyone's mind because people were tired or the weather wasn't perfect or whatnot. Personally, I would have shrugged it off with a mild sideways humorous comment to the dad sometime later that day. Just enough to get him to think a bit, not enough for him to go "shields up!" Moosetracker and Turtle have some great ideas for how to step back from the ledge, and refocus things on how to make it about the program and boys, not about the parent or individual kid. The transition to boy scouting is goin' to be hard for the fellow, but in many ways it's also a better spot for the "weaning", eh? He'll be dealin' with new adults and a pre-existing program, rather than a fellow parent of a webelos 1 boy tryin' to tell him how to be a parent. It's OK to leave some tasks for the boy scouters . So I think evmori is right, yeh aren't goin' to change the man, so yeh just focus on the boy. To the extent he's just annoying, yeh put up with it with good grace because a Scout is friendly and kind. To the extent he's truly disruptive of the program yeh ask him to step back or give him some task to do that is appropriately "manly" and keeps him out of the way. But don't let the Infamous Lighter Incident become more than it should be, eh? It's a deal, but it shouldn't be a Big Deal. Beavah

Yah, I'm with Oak Tree. A president has very little influence on the economy. And when he does try to jigger the economy for a shorter-term bump in the polls, it almost always makes things worse. I never have understood da claims that presidents "create jobs" or whatnot. The private sector creates jobs and economic growth. The job of the government executive is to enforce the laws with respect to transparency, fair dealing, and fraud, so that da natural greed of the private sector is prevented from doin' too much harm, or is punished with appropriate severity. People claiming presidents should "do something" about the economy are foolish. Presidents thinking they can "do something" about the economy are deluded. All they can do is their job, eh? Provide government services like law enforcement, and do it efficiently without borrowing money. Nor do I really think I would ever consider a modern politician to be a role model for children. No more than modern actors. That's just begging someone to put on an act for you. Real role models are the everyday, ordinary people who work hard at their jobs to provide a service or product to meet the needs of others. Introduce your kid to the hard-working and honest garbage collector, not to the politician. Invite the most well-respected plumber in your area to the ECOH as a role model, not the governor. Beavah

Yah, this was passed along to me by a friend in da area, from an adult member of the "lost" troop: For those that may not know, it was my boy scout troop that was missing for the past few days. Media had mentioned several times that there had been communication with the group earlier and that was not true. We did not know til 3:00 this morning that they were alive. All 8 were accounted for. They were around a fire. They were where they should have been. The troop crossed the Little Missouri river, normally about 18" deep set up camp Saturday night and during the night got a 4 1/2 rain, they needed to cross that same river Sunday morning but the water was too high, according to the forecast (which was checked several times before they left) , no rain had been predicted when the troop hit the trail Thur. morning. With no cell service there was no way for them to know of the change. So they sat it out all day Sunday. It was not til about 7:00pm on Sunday that any authorities were called, (the troop van was found at the trail head) by then it was dark and water was too high and weather was too bad to put a helicopter in the air. Then Sunday night they got another 3 1/2 of rain. All this time the search & rescue could not go down the trails where we thought they were and no choppers could get in the air. (they tried three times on Monday and had to be grounded) This morning about 6:00 a chopper was able to land and pull them out, the crew was high and dry the whole time, waiting for the water to drop and plans were to hike out. Sounds to me like an ordinary case of "Be Prepared". Honestly the ride in the helicopter was probably the most dangerous part of the trip for the lads (but perhaps the most fun ). Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nationally, SAT reading scores have seen a gradual increase from 492 in 1980 to 516 last year, and that was after 30 seconds' research. LOL. Yah, well, I reckon yeh should have done more than 30 seconds worth of research. If yeh had, you would have discovered that in 1995, the SAT folks re-centered the test scores to 500, because the mean had been drifting lower and lower. So at that point, they artificially raised the average score on the reading section by about 80 points, which means that really over the period you describe there was a drop of about 56 points. That's about half a standard deviation, or the equivalent of half a year of schooling. See http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/equivalence-tables Beavah

My beef is with his behavior since leaving office, including criticizing the US and its leaders in front of foreign audiences. So just out of curiosity, what do yeh think of Dick Cheney? More than any other retired president or vice president, he has been out in public criticizing the US and its leaders in the media, implying they're weak and ineffectual and not concerned about American security and all the rest. That doesn't give aid and comfort to the enemy? That doesn't encourage attacks on the nation? At least Carter by and large talks about humanitarian rather than security issues. I agree with da general sentiment, though. If either man had a bit more sense, they'd keep their traps shut. There's a good reason why the ex-executives by and large behave like statesmen rather than politicians. It's better for the nation. Beavah