skeptic

If I have to blow it up, it is not for me. For that price, I can get a full size TR. Still, looks like a nice pad.

Perhaps this same question should be transferred to the most current threads relating to our government.

After reading the whole article, I would agree that it may be a bit over the top, but it is a gateway to the outdoors. One of the things about drive-in camping, or "front" camping, is the ability to introduce younger, less experienced scouts to the outdoor experience without scaring them away with too rough a first experience. It also allows teaching of some basic skills that would be harder, or almost impossible in a backpack situation. From the base, you can do day hikes to fish, swim, do nature identifications, rock climb on real rocks, and just peak bag. Those that like the hiking will then be more apt to try the more advanced opportunities that backpacking and so on can give them. Another thought I had is that in many respects, this is harking back to earlier days of camping for the more prosperous. Read the biography of W.D.Boyce for example. He talks a lot about his African adventures. But part of those types of activities included servants and porters who did all the harder, less glamorous things for the most part. Same went for early treks to Yellowstone and Yosemite. Read about the early users, and they almost always have many examples of premade camps, and of course the huge lodges. Where did those introductory things lead. Often to what we consider "real" outdoors camping and hiking. I should note that now, due to youthful injuries now becoming issues, and simply being older, I prefer drive-ins, as they allow me to sleep on a cot and still get out and about without pinching nerves in my spine due to a bouncing pack. But, I am still up for short (2-3 miles max)backpacks. But, I need to spring for a new "thermarest" or similar pad, as my old one no longer stays inflated all night; come on, its only about 27 years old. Just some observations.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Whichever thread this should be in is questionable, but anyway. Without choosing people of whom you know a great deal, and likely share your views already, speak to 10 unconnected individual adults. Ask them in general terms about their health care; do they have insurance; is it affordable and fair. I would wager that likely half will not be really positive about what they have, and not surprised if close to that were uncovered period, due to cost, and so on. Then come back and review some of the trite and foolish statements being thrown about here, on cable TV, and on the net in general. When will we stop being polarized about everything. Neither Democrats or Republicans have many real answers. Somehow we need to get past this nonsense and "deal" with the truths of the issue. This means quit spewing fear, innuendo, character assassination, and mind boggling nonsense. Either get your "so called representatives" to actually work on solutions based on "real" facts and stats that are balanced, or throw them out and find some that will. Oh well; wishful thinking. Ignorance and stupidity are the flavors of the day.

Yes, if you have it, wear it when you are able. Kids love it; I forgot to take mine this year to camp, and they kept asking me where it was. As far as WB goes, the reason given in our courses is simply the cost, as pointed out, expensive. I found mine by a fortunate chance in an antique mall; was in its original shipping box from the early 70's, barely or never worn, and paid $25. I ran out of the store, afraid they somehow made an error. At the time, they were running about $80 from supply. Since then, I have found early boy versions at flea markets for under $20 a couple of times, as well as an extra-extra large one for $8, in really good condition. I grabbed it and gave to an assistant who has that specially sized body. Fit him perfectly. We take the others to camp sometimes, as well as the old service cap style that fold. I have around 20 or so, and we wear them to assemblies in the evening. Lots of attention, and the kids generally like them. The draw back, besides cost, is simply the care of them is sometimes hard, especially at camp. But, you can buy facsimiles that will pass for a lot less. Have one from the 85 Jambo that I wore as an ASM. Covered it with pins, and it now sits in a corner of our scout room as a display item; it got wet and lost its shape. The pins also distorted it; it weighs close to 4 pounds and got kind of uncomfortable at the end anyway. Again though, it is liked on the shelf, and starts conversations at times.

A repost of my post from the "astroturf" thread. Okay; personal experience. When still insured through the company, large, well funded, (insurance run by the company itself through hired advisors). Refused period to pay for annual physicals, even though all the factors point to them if you are over 40 as major factors in catching possibly high cost procedures later; I also have heart and diabetes histories in the family, as well as prostate cancer. Also refused the blood test for prostate as unnecessary, even with the family history. Regularly refused to pay doctor billed fees as not within their averages. Live in SC, L.A. metro; averages based on Southwest, including middle of the desert where things are far less expensive. My doctor usually wrote them off, but a few times I was stuck with additional bills. This is in a plan that already had $2000 deductible just for me, and was 80/20. Then I got downsized. Oh, no problem, you can go on COBRA; right. I was in the least expensive plan at the time. But that plan was only allowed for "active" employees. My cost immediately rose to double what I paid while employed (and I no longer had a job); they also raised the deductible by $500. The next year the cost went up another $60 to $80 a month (I am now partially employed; no one hires me because of my age over 55 and "too" qualified). Well, I hang on another year with the "great" options (what the hell, at least I have insurance, right?) Goes up again by almost $120 a month; deductible is raised again. Then, I get a letter telling me that the following year the cost will more than double, and the year after that triple. So in a little over 3 years; they downsize me at 54 1/2; then they take my really great plan, which costs me about $60 a month (I have been blessed with really good health, so barely had any claims; especially since they refuse to pay for preventive stuff), it will cost me about $900, and no dental even. I cannot afford it, as I have still been unable to find full time work in retail and am subbing. At 59, I finally am working enough to simply quit looking outside of subbing, though it is tight. So, I am uninsured, sort of. I am a vet, so I was able to get VA coverage; but as a lowest level vet, I still pay some, and any serious stuff will require traveling to L.A. at my expense, about 170 mile rt. Recently, they closed all the small clinics and combined them all in one; many vets now have to travel substantial distance to see the doctor in Oxnard; I am close enough it is not too bad, but still triple the distance I was going. Turned 65 this year; guess what. Letter comes a few months before telling me that if I want medicare I need to apply now; if I don't, I will have to wait a year, and the cost will rise. Okay, since VA is a bit iffy much of the time (works for me now, as I remain healthy for the most part), I am now paying $96 a month to make sure I have it later should my family history issues kick in. Now, one more thing. What two things may be most common as we age? Teeth and eyes. Guess what is not covered by either VA or Medicare? I did not take proper care of my gums; thought good teeth was all that mattered. Got irreversible gum disease and just lost most of my teeth. Had to take out a loan, as none of it is covered by these "great" programs. Have been legally blind without corrective lenses since I was 12 or so. Very expensive lenses, and of course the routine older people tests for gloucoma and so on. Is it covered? Nope! One more night mare I witnessed while still working. I had an employee insured by Kaiser through her husband. 3 years before she came to work for me, with a two year old in the house at the time, she lost one breast to cancer. She came to work one day really upset and said she needed more hours as they had to pay for some expensive tests out of pocket to see if she had another growth. She had found a lump in the "remaining" breast; but Kaiser said they could not get her in for 6-8 weeks. This to a woman that had already lost one breast to cancer, and gone through a year of chemo. Yes, a long time back now; but from what I have seen, the private suppliers have just gotten worse. I have an ASM and cub leader who has been diagnosed by multiple doctors with fibromylogia; but his employer refused to change his job location and type to one he could do, then fired him when he could not do it. They had options with which they could work, but according to "their" doctors, fibromylogia is not a true diagnosis and so he was simply malingering. SCE is the company; and they did something similar to my brother years ago after he gave them 25+ years of perfect attendance. He was diagnosed with diabetes, but because initially they did not prescribe insulin, he did not have it; and because he was on rotating shifts, they would not let him work a steady shift in order to stabilize his body clock. In both these cases with SCE, the union has been pretty much useless. At least my brother had enough time to get his full retirement; the ASM is in serious hurt right now and has a 9 1/2 year old son. Point is; I am better off than a large percentage, yet look at the facts that have actually occurred with me, and with people I know. The system currently in force is broken, almost beyond repair. And that includes much of the already government run stuff. Something needs to happen. Are the current proposals the solution? Still too early to know; but before we throw it all out due to complete hysteria and misinformation, lets look at it without the input of industry paid pawns and without either rose glasses or blinders.

When the time comes, make a logical decision for your specific situation. Then move forward. No one should fault you should you be a bit too lenient in evaluating past criteria in relation to the newer requirements, as long as it is fair and logical.

Okay; personal experience. When still insured through the company, large, well funded, (insurance run by the company itself through hired advisors). Refused period to pay for annual physicals, even though all the factors point to them if you are over 40 as major factors in catching possibly high cost procedures later; I also have heart and diabetes histories in the family, as well as prostate cancer. Also refused the blood test for prostate as unnecessary, even with the family history. Regularly refused to pay doctor billed fees as not within their averages. Live in SC, L.A. metro; averages based on Southwest, including middle of the desert where things are far less expensive. My doctor usually wrote them off, but a few times I was stuck with additional bills. This is in a plan that already had $2000 deductible just for me, and was 80/20. Then I got downsized. Oh, no problem, you can go on COBRA; right. I was in the least expensive plan at the time. But that plan was only allowed for "active" employees. My cost immediately rose to double what I paid while employed (and I no longer had a job); they also raised the deductible by $500. The next year the cost went up another $60 to $80 a month (I am now partially employed; no one hires me because of my age over 55 and "too" qualified). Well, I hang on another year with the "great" options (what the hell, at least I have insurance, right?) Goes up again by almost $120 a month; deductible is raised again. Then, I get a letter telling me that the following year the cost will more than double, and the year after that triple. So in a little over 3 years; they downsize me at 54 1/2; then they take my really great plan, which costs me about $60 a month (I have been blessed with really good health, so barely had any claims; especially since they refuse to pay for preventive stuff), it will cost me about $900, and no dental even. I cannot afford it, as I have still been unable to find full time work in retail and am subbing. At 59, I finally am working enough to simply quit looking outside of subbing, though it is tight. So, I am uninsured, sort of. I am a vet, so I was able to get VA coverage; but as a lowest level vet, I still pay some, and any serious stuff will require traveling to L.A. at my expense, about 170 mile rt. Recently, they closed all the small clinics and combined them all in one; many vets now have to travel substantial distance to see the doctor in Oxnard; I am close enough it is not too bad, but still triple the distance I was going. Turned 65 this year; guess what. Letter comes a few months before telling me that if I want medicare I need to apply now; if I don't, I will have to wait a year, and the cost will rise. Okay, since VA is a bit iffy much of the time (works for me now, as I remain healthy for the most part), I am now paying $96 a month to make sure I have it later should my family history issues kick in. Now, one more thing. What two things may be most common as we age? Teeth and eyes. Guess what is not covered by either VA or Medicare? I did not take proper care of my gums; thought good teeth was all that mattered. Got irreversible gum disease and just lost most of my teeth. Had to take out a loan, as none of it is covered by these "great" programs. Have been legally blind without corrective lenses since I was 12 or so. Very expensive lenses, and of course the routine older people tests for gloucoma and so on. Is it covered? Nope! One more night mare I witnessed while still working. I had an employee insured by Kaiser through her husband. 3 years before she came to work for me, with a two year old in the house at the time, she lost one breast to cancer. She came to work one day really upset and said she needed more hours as they had to pay for some expensive tests out of pocket to see if she had another growth. She had found a lump in the "remaining" breast; but Kaiser said they could not get her in for 6-8 weeks. This to a woman that had already lost one breast to cancer, and gone through a year of chemo. Yes, a long time back now; but from what I have seen, the private suppliers have just gotten worse. Point is; I am better off than a large percentage, yet look at the facts that have actually occurred with me. The system currently in force is broken, almost beyond repair. And that includes much of the already government run stuff. Something needs to happen. Are the current proposals the solution? Still too early to know; but before we throw it all out due to complete hysteria and misinformation, lets look at it without the input of industry paid pawns and without either rose glasses or blinders.

Have to declare that for me, the glut of NOAC 2009 patches that have shown up on eBay already is disappointing. It seems to simply reinforce the idea that OA is a giant patch club. And the fact that some of them are selling for substantial amounts is additional proof. Hopefully this is simply an aberration, not reflecting why most go and are involved. Any other thoughts?

Not sure what the problem might be. The two in the background are wearing non BSA shirts, probably British from the look. And, as pointed out, the main singer is wearing a very dated shirt. Are these singers even from the U.S.? Lots of noise for nothing, IMO.

John in KC; While it may be out of our control, it still effects us indirectly from the point of view of image. In that regard, it seems very possible that this is another inaccurate portrayal of info based on incomplete or skewed data. That would be something to make known to the public it would seem. I would not hold my breath to see any corrections, if they are needed.

They say their figures do not include pensions and so on, but they also indicate the material is up to two years old, depending on various info available. So, is this reflective of Mr. Mazucca, or his predecessor? And, if the latter, does it include, like in the case of a council exec somewhere, severance and upfront retirement? Still, seems high, no matter what.

No Horizon, they do not; but you may interpret it as you choose. That is the real problem with this whole issue. There are "idiots" on both sides that say things, and do things that twist everything out of context. Just because someone, who says they represent a particular group or view says something that contradicts the actual statements does not change the actual statement. Make your own choices and live with them. But please quit trying to force these choices on others with whom you disagree. In regard to your comment about the Episcopalians. They have had a huge split in their group. And, I suspect that you are correct that a church that makes that particular choice may not be given a charter. Again, it is their choice. Whether that is good or bad, is not the point. They do have other options in the world. And the scouts would not be saying no due to religious factors; rather it would relate to the "Avowed" issue.

My card from 1959 is the same as all the other rank cards of the time, except it has the dangle Eagle in a circular background at the top. Same for the palm card. To make things worse, for some reason I carried them for a while and managed to fall in the water with them in my wallet. Now they are soiled, ragged, and the ink ran in places. Still, they have a special place in the memory book. As pointed out already, it is not the card, or the certificate that makes one an Eagle.

But you can love your neighbor, yet not love his choice in lifestyle. As usual, no one on either side of this, here on the boards, or elsewhere, is likely to change their minds. On the other hand, it does get tiresome to have a few individuals who feel the right to insult others because of interpretations of things. BSA, almost all agree and understand, has the right to make these rules. They see them as reflective of the central ideas of the program. No where do they say these individuals are "bad" people, or should be ostracized from society; only that they are not examples of a style of living they wish to hold up on a daily basis to impressionable youth. Most of us understand there is really no difference between this and saying similar things about a chronic drunk, or a known abusive person, or someone that cannot be civil most of the time and control their emotions and language. The difference is that for some reason, these other life choices are not held up as PC issues. Few of us will have issues with Gays as long as they simply live their lives and do not make it something they need to "show off" for some reason. Those are the ones that likely have been around successfully in the program and could fall out of the tree, as someone noted. But why are you shaking the tree in the first place? On the other hand, atheism and, to a lesser extent, agnosticism relate to specific elements of scouting. And those elements are not, nor should not be up for debate. With the "broad" definitions allowed within the program of religious issues, there is little room for complaint, other than to be obdurate and obstructionist. Those who insist BSA needs to change the core principle are simply out in left field. They need to find something better to worry about. Unfortunately, this debate (or too often harangue) will continue unabated for a while longer, then get brought up again and again because for some reason people just have to try and make others believe as them, no matter how obvious it is it won't happen.

Looks as if they have the whole new book up on line. Take a look at this address. http://www.pilandonline.com/BSHB_web/ Interesting material, and links to related sites outside of scouts. Seems to be a huge advancement in this area.

I find it somewhat interesting to see Nick's comments. A few years back I breached the subject to a small group of my older scouts, over 16, who asked about an incident where a guy verbally attacked us at a public event. Their response was just about the same as Nick's. Whether or not a few individuals will continue to insist that this is not representative, everything I see in schools and actual interaction shows a discomfort and choice NOT to interact by a large majority. On the other hand, most of the same individuals will state that those who do make that choice have that right and should be left to pursue it as they choose. They just need to keep to themselves about it. Take it as it is written. Reality is too often overlooked for the pushing a political agenda. Nough said.

Nick; Unless a scout has a physical problem, there is no reason he should not be able to do the swim requirements. If this means learning to overcome a fear of water, then it is a growing experience as well. But, because being able to at least swim at a minimal level is really a safety issue, it should stay. It is like suggesting that because a boy has trouble with math, he should not have to do personal management. Unless he is challenged, then he just needs to overcome the obstacle. Part of growing up is facing challenges; and this is one that basically all scouts need to face. When I was a scout, back in the dark ages, we still had to learn morse code or semaphore. While the code itself was easy for me, the skill at sending and receiving was truly difficult. It took me months to learn it; but the challenge was met, and I grew from it. If we simply allow anything that is not immediately achievable to be done away with, we really have a pretty weak program. Just my thought at the moment.

While I have no specific proof, I have been led to believe that BSA has suggested a merger with GS a couple of times, but been rebuffed by the national organization. In our area, there have been a number of GS troops that would have gladly joined with a same age BS group if they could. That also goes for the girls in the 11-14 age group; they would join BS if they were allowed, but have no interest in the GS because, for the most part, it is too focused on home and craft stuff. Personally, as long as you have the male/female leadership needed, I would not see it as a problem. I know the two or three times we have camped in proximity to GS groups over the years and had interaction with a campfire and so on the boys were far better behaved, and the girls were not intimidated nearly as much as the boys.

Since there seems to be so many with ideas as to why Eagle is not what it once was, lets have different levels. Perhaps: Basic requirements: 21 merit badges. Cooking required, but variants for level of Eagle. Still require basics, e.g. first aid, swimming or alternates, lifesaving or emergency prep, 3 citizenships, personal management. Personal fitness would have options to fit the level. URBAN EAGLE: No outdoor requirements, but more focus on everything urban. Would require learning to cook, but only in a kitchen. Project would be city focused. PF option would be very minimal. Would need to earn one badge from either public health, safety, or fire safety, sort of like the old groupings from the 50's.. New mb for cell phone communications required, or optionally, computers. CAMP EAGLE: All of Urban Eagle requirements, plus outdoor requirements that could be gotten in drive-in or summer camp settings. Charcoal cooking or large gas stoves for the cooking requirement in addition to above. Could sleep in cabins, or pre-pitched tents. Would earn a special "drive-in camping" merit badge with a car and tent; would need 20 nights, but include all summer camp. Project could be urban or other. PF option would be moderate. WILDERNESS EAGLE: All the previous two plus: Camping only in back country settings. Cooking with backpack stoves or wilderness acceptable fires only. Backpacking, pioneering, wilderness survival, and orienteering (with GPS inclusion with basic) all required. Project would be in the wilderness. All of the above, plus camping would be only in tents carried and pitched by themselves; and would be 25 nights, with only one long-term camp allowed. Back country first aid would be a requirement. PF would be strenuous. WILDERNESS EAGLE w/CROSSED PADDLES: Same as Wilderness Eagle, but also require canoeing, and whitewater merit badges. Project would focus on wild rivers, or back country lakes. So, would that make most people happy??? LOL

BadenP: For someone who is so out spoken about things and the honor of scouting, you surely are not setting a very good example. We all have issues with likely many things, and even perhaps a number of people in the program. But your strident attacks are becoming, at least to me, a bit tired. You do not like Mr. Mazzuca; that is your right. But your recent comments are bordering on slander. Perhaps it is time for you to consider your recent posts from a distance, and maybe tone things down a bit. And, who knows, maybe someone else even agrees with me. And just so you know, I too am disappointed in some aspects of the uniform, and even more burned at the increases in prices during such a serious economic downturn. I am also somewhat confused as to why a letter to Mr. Mazzuca has gone without any kind of response from him or his staff. But that is no reason to malign the man. I hope that perhaps more positive will evolve; that some positive changes will be forthcoming as we progress. JMHO

Here is a more responsible story from the Durango Herald. It does not sensationalize the story, nor mislead people with an erroneous headline. http://www.durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/07/24/Suspect_in_court_for_child_sex_sting/

Actually, an issue could come up if for some reason there were not enough mb's listed for Star of Life with the proper dates that precede the BOR. Say it shows only 5 badges before the Star date, or only 10 before Life. Then he did not meet those requirements according to the data given. So dates earned are very important prior to Eagle.

Same flap never would fly; too many "radical collectors". How would they survive?

Never even seen these; but I would agree that the universal ribbon arrow is all you need.