TAHAWK

No offense to the USPS, but you make my point better than I could because you know more about the facts.

"I also think yeh bungled da WW2 to 2010 deficit comparison because yeh didn't take into account general economic / GDP growth. The WW2 deficits were a vastly larger percentage of da country's economic output. It's like da difference between a fellow makin' 30K a year putting $20K on his credit card a fellow making $500K a year charging $60K on his credit card. Yah, it's three times as much in dollars but nowhere near as much in risk." Your analysis does not consider the $20-30,000,000,000,000 (different "economists" = different estimates) in "unfunded mandates." That would be Medicare and Social Security money "borrowed" by Congress and replaced with IOU's. Someone is supposed to pay that amount, and it dwarfs the National Debt AND keeps growing. And if I "bungled," I guess S&P did too when they just lowered the credit rating (risk rating) of the United States of America, driving up the cost of our debt. OPM: When you borrow money it's not other people's money. It's yours. You are on the line to repay, although the creditor's remedies are limited. When Congress spends your borrowed money it's other people's money because the politicians have no personal responsibility for repaying it. Gee, no personal responsibility. Golden toilet seats. I simply have no faith that the government, local, state, federal, D, or R has better judgment than the private sector about where to spend money to create private sector jobs. Government IS excellent at creating government jobs (government voters) that increase the cost of government. Efficiency? Compare Bell Labs to even NASA -- no contest (That would be the Bell Labs that the feds tacitly connived with AT&T to destroy. The agreement to break up the Bell System specifically addressed the break-up of Bell Labs. I was there.) Or compare Kaiser to the Navy ship yards. My Grandfather worked at both in WWII. He said Kaiser was much more efficient, and that's the general consensus. Or compare UPS to USPS. Which is going away? Beaver, on the topic of government waste, you do not want to go there. Here we are with the China and the rest of the world lecturing us on our spendthrift ways and credit rating teetering, and the administration and Congress before that last election proposed no cuts in discretionary spending. OK, drink the grape stuff and say it's all Bush II's fault. Make it worse is a solution? That is not the "plan" you are looking for. That's just government soaking up more capital so it cannot be invested in anything else. What's worst is the uncertainty. Money is in huge supply, hence the low cost of money. But those with money are afraid to invest it because they have no confidence in government, and neither do the citizenry. Why should they have confidence? There is no strong leadership in either party that I can see. Obama raised so much hope in the majority of a departure from politics as usual and politics got worse. He is into leading from behind. And Congress gets lower performance ratings than the terrible ratings the Executive Branch gets -- and deserves low ratings. Scouting is going to have lots of opportunity to be helpful to our fellow humans.

I am not part of any "party," tea, coffee, or wine. Unlike some here, I don't like Koolaide of any flavor. I have made mistakes in who I have supported over the years, but I don't let any interest group direct me because they all have axes to grind and friends or "base" to make richer with taxpayer money. I don't believe in St. FDR OR St. Ronald. My "saints" are Wayne Morse and Gene McCarthy because they had what it takes to say the unpopular thing, even when I don't agree with what they said. (I am even starting to like Crazy Dennis a little on the same grounds, space men and all. He won't play nice with the other pols.) Those who are dedicated to one gang or another always have an interpretation that makes their brand look good. So they give whatever credit can been seen (or imagined) to their side and blame whatever cannot be denied on the other side, fate, foreigners, or God. Supply-Siders hail St. Ronald and ignore the growth of poverty, government employees, spending, and deficits -- while telling us that St. Ronald was responsible for the collapse of the tetering economic lie that was the Soviet Union. (Who was it said we could afford the "Great Society" and the war in Vietnam? LOL, I voted for that stiff even if I didn't vote for St. Ronald.) Government-is-the-answer types ignore the cold, hard fact that discretionary spending is at record highs and someone, some day will * have * to * pay * the * bill -- while, of course, claiming it WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE -- an article of faith, not proof. (Funny those silly economists who decide how your union's pension money gets invested don't agree. They, daft lads and ladies, think all this deficit makes things worse. Opps! There goes the national credit rating.) In 1944, at the height of WW II, the deficit in 2011 Dollars was $574,000,000,000. In 2011, the deficit is slated to be $1,650,000,000,000. Hmmmmmm. Almost 3x the deficit we incurred to fight the biggest war in history with 11,000,000 in the armed forces. What do it mean? Was FRD/was Congress shorting the war effort? Unemployment is currently said to be up to 9.6% -- but we don't count those who have stopped looking or in part-time jobs when they want full-time. Same folks say there's no inflation. All your imagination. Whoever is at fault, it's a mess. Repeat after me: "What, one pill made you sicker and two even sicker, you should have taken four. six, or eight." "History" As written by whom? I am old enough to have seen "history" change. It's only interpretation of facts. Truman was a dunce when I was in High School. At some point, historians "discovered" he was one of the great Presidents. Economics is worse. I took four years of it (1962-1965) and was told repeatedly we would never have a "serious" recession again, much less a depression. Why? Economists now knew exactly how to "fine-tune" the economy through government spending and monetary policy. Really. Honest. You betcha. So how's is that monetary policy and (record) government spending doing for you? "Serious" yet? As for the Secretary of the Treasury cutting spending, there is this thing called Congress that controls spending. Morgenthau had influence with Congress and FDR, but no historian speaks of the "Morgenthau Administration" -- unless it's a worshiper looking for someone to take the blame off Saint FDR for the economic failure during his administrations. Spending Other People's Money is hardly ever efficient. Are you old enough to remember $436 hammers in the B-52?. And those toilet seats that should have been made of gold, given their price? And the coffee-makers? My Lord, it's like the cardboard boots in the Civil War or spending more money to "save" a house from foreclosure than the owner's equity in the house [AKA, "Bank Welfare"]. (Google "Golden Fleece." You'll love it. No. You'll hate it.) "Nobody is suggesting 'endlessly spending massively more than we have.'" Gee, as a matter of fact, if not "history," there was this one guy in Washington who said: "First, I am proposing a 5-year freeze on all discretionary spending outside of security." Note "freeze." That is Washingtonian for "Go on spending the same amount." (In Washington, "cut" means slow down the increase so a "freeze" is also a "cut." There does not appear to be a verb that describes actually REDUCING spending.) Why if we freeze spending we "save" $400,000,000,000 over ten years, this guy claimed. 1,650,000,000,000/year x 10 years = 16,500,000,000,000 - 400,000,000,000 = 16,100,000,000,000 more debt. Why, we have it licked! Unless * something * changes. 2012.

"The spending from 2008 to 2010 was not discretionary. That was a simple choice, between Great Depression II and massive intervention. Without the rescue, the banks would have failed, the FDIC would have collapsed, unemployment would be above 20% and the deficit would be just as large, because of greater loss of revenue. It's OK to be angry about it, I reckon almost all of us are. But there really wasn't a choice, for either Bush with TARP or Obama with da stimulus." At least we know where you stand. "Simple choice": Cherry or Grape? We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrongsomebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promisesI say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we startedAnd an enormous debt to boot! Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury, 1933-1945 (testimony to Congress, 1939). You present a false dichotomy - endlessly spending massively more than we have to spend VS. something bad happening. Morgenthau saw the truth. We are as addicted to spending someone else's money as the drunk is addicted to booze. And our children and their children through the generations will pay - and pay - and pay for our endless summer of spending.

One may use fire and not miss it's dangers. Do you think they were trying to mislead with their constant, written warnings about the danger of government power? These were revolutionaries - dangerous people. They had killed the government's men and those who had supported the government. They were suspicious of government and saw it as an institution that, by its very nature, tended to grow in power, and in growing restrict liberty. The N.Y. Times would not have liked them at all. Confronted by such men, the VP might have fainted dead away. Attempting to reduce a position with which you do not agree to an absurd extreme is well-worn rhetorical tactic -- like calling those who want the government to stop piling up debt "terrorists" or Obama a "Communist." Very few oppose all taxation, any more than they oppose all government. (I have voted for most tax increases put in front of me as a voter because I felt they were appropriate.) Government, however, is like the alcoholic. A sip leads to a gulp, and a gulp leads to a binge. We have just witnessed the greatest spending binge in national history. The government proposed a budget with no decrease in the record annual rate of deficit (increase in debt). Apparently, sharp reduction in access to money is the only measure some politicians understand. Giving them the keys to the "liquor cabinet" and asking for moderation would be a disservice to the nation and those who will be it's citizens in the future. "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America." "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." "As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear." Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Washington. This only works if the government stops piling up debts as if there were no downside to bankruptcy.

Really?

Really?

Excuse me? One is a "freeloader" to not "want" to pay taxes that the transient majority wants them to pay? That's fairly "1984." Roll out the Thought Police. Dissent is not to be allowed, even inside the privacy of one's thoughts. In a society where we approach a minority being required to pay income taxes, that's more than a bit much. As for "necessary evil," that is the lesser of two evils: e.g. sacrificing our sons and daughters in a war for national survival. Thinkers have written about the concept for centuries. So you may not agree with Jefferson, Washington, and others about the danger of government. Fine. Just leave off telling those of us who have lived the wonderfulness of ever-larger, ever more expensive, ever more wasteful, ever more intrusive government that we are, somehow, bad people because we don't like what we see or its consequences. Government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

I find it both interesting and fascinating that people use "interesting" and "fascinating" when they mean "wrong." While it has not happened often, the United States Supreme Court has held federal legislation unconstitutional for violation of the Tenth Amendment. Apparently someone thinks that the Tenth Amendment, adopted after the Constitution and therefore controlling over prior provisions, means something after all: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). As to the age of a wrong idea as justifying it, that fortunately is not a legal principle that holds much weight. Error supposedly sanctified by age is error still. African-American had been regarded as mere property for centuries - much more than 200 years, as recognized in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 650 U.S. 393 (1857), before "All men are created equal" finally received the weight it should have been given as a harbinger of change. History will judge, but the voters sooner still.

"It seems plainly ridiculous to me that in training someone to survive in the wilderness you demand that they follow artificial "leave no trace" constraints." The MB pamphlet, as with other things, is internally contradictory on following LNT in a survival situation.

The rationale for requiring Camping MB is that Wilderness survival is advanced camping. For example, were a candidate to actually be required to meet the expedient shelter requirement, which they very rarely are, he would need a good day to construct a shelter that would actually keep out even modest rain, not to mention insulate. I have no doubt that most Scouts could erect a tent far more than twenty times in a day. He might also find that the tent keeps out wind and rain better than three feet of brush and a sleeping bag and mattress does better at insulating than leaves. Most camps that actually require that the badge be earned, require equipment for the night of camping to be restricted to the Scout's "Personal Survival Kit." We all form opinions based on our knowledge and experience, and everyone here is entitled to their point of view. I think, for example, that the current requirements for the Wilderness Survival MB are deficient in several respects. For example, the requirements do not cover the critical preventive measures (gathering information; planning; "leaving word"; group-forming) that the pamphlet poorly discusses, the need for rest and sleep for survival, nor the navigation skills the pamphlet gives such short shrift. The old learning on the calculus of who stays and who goes for help, when self-rescue makes sense, is totally gone.

When the OP asks if Scouts and Scouters have a duty to support government spending programs, he's opening up a discussion that has to be, in material part, about political issues. You can defining "general welfare" to be "welfare" - the dole, to use an older, harsher-sounding noun. That's your right in a political discussion. I don't define "general welfare" that way. Neither did the Founders. I think of it as the general good of our country. Very appropriate in a political discussion to toss around ideas about what truly promotes "the general welfare." Like, is endlessly spending money we don''t have good for the country? What powers Congress has to "promote the general welfare" is another question. As to that, the national power elites have been playing "Let's pretend" as long as I have been able to vote. It can also, I think, be an ethical question. Is it ethical to tell working folks that they will get the benefit of the Social Security Tax they pay and paid (with after-tax dollars) when all Social Security has is file cabinets full of IOU's on a bankrupt government. (AKA "unfunded mandates" that vastly exceed the official national debt). The D's and the R's spent all the money to avoid tough choices. There is nothing left to spend except what we can borrow or take from citizens by devaluing the currency, as we have been doing at an historic rate lately. Jefferson is an interesting guy. I'm a D. We used to have Jefferson-Jackson dinners. Don't think anyone in power these days would be quoting Jefferson much. Too dangerous. Too "radical," to use the new media word for Jefferson's thinking.

At times, it has been thought to be OK to promote the general welfare: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare, do hereby ordain this Constitution for the United States of America." We are about making good citizens. Citizens do function as part of government. Promoting the GENERAL welfare is part of the mission of government. And this thread is political.

Would that be an ethical question or a political question? Would that be conserving the Nation's resources or expending them much faster than they are created? (A Scout is thrifty.) Is a profession of good intent enough, even if you believe it?

I respectfully disagree. It should follow Camping MB (as some council camps require). The most important aspect is mental, and older, more-experienced Scouts would find it easier to stay positive, adapt, and improvise. There are simply more things they are able to do in order to keep busy staying alive and comfortable. Most newer Scouts have trouble starting a fire with matches on a sunny, dry day, much less anything harder (Although the Wilderness Survival Merit Badge does allow flame-throwers, blow-torches, and railroad flares. Seriously. Actually read the fire requirement. BSA didn't. You can.) Don't confuse what is required in the typical Summer Camp vs. what is required to actually earn the badge, even given the lack of a realistic fire-making requirement. I believe it should also follow First Aid MB, assuming that badge is earned.

Program Offerings at Camp Gorsuch One of the best reasons to attend Camp Gorsuch is the program opportunities for young and advanced Scouts. We will offer several programs that meet the needs of your Scouts. Here are some things to take into consideration when planning your camp program. Summer camp is not a merit badge mill, where you pay a fee and get four merit badges automatically. Instead camp offers merit badges as one portion of the overall program. Trying more than four merit badges in one week is not recommended. We suggest a maximum of three merit badges per week per boy. True, some have earned upwards of five, but that is the exception. The most difficult badges to earn are those requiring a great deal of physical skills, coordination and stamina, i.e.: lifesaving, rifle shooting, archery. Many badges have advance work that could be done before arrival at camp. Experience shows us that camp is not an ideal classroom for written work and the smart Scout is one who comes to camp with all the written work already done. Boys should try something new at camp and get a well rounded experience. Try a handicraft badge, a nature badge, an aquatic or scoutcraft badge combination. In addition, experience a hike, do Low/High C.O.P.E. Come to camp prepared. Have patrols already organized. Elect patrol leaders before camp. Work on ideas as patrols and have the "patrol leaders represent the group" at camp. Make patrol camping areas. Your campsite is your home for the week, so work at making it comfortable by bringing "banners and flags" to dress it up. Dont forget to schedule rest. Thats right. Too often, you dont take the time to sit and enjoy the beauty at camp around you. Dont keep such a pace that you miss the trees, the nature, the clean fresh air. Be spirited. The troop that comes to camp with ideas and spirit and challenges makes the rest of camp come alive. Bring your troop cheer to camp and show everyone that youre number one. Be flexible! Our courteous staff will do their best to help you but sometimes things happen.

All council camps I have encountered recently, due to LNT, do not permit establishing new campsites. Wear is to be confined to existing campsites. Especially, new firesites are not to be established. The sample size is only seven (since I started keeping note of the phenomenon) and so is suspect. YMMV

Patrols, as distinct from the Troop in which they are registered, may camp if there are two adults "on" the outing. What those adults do depends on how they have been trained to behave. Their behavior can usually be determined by ear alone. For most council camps I have seen to be used for distributed troop camping -- patrols far enough apart to have some change of independent experience -- the troop would have to rent several "troop sites."

Most Americans don't know much about our civil war, much less a civil war in China. But most Americans don't hold themselves out as experts. Lots of literature on the Taiping Rebellion, but everything I have read is written by non-Chinese, so a point-of-view that is pretty important is not fully represented (or worse) in understanding a civil war that cost 20-30,000,000 lives, give or take a few million. Gordon was hardly the only colorful character. Didn't know the Sons of Daniel Boone and Woodcraft Indians existed in Scotland (the comma and all that), but one learns something every day, or should. Just how do we know that BP imagined western scouts and pioneers in shorts? Did BP say so or draw them as such? Any basis at all for the theory that BP wanted shorts as part of the Boy Scout uniform due to some idea about the western scouts? Inquiring minds want to know. As for why the popular press in the UK called Gordon "Chinese Gordon," calling him that for slaughter rather than the fact that he became a penny press hero in China can be filed under: "Axes, grinding of." I mean isn't Eisenhower famous for slaughtering Germans?

So nice that one does not have to be entirely accurate to write for Yale. "Baden-Powell borrows the uniform of the Boy Scouts from the frontier uniform as he imagined it in America--the cowboy hat, the flannel shirt, their neckerchief, the short pants." Ah yes, the American cowboy or frontier scout in his short pants. ^___^ D Boone kilt a bar -- in knickers. BP drew so many of those imaginary Westerners. ^____^ Actually, and this would have fit the "expert's" prejudices even more, the shorts came from the British MILITARY (gasp!) "Now, there had been groups of frontier-inspired youth organizations that existed in Scotland, particularly. They're called things like The Sons of Daniel Boone, The Woodcraft Indians, The Boys' Brigade in Glasgow in 1883. Some were church sponsored." The Boys Brigades were, as a general rule, more like ROTC than the Woodcraft Rangers or Sons of Daniel Boone, those famous Scots organizations for British imperialists. LOL "William "Wild Bill" Cody, from my wife's state of Nebraska, had killed thousands of buffalo. He had dueled. The duels that they do with the German dueling fraternities, you've got the equivalent in Dodge City, and all of this, where you're dueling, and the classic kind of Clint Eastwood western. He'd killed thousands of buffalo, dueled, and he's a killer and scalper of Indians. He was his own publicist and he had enormous influence in Britain. At the Battle of Little Big Horn in 1876, he kills Indian Chief Yellow Hand." Ah yes, The Little Big Horn. So hard to keep those battles straight when you're a top professor at Yale. "Now, again, the British newspapers covered another siege which ends rather badly, which is at Khartoum, with the death of Charles Chinese Gordon. He was called Chinese Gordon because he slaughtered the Chinese, and he gets his at Khartoum." Gordon was famously "Chinese Gordon" because the Emperor -- the very Chinese Emperor -- placed him in effective command of a Chinese army (The Ever-Victorious Army") that was, in fact, fighting other Chinese. So the "expert" is close, but distorts the facts. Above all, he clearly relied on secondary sources for BP's thinking, rather than read what the man wrote. Otherwise, he might not have missed the express distinction between Boy Scouts - "peace scouting" in BP's own, repeated words -- and the war-training organization he imagines. But facts do so get in the way of a good rant.

Forty-seven. Thirty-seven went to Summer Camp or High Adventure (overlapped). Several were conflicted by the curse of year-around HS sports training.

May I observe that the vast bulk of merit badge counselors are volunteers. My Council has no program to invite MBC's to help at camp. In tact, when I volunteered, I was told I could be a "Camp Counselor" (Think in terms of a liason between units and staff.) but I not work with Merit badge candidates. That role was restricted to "camp staff who understand how summer camp advancement is run." (I would not want any Troop anywhere near that camp.)

In Scouting, including BSA, where the stated objectives since the beginning have been to develop character and citizenship, systematic fraud and cheating are Bad Things. Among other harms, they give the lie to "Trustworthy" and are a school for cynicism that is all too rampant in our society ("Everybody cheats.") Mills also result in Scouts with merit badges but with no, or virtually no, skills in topics like first aid and wilderness survival. Even though Scouting, including BSA, has never suggested that a merit badge represents anything like expertise, the published requirements are mostly clear and typically attainable by a Scout-aged youth, if not every eleven-year-old. The knowledge and skills required to pass those requirements is beneficial to the Scout and society. Mills also help significantly in the debasement of the Eagle rank. It is not an accident that the percentage of Eagles is said by BSA to have increased to a number representing 400% of what it was when two-thirds of all boys experienced Scouting in the U.S.(Dramatic weakening of stated requirements also contributes.) How does "it" happen? I think we have identified several factors: 1) confusing "advancement," a method, with the goals of Scouting, including BSA. (When all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.); 2) councils (NOT young staffers) who want to purchase "success" at the price of corruption; sloth on the part of Scouters who can't be bothered to do the necessary to avoid mills even when they know they are mills. And yes, this can be summarized as "adults." What can be done? Do inform anyone who seems appropriate. Be specific and factual. Be calm. ("It's all going to Hell!" is unlikely to convince anyone but Scouting Luddites who are already convinced.) Write to everyone who might be interested, pointing out the facts. I intend to raise the question of whether MB's signed by children were earned for advancement purposes. It ought to be an uncomfortable issue. Especially, vote with your feet (and $$). Work to convince your leaders (Scouts) to patronize better camps or work to convince them, possibly with other like-minded units, to operate your own camp. I have experience with a unit that did it's own SC every other year for decades, reserving council camps largely for waterfront and field sports MB's, which tend to be more honestly presented in council camps. The Scouts loved it. All MB's awarded were earned. Only viewing with alarm seems patently insufficient.

The problem being that Scouts are not being required to demonstrate any level of knowledge or ability for many merit badges - especially in Scoutcraft. If you never ask - and the "counselors don't ask - you have no idea what, if anything, they know.

Given the uniform requirement (expressly applied to summer camp) that only Merit Badge Counselors (who must be 18 or older) may test and sign off on merit badges, in what sense have the Scouts who received a Blue Card signed by a Scout after failure to individually teat "earned" a Merit badge for any purpose? The 15-year-old's signature is just as much a nullity as if the Candidates eight-year-old brother had signed off. "The steps to follow in the merit badge program are outlined in the current Boy Scout Requirements. This book lists the requirements a Scout meets to earn each of the more than 100 merit badges that are available. Scouts must be tested individually, and they MUST meet all the requirements. No additional requirements may be added. A merit badge cannot be taken away once it has been EARNED, provided the counselor is a REGISTERED counselor for the merit badge. . . . Camp merit badge counselors MUST be qualified (see Qualifications of Counselors, page 13). Camp staff members who are qualified in the subject and are younger than age 18 may ASSIST the merit badge counselor with instruction. The merit badge counselor or instructor in a particular subject should be available to both individuals and groups. However, regardless of the class format, each Scout must be reviewed INDIVIDUALLY BY THE COUNSELOR to ensure completion of the badges requirements. . . . Each counselor MUST maintain the exact standards as outlined in the merit badge requirementsnothing deleted, nothing added . . . ." BSA Pub. 33008 Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures [emphasis added]. Next, if the candidate was not, in fact, given the opportunity to earn the badge, given the lack of adequate staff or even one Merit Badge Counselors for the MB, is he not entitled to a partial refund of camp fees?