The Blancmange

Even when you phrase it in terms of an institutional decision, I still have to ask, why make a big deal out of it? I could understand if the CO was a pacifist organization, they might want to offer bb/archery or rifle/shotgun at the BS level, or an animal rights organization wanting to stay away from fishing (these are hypothetical CO's, as far as I know). There is nothing inherently awful about the items mentioned, they're just not as worthwhile as most of the others.

I guess I fall into the camp with those who suggest not making a big deal about this. If a leader does not like the belt loop/pin, don't mention or promote it. If someone discovers it on his own and earns it, just award it. The boy probably had fun doing it and will now try other activities. Is the video games loop any less worthwhile than say, marbles?

More and more, I am coming to the realization that USFS Visitor Centers are a fantastic source for materials and other information that fit well with both the CS and BS outdoor program (I am currently registered in both). Many times, I will be the only one in these centers, and without fail, the ranger or volunteer who is working there is more than happy to strike up a conversation. They always have stacks of various educational materials set out, and before taking a quantity, I ask permission and explain that it is for my scouts. Many times, this leads to a response along the lines of "let me check in back," and the person returns with a box of even more stuff. I have gotten LNT cards, maps, wildlife & plant ID guides, posters, coloring books, ideas for local hikes, etc., etc. Some is geared toward younger kids, while some is directed toward older youth and adults. The scouts are usually interested in receiving and using the materials. I'm becoming more involved in working with our PLC, and have suggested some of these visitor centers as stops on outings. I suspect that the rangers would be just as willing to talk to the scouts. Any other tips for getting handouts or other useful material?

This is just an observation, but if a camp had a good first year scout program, that would seem more important that the quality of its provisional program. The scout is going to be spending most of his time with that group, and in some sense, those scouts become his patrol for the week. Granted, he is missing out on the opportunity to develop relationships with his home patrol, but that is going to happen any time he goes as a provisional.

At our Spring Camporee, OA members perform a sort of crossover ceremony at the campfire for all the new scouts. All new Boy Scouts are recognized by name regardless of whether they earned AOL, or even if they were Cubs. It's a nice ceremony and the boys seem to appreciate it.

We have a small pack and basically do a hybrid of the two ideas with our Webelos. We have 2 WDL's, and at times they separate, working on either Webelos or AOL basic requirements, and combine at other times, for outings, camping, and Webelos badges that would be of interest to both. We have been doing this for about 4 years and it has worked fairly well.

Ugh . . .

Wow. I can't imagine the disappointment he must feel. However, I agree with all who say it is not a problem in terms of the requirement. It's the Eagle leadership service project, not the Eagle construction project, even though few projects seem to not involve treated lumber to some degree.

Sorry no, Insurance Company Employees do not control nor do they direct healthcare Try telling that to my friend who just sat in limbo for 2 weeks while her doctors worked to convince her insurance company to reverse their denial for the bone marrow transplant that she needs for leukemia.

OldGreyEagle wrote: Now, think of them controlling and providing health care Right, because it works so well now with insurance company employees controlling and directing health care.

So I need to stop asking my neighbor, who manages a lumberyard, for the occasional bucket of scrap wood to use for Webelos projects? All because the SE may call on him for an FOS donation and he would be less inclined to give because of my scraps?

I'm not sure why Beavah brings up the red herring of who paid for the care. Unless he is suggesting that malpractice jurisprudence has regressed to the days of Hawkins v. McGee (know affectionately to law students as the "hairy hand case), he is interjecting a contract principle into a tort case. Certainly he knows better. Imagine the practical ramifications if this were the case. Those who could afford to pay out of their own pocket would be entitled to proper care (or at least have recourse in the case of a medical error), while those who rely on Medicare/Medicaid, or have no means to pay would be stuck with second-rate care the corresponding errors. "What you're proposing instead is that the person has a right of compensation from his neighbor if his surgery doesn't work out." I've re-read the entire thread and no one has suggested anything like this. What is being argued is that the government should not restrict the right of someone injured by a medical error, by care which falls below the recognized standard of care, to be made whole in the only manner the law can provide, with monetary damages. Lest we forget that these cases do involve real people, here are some recent examples of significant medical malpractice verdicts for people whose lives have been drastically altered, or ended. Keep in mind that these are cases that went to trial and probably involved some issue that was fairly debatable. Most of the worst examples of malpractice do not go to trial because they are settled before that point. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-edward-hospital-lawsuit-verdic20101026-9,0,1426846.story http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Jury-awards-family-154-000-for-Glens-Falls-787394.php http://www2.highlandstoday.com/content/2010/oct/18/191533/jury-finds-for-patient-in-medical-malpractice-case/

Beavah, some interesting and pragmatic thoughts. Some of my serious as well as tongue in cheek thoughts: If yeh want the costs to come down, you have to do a few things. 1. Yeh have to increase the pool of people who participate in insurance coverage, especially the younger, lower-risk folks. Simply put, yeh need da young people to pay for the old, and yeh don't want da burden of the uninsured increasing costs. Mandatory coverage? 2. Yeh have to reduce the billing overhead, which is out of control. Single-payer does have its merits in this regard. Agreed. Will never fly in the current political climate. 3. Yeh have to break da AMA's control of the supply side and open more medical schools. Supply and demand markets don't work if yeh allow monopoly control of the supply. Sounds good at first blush, but the less pessimistic view says they also provide a valuable service in terms of standards and quality. 4. Yeh have to be willing to do the hard thing, and not authorize expensive treatment for the aged and terminally ill, unless they pay for it out of pocket or through some gold-plated private insurance. Death panels? Pull the plug on granny? Good luck with that one. 5. Yeh have to be willing to limit civil liability for malpractice to something equivalent of willful neglect, not simple or gross negligence. Why? Are the patient's damages any less based on the level of fault? Who is in the best position to bear the burden of the damages caused by a serious medical mistake. If they aren't borne by the provider, the most seriously injured will become public burdens. Malpractice judgments are a very small piece of the pie and experience in states that have limited awards shows that it doesn't lower premiums. 6. Yeh have to change da payment incentives to reduce the shift into procedure-based specialties. Agreed. Very few med students want to go into family practice or internal medicine. This might have an effect on #3 as well.

"Social Security has been the most successful government program in history, and can continue to be so with some modest, common sense adjustements." WHAT? Presumably you disagree. Can you identify a program that has done more toward acheiving its goals?

Consider this: Without Social Security benefits, 45.2 percent of elderly Americans would have incomes below the poverty line, all else being equal. With Social Security benefits, only 9.7 percent are poor. See: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3260 Most of these peple are seniors. Your parents, grandparents (maybe even you in the case of our elder board members :-) )may be included in those numbers. The number also includes the disabled, widows, and surviving children. Has the program been a success? Look at GernBlasten's anecdotal report. There are millions of stories like that. Know anyone on dialysis or who has received a kidney transplant? Most likely paid for by Medicare. ALS (Lou Gherig's disease)? Medicare again. I addressed the long-term viability in my earlier post. Beavah raises the issue of whether the surplus is illusory because the government has borrowed from the surplus for current expenses. If it is indeed illusory, then I don't think the Chinese or other major investors in Treasury Bonds would be too happy to hear that. Is the federal government about to start defaulting on its own bonds? For the first time, I find myself agreeing with Engineer61. If you classify SS as a Ponzi scheme, you should do the same for any other private, traditional pension, as well as casualty and life insurance companies. Don't believe the chicken-little reactionaries. Social Security has been the most successful government program in history, and can continue to be so with some modest, common sense adjustements.

Anybody betting that they decide to tackle social security and medicare, da biggest "socialist" deficit programs I assume there is sarcasm in this comment. But for the benefit of those who might take it as truth: Social Security does not operate at, nor contribute to the federal defecit. Budgetarily, social security is separate from the general budget, instead operating from the Social Security Trust Fund. For almost all of its history, the program has operated at a surplus. That surplus is invested almost exclusively in US government Treasury Bonds. In effect, Social Security actually helps finance the government's defecit spending. It is true that if changes are not made, the system cannot function at a surplus indefinitely. Currently, the trust fund will be exhausted in 2037. However, modest changes now can return the system to long-term viablity. Change in some or all of the following may be necessary: retirement age; benefit levels; or FICA tax (or the associated threshold at which FICA retirement witholding stops). Raising the retirement age further is really a situation of diminishing returns. It is already scheduled to increase to 67 for those born after 1960. This is the highest age among industrialized nations. If it is raised further, a significant number of those who would be receiving retirement benefits will simply be shifted to disability benefits, which also come from the trust fund. While it may be practical for those of us who work in sedentary jobs to work to 70 or beyond, it is not practical to expect the average construction worker, truck driver, or other heavy laborer to work indefinitely. Cutting benefits significantly would obviously not be palpable either. But increasing the FICA witholding limit, if done soon enough, could eliminate most of the projected shortfall.

With your attitude and enthusiasm, maybe you should start a new pack. Have you met any other parents who were dissatisfied with the other situaiton? Do you know of any other parents of children with Asperger's or other autism spectrum conditions? Maybe you could have a special needs unit where everyone involved would be on the same page. You only need 5 scouts to start a unit. This is a lot of work and maybe not the direction you want to go, but just an idea. I'll bet you'd be more likely to get a return phone call from the DE if you said you wanted to start a new unit.(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

Sherminator shouldn't be such a pessimist. Lots of people can have helpful advice on this topic. :-)

Our trailer has spinners and underglo lighting. Seriously. You have to post a picture!

There are plenty of leaders in Scouting who do not currently have children involved in the program. Absent some other information, this would cause me absolutely no concern. I agree with Stosh, he probably feels obligated to something he committed. Maybe his son will see that and learn a lesson (OK, I can be an optimist, can't I?).

She has told me that we are the worst pack she has ever been with and she has NEVER seen a pack run like this before -- that we are unorganized and the children are not supervised adequately. . . . She also claimed that we had poor communication It seems only natural to question the judgment of someone who takes this view of your unit and yet continues to want her son to be a member. It's not as if this is a public school where attendance is required and she has no other (public) alternatives. It is a volunteer-operated youth organization that depends on support and cooperation from all the families. If I felt that way about a volunteer organization that I had joined, I would leave immediately. This person has made clear that she expects the unit and its leaders to cater to her without any compromise or constructive support on her part. You can continue to spend time trying to put out the fires that she causes or ask her to leave and spend your time providing a quality program to those who appreciate and enjoy it.

I don't think da Warren court was ready to extend its elastic Constitution even so far as subsidizing polygamous marriage, do you? Talk about a straw man argument. There is no reason to give any credence to these "slippery slope" arguments. Those wanting to enter into a single sex marriage are seeking the same as heterosexuals - two consenting adults wanting to enter into a commited, loving relationship with their partner. No logical nexus exists between this and polygamy, beastiality, incest, or any other illegal relations.

Some people are forgetting that the BSA policy only deals with those who are openly gay. Perhaps you are on to something. If the BSA wanted to be intellectually honest about its policy, it should be changed from restricting only known or avowed homosexuals to affirmatively inquiring into the sexual orientation of its volunteers. There could be a question on the application and SE's would be required to contact references and ask them about it as well. That would certainly do a better job of weeding out those people who are actually likely to abuse children. They could call the policy "Do Ask, Do Tell." Now, are either of you homosexuals? You mean, like, flaming, or... Well, it's a standard question we have to ask. No, we're not homosexual, but we are *willing to learn*. Yeah, would they send us someplace special?

I saw that too and was thinking of ordering one. If anyone has ordered one, please post a review. The new rain gear looks like a good product as well. Too bad it only comes in black, though.

How about celibate homosexuals? They're OK, too?