CalicoPenn

Matt, Your question deserves a response even if it isn't spun out. I think you did well with your answer - you have nothing to say at this time, and I love the part of inviting them out to the winter campout (though the flip side is it give a reporter exposure to Scouts they can ask the "what do you think about" question to). If it were me, I would tell them that we would have nothing to say on the matter until we had discussions with our chartered organization to find out their views, and that even then, we may have nothing to say on the matter as it's between the Troop and the Chartering Organization, then refer them to the COR.

The notion that the BSA is opening up CO's to individual lawsuits over CO's making their own decision over allowing gay members and leaders is akin to the notion that the government is going to take your gun if you have to register it. It's nonsense being used as a scare tactic hoping enough ignorant people will make a stink. (note how neatly I brought the two hot issues right now together?)

Boy Scouts of America: 2.7 million youth Girl Scouts: 2.2 million youth American Heritage Girls: 17 thousand youth I suspect that the initial change will be about 50,000 youth lost from the BSA. I suspect that the biggest losses will be in the South. In the end, though, I suspect that it will be a minor blip in the first year and that membership will grow again once the initial news reporting and exodus occurs (no one is going to remember this in August/September for Cub Scout recruiting - timing is everything). The American Heritage Girls has a letter on their website from their executive director asking their members to contact the BSA and express how disappointed they are (I guess the MOU must not have said anything about not interfering in any way with each other's internal operations and policies - oh, wait, it does - I guess the AHG feels they can just ignore their obligations to a "partner") and to pray that the board won't take that action, and that they will be evaluating the relationship for the future. I suspect the AHG will no longer promote the BSA as a like-minded partner anymore.

Boy Scouts of America: 2.7 million youth Girl Scouts: 2.2 million youth American Heritage Girls: 17 thousand youth I suspect that the initial change will be about 50,000 youth lost from the BSA. I suspect that the biggest losses will be in the South. In the end, though, I suspect that it will be a minor blip in the first year and that membership will grow again once the initial news reporting and exodus occurs (no one is going to remember this in August/September for Cub Scout recruiting - timing is everything). The American Heritage Girls has a letter on their website from their executive director asking their members to contact the BSA and express how disappointed they are (I guess the MOU must not have said anything about not interfering in any way with each other's internal operations and policies - oh, wait, it does - I guess the AHG feels they can just ignore their obligations to a "partner") and to pray that the board won't take that action, and that they will be evaluating the relationship for the future. I suspect the AHG will no longer promote the BSA as a like-minded partner anymore.

I'm not sure you need to. Sure, it's important to serve healthy meals, and certainly that can and should be encouraged for campouts, but that doesn't mean serving up things like dogs and chips, or pizza, on pinewood derby night or movie nights is a bad thing. I think these foods get a bad rap mostly because we tend to overdo them. An occasional Big Mac is a nice treat but we see them demonized as junk food when the real issue is having a Big Mac every day. That doesn't mean that you couldn't make things healthier - have the hot dogs but instead of the standard pork/beef mix, serve turkey dogs. Pizza? Skip the pepperoni, go with veggies. Instead of regular ranch, use a lite ranch on your salad, or go with a simple vinegar and oil dressing. Serve up cole slaw using something other than mayo (I use Brianna's "rich poppy seed" dressing - mmm good - a bit pricey but worth it). For dessert, instead of cookies and cakes, offer fruits - the kids get a lot of messaging on healthy eating at schools these days - more and more are picking up fruit as a choice - you can build on that. Chips? Go with pretzels. It's ok to have "junk" food every once in a while as a treat - and there might very well be a good chance that these nights are treats for a number of your Cubs.

BS-87: I thought I felt a disturbance in the force.

At the time of the enactment of the Constitution, the founding fathers envisioned that the people would be called upon as necessary to defend their state, or their country, from the tyranny of other states and other countries as there would be no standing army and the people themselves would need to be armed and ready as its defensive force. As all nation builders are, the founding fathers were blind to the idea that they themselves, or the country they founded, could one day be the tyrant or oppressor - they were, in fact, building a more perfect nation - and a more perfect nation wouldn't oppress their own people now, would they? Their soaring rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence was aimed at a very specific target, and despite popular contemporary notions, they never thought that there would ever be a need to use it against themselves and the more perfect nation they were striving to build. Had they thought as much, they would have provided a constitutional means for states to secede from the nation, something they did not do.

Pssst..... Kindred Virtues means virtues similar to patriotism, self-reliance and courage - it does not mean morals, or any such thing.

Scouting as we know it is always coming to an end. It was coming to an end when we let blacks integrate into units. It was coming to an end when we let Jews integrate into units. It was coming to an end when we added service projects to Eagle Scout rank. It was coming to an end when we allowed women to be Scoutmasters. It was coming to an end when we created soccer-oriented units for Hispanics. I don't know where people get the idea that the Boy Scouts of America hasn't evolved with society. It has - it's just pretty slow about it. Are we going to lose some units sponsored by some shurches? Probably. Will there be a mass exodus of units from the big sponsors (the LDS, the United Methodists, the Catholic Church). Probably not (heck, they're already on board - if they weren't, the announcement would never have been made). The Southern Baptists will boycott? We should be so lucky (Disney sales increased when the Southern Baptists announced a boycott on Disney). Will there be leaders and families leaving the Boy Scouts? Yeah, probably, but they might be replaced by leaders and families that will now join the Boy Scouts because the policy has changed. Go ahead and wear that tape over the Boy Scouts of America strip - in a year from now, no one will even ask you what that's all about, and if they do, they'll likely just roll their eyes at you. Oh wait, you're going to leave the organization instead. We'll, I'm sure someone will miss you. I'm not Catholic but I've always been told that Catholics believe in loving the sinner but hating the sin - I just don't understand how this policy would be contrary to church teachings when the Boy Scouts of America is decidedly non-sexual, which isn't going to change. Sewing Merit Badge? Back when I was a Scout, the "manliest" Scoutmasters I knew not only knew how to sew, they taught us how to sew, and they all wondered why the heck there wasn't a sewing merit badge. You are aware that sewing is a skill learned in the military (or perhaps not, there are probably fewer Veterans that are Scoutmaster's today). It would also probably make sense to have some kind of "homemaking" merit badge - maybe call in Independent Living - to teach skills the Scouts are going to need when they grow up and go to college, get married, rent an apartment - do you really think women do all the housework these days? Alternative Lifestyles? Do you really want to go there? I'd say hunting is an alternative lifestyle these days. Tampa - I suspect the delay was because the Methodists knew this was a possibility (as I've said in another thread, this wasn't done in a vacuum) and I suspect the rechartering instructions are going to be about which entity will be the chartering organization, the Methodist Men's Clubs (which will oppose the policy and aren't obligated by the church to follow the church's wishes on the matter) or the United Methodist churches themselves, which aren't necessarily opposed to the new policy. I wonder what will happen with the MOU between the BSA and American Heritage Girls now that the BSA is poised to align their policies more closely with the Girl Scouts.

Duplicate(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Cricket asks how this will fit in with the 1916 Federal Charter. Here is the purpose of Scouting per the charter: "The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." Seems to me it will fit in just fine. "Heck, half my scouts don't want to admit to other boys they are in scouts because they are afraid of being labeled "gay" by fellow students." Yeah, before you get all woogie in the knees, it would help if you understood that for many years now, teenagers have been using "that's so gay" not meaning sexual orientation but meaning stupid, such as "those shoes are so gay", and most of the time, if you looked at them and said a gay person wouldn't be caught dead wearing those shoes, they give you a sheepish look and say that's not what they meant. In other words, gay became the new dork. "My new title will be FORMER SCOUTMASTER." Maybe that's for the best. Scouts don't need to be mentored by someone so narrow-minded that they react in a "my way or the highway" manner. Just as the Scouts were better off without the folks who left because they didn't like the current policy rather than stick around for the Scout's sake, they'll be better off without the folks who don't like the new policy (if indeed that's what happens) rather than stick around for the Scouts sake. "It was always the local choice until Dale or shortly before". Ummm, no. If it was local choice, then the Dale mess never would have been an issue in the first place. Dale's Troop wanted him to remain as a leader in the Troop. If there was local choice, no one would have made a stink about it. "I can see where the BSA smells money" I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't part of it - the BSA is opening Bechtel, they're planning to install a rather significant Wi-Fi set up, and their next Board President, who opposes the current policy, is the Chair of AT&T. AT&T and Wi-Fi?? Hellooooo. "Well, if they make this decision, not only will our church not be starting two units, our district will lose at least 15" Doubtful - the BSA didn't have pre-board meetings with the professional staff to give them a heads-up, or prepare a press release pre-board meeting as a trial balloon to give folks the heads up, without an awful lot of talking being done beforehand. The real talking and negotiations have already takien place, and if you don't think that the BSA hasn't had very long sit-down discussions with folks like the Catholic, Mormon, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. churches, and has already gotten the go ahead from them, then you just aren't paying attention to how things really get done. Don't think for a second that the recharter angst of the United Methodists isn't tied to this - that the real question was which part of the church was going to be rechartering the Scouts - the men's clubs (who were very much opposed to allowing gays in to Scouts and had no obligation to follow the churches wishes in this matter) or the churches themselves, who aren't as opposed. Let's not forget that the "re-affirmation" of the policy was done outside the executive board level, that Mazzuca retired, and that there were board members that were not happy with the pronouncement that was made. If this policy goes through, there very well might be a loss of some units and people - but it's likely to be a pretty small loss, and the loss could be offset by gains of members of families that will currently not join because of the policy. The biggest oppositiion seems to be from folks that still believe the world is what it was like when they were kids. The world has changed - when a high schooler gets a standing ovation at a school assembly for coming out after being given an award, the world has changed. At first, there will be stories about the first openly gay Scoutmaster, the first openly gay Eagle Scout (it wouldn't surprise me to see Mount Diablo Council award the Eagle Rank they just denied), there will likely be a story about the first Lesbian Den Leader (and most likely it will be the woman who was tossed out this past summer). But those stories will die away. The biggest change? All those stories ripping the Boy Scouts to shreds everytime they toss a lesbian parent out, or toss a Scout out, etc., etc. will go away - despite how the old saying goes, there really is such a thing as bad publicity, and the Boy Scouts have had it in spades the past few years.

These discussions are getting more and more convoluted with every passing day - it would be funny if it wasn't such a serious subject. Do we really want to have a debate on what "arms" means? In plain English, Arms is short for Armament - and yes, that includes cannons, missles, RPGs, swords, spears, pikes, etc. It's rather amusing to see someone upset with the idea that some may want to see some firearms banned from being owned by the general public because it would be an "infringement" of their right to bear arms parse the word arms to mean handguns, rifles and shotguns only, ignoring the much broader definition of arms. The US already "infringes" on the kinds of arms we can own - most people can never own a submachine gun (and to own one, you have to jump through some really incredible hoops), we can't own RPG's, and carrying a sword around in public will get you surrounded by police officers faster than a dozen donuts will. Check your state and local laws on the allowed length of fixed blade knives your allowed to carry, or see what they say about carrying a switchblade - these items meet the definition of "arms", but the NRA doesn't come to the defense of these, do they? Mental Health? If we're going to use mental health as the dividing line over who can and can't carry, then there will be very few guns in the hands of people. Are you afraid of Snakes? Spiders? Heights? Flying? Trains? Clowns? Falling? Stairs? (etc. etc. etc.) - then you have a phobia, which is an anxiety disorder - a mental health issue. Are you afraid to walk the streets of the city, or the paths of a forest, without a gun? Then you have an anxiety disorder and shouldn't have a gun. Shall we get to "Law-abiding" so that we keep the hands out of criminals? Do you habitually speed? The you aren't law-abiding - no gun you criminal you. Or are we going to parse which laws count and which laws we can break to determine who is law-abiding the way some are trying to parse which weapons are "arms" and which aren't? I like Two-cubs idea that Beavah is consistently reminding us of, that liability insurance can be part of the solution. I like 3 out of 5 of Basement's original solution. It would be 4 out of 5 but instead of a national registry, I'd prefer a state registry which can be accessed, cross-checked and matched between states. If you're afraid this will just lead to the government taking away your guns, then you're paranoid, a mental health disorder, and shouldn't have guns in the first place. New Orleans may have taken guns in the wake of the hurricane, but the courts ruled very firmly that New Orleans was wrong to do so and ordered them to return the guns (whether they were successfully able to do so is another story). That's exactly how our system is set up - and it worked just perfectly - if you're going to wave the Constitutiona around to insist on your sacrosanct rights, then you have to trust that the Constitutional process will work. Illinois requires gun owners to have a Firearm Owner's Identification card (FOID). I have one. I'd have no problem with the state requiring me to pay for a complete background check every other year, and a mental health evaluation every other year as part of a scheme to renew my FOID card. Heck, I get a physical once a year, it's time we grew up as a society and included mental health check-ups as preventive health measures. I have no problem with a generalized ban on semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines or with a capacity greater than 10 rounds with some narrow exceptions. I'd be fine with certain classes of disabled people having a semi-automatic in order to hunt - but they better involve loss of limb or limb function. We already ban the general ownership of fully automatic weapons - and any skilled internet user can find instructions on how to convert your semi-automatic weapon into a full automatic weapon. Enough with the "Red Dawn" fantasies about taking on a corrupt government with your M-16 look-a-likes. Enough with the "if only people had guns" fantasies - there has yet to be a mass shooting stopped by an armed, non-LEO trained, civilian who saved the day by pulling their gun and shooting the shooter. Frankly, those that say "if only" are nothing more than arm chair heroes who get good scores on their shoot-em-up video games. Enough with the "Hitler disarmed his country" lies - he did disarm the Jews, but he encouraged the Aryans to take up arms - he didn't disarm the entire country. We rarely hear from those "look to history" folks that he disarmed a portion, and a very small portion at that, of the population - they always claim he disarmed the entire country. No more pulling out the "guns prevent 10,000 (100,000, 2 million) crimes per year" statistic that can never be proven because the incidents are never, mysteriously, reported to the police (what, are you afraid the police are going to take away your gun if you call them to tell them you waved your gun and chased off a mugger?). People love to tell stories - its really interesting to go to a small town diner at breakfast and hear someone say they went to the big city the week before and had to wave their gun around because it looked like someone was going to mug them, and watch all the folks around them mumble and nod as if it must be true (while the waitress is rolling her eyes because she knows the guy had lunch and dinner at the diner the day he said he was in the big city). Anyone who has ever been in a small town tavern during hunting season can hear all kinds of stories about the ones that got away. In other words, stop repeating the BS as if it actually means something. No one but true believers believe that bunch of bull, and if you do believe it, then you may be suffering from delusions yourself, a mental health issue that should keep guns out of your hands. Enough with the urban core has more gun violence whining unless you're ready to talk about how to solve it. We can easily say the rural areas have more hunting accidents too, but it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. We can eliminate most urban shootings by legalizing drugs and pulling them out of the realm of criminality and into the realm of consumerism. Don't even think about talking about gangs - if your view of gangs has anything to do with 1980's and 1990's movies about bloods, crips, kings, etc. then you are woefully behind the times - these gangs are starting to fall apart as the gangs become more and more concentrated - at one time, most cities had just a few gangs, controlling large swaths of territory - today's gangs? Most are now neighborhood based, "controlling" a block, or maybe two, or one apartment complex - instead of large gangs, we now have micro-gangs - and of course shootings increase because instead of one gang controlling 50 blocks, you know have 50 gangs controlling 50 individual blocks and they are shooting at each other when 10 years ago, they would have been in the same gang. Is the banning of semi-automatic weapons just a "feel good" thing that's not really going to make a difference? Yeah, probably it is. But you know what? It doesn't matter if it works or not. What matters is how people see the various factions, or if people see if something is being tried. Right now, the 2nd amendment absolutists are losing public opinion - because they aren't seen as being reasonable in the face of pure horror. The gun control folks are being seen as at least willing to try something, anything to stop these things. Click gives us the perfect example in the pro-gun folks rigid thinking with this: "Me: The Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pro Gun Control Person(PGCP): (insert favorite pro gun control talking point) Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." PGCP: (insert second favorite pro gun control talking point) Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." PGCP: (insert third favorite pro gun control talking point) Me: You really don't care what the Constitution states? PGCP: Guns are evil" Let me show you what is driving me, and many folks like me, on this issue - I'll take the part of PGCP: "Me: The Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pro Gun Control Person(PGCP): "Is your right to plink at soda cans with a 30-round semiautomatic weapon greater than the rights of 20 kids who still believed in Santa Claus not to be killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic weapon days before Christmas?" Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." PGCP: "Is your right to plink at soda cans with a 30-round semiautomatic weapon greater than the rights of 20 kids who still believed in Santa Claus not to be killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic weapon days before Christmas?" Me: But the Constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." PGCP: "Is your right to plink at soda cans with a 30-round semiautomatic weapon greater than the rights of 20 kids who still believed in Santa Claus not to be killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic weapon days before Christmas?" Me: You really don't care what the Constitution states? PGCP: "Is your right to plink at soda cans with a 30-round semiautomatic weapon greater than the rights of 20 kids who still believed in Santa Claus not to be killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic weapon days before Christmas?" If you're really going to care what the Constitution states, then learn what the Constitution really states. Pay attention to what Beavah has to say - he has a bit more education on it than most of us. You can't argue that the government can't ban some weapons as an infringement while it's banning other weapons that you agree should not be in people's hands - and as has been pointed out, the Constitution doesn't specify exactly what arms are allowed or not, which, given that Congress has the right and responsibility to make laws that enforce the Constitution, would seem to give Congress the right and responsibility to define that term as it sees fit. As long as Congress doesn't prevent you from keeping and bearing any arms, then the Second Amendment is still being honored. Every right has limits - the Second Amendment is not some special amendment that makes it the only absolute right in the Constitution. Let's not forget, in all this durm und strang what's most important here. 20 kids, who still believed in Santa Claus, were killed by a maniac just days before Christmas. Hundreds of kids will never think of School as being a safe place again. An entire town will never think of Christmas in the same way. Emotional? You're gosh-darn-tooting it's emotional - and if you don't have the emotional capacity to understand that maybe, just maybe, your rights to plink at a can with a 30-round semi-automatic gun is just not the most important thing in this world, then perhaps you don't deserve to have guns in the first place.

Oh yeah, we all know that McDonald's insists that a Big Mac is 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles on a sesame seed bun. But why can't that franchisee down the street make a sandwich with 2 fillets of fish, tarter sauce, cheese, and pickles on a poppy seed bun and call it a Big Mac, and why can't that franchisee in Iowa make a sandwich of pulled pork, barbeque sauce, cheese, onions on a kaiser roll and call that a Big Mac?

Double Post(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Qwazse, We already can name the sexual orientation of pedophiles - a person's sexual orientation is defined by the sexual relationships an adult has with other adults. If you're an adult male whose adult sexual partners are exclusively women, then you are a heterosexual. If you are a pedo/ephebophile that molests boys but whose only adult sexual partners are women, then you are a heterosexual. That's well defined in psychology and sociology. There are some folks out there that are trying to define pedo/ephebophilia as a distinct sexual orientation - and though they make a mighty splash in the media pool, they aren't making much headway elsewhere. What I find disingenuous is ignoring that most of the molesters of scouts have been heterosexual males so that you can blame gay males as yet one more excuse to try to keep them out of Scouting.

Guns don't pistol whip people, people pistol-whip people.

I've thought about this and I'm going to reject the notion that we are more violent than in the past and instead suggest that are more deadly, and that yes, movies and video games played a role in that but not in the "they're more violent" sense but more in the different equipment sense. Veterans have played a role as well. I loved watching The Rifleman. What were the opening credits? Chuck Connors advancing on someone rapidly firing his rifle. Would it surprise anyone to make a connection between The Rifleman TV show and Ralphies dreaming of a Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun for Christmas (Christmas Story)? The guns certainly looked similar, and who didn't want to be the Rifleman? When that similarity hit me, I realized something - the types of guns shown on TV and in the movies back then were pretty similar to the types of guns you could buy, except for Thompson Submachine Guns, which to this day are still illegal for most people to own. In the 50's, 60's and 70's, we had school shootings - and the shooters were armed with rifles and shotguns, the kinds of guns they saw on TV and in movies - and while they're deadly, you just couldn't get the same kind of mass casualties as you can get with some of todays guns. Where do Veterans come into the equation? Consider the veterans of the day - what were shooting while in the service? Guns like the M-1 Garand. If you're a veteran and want to take up shooting, or hunting, or just want a gun around for protection, what are you going to gravitate to? The kind of guns you used in service. By the mid-60's and 1970's, our military folks were using things like the M-14 and the M-16. When they got out of the sertvice, what was waiting for them? A gun just like the one they had in the military - the AR-15. Weapons on TV and in the movies changed too, especially in the 1980's. In the 1970's, Clint Eastwood was running around as Dirty Harry, and those movies helped push .357 Magnum sales. In the 80's, you had folks like Arnold, Chuck and Sly running around carrying multiple guns that looked like military-style weapons - and people wanted them. Violent Society? Every society has violence - the difference is what do we have available to arm ourselves with.

The issue is one of perception, and its going against the BSA more and more. Trevorum even mentions that the person with that viewpoint was a lifelong conservative - so much for this being a bugaboo of the liberals. The hardest thing to counter is people's perceptions, because they form people's opinions. We even have an example right in this thread where Brew states that not every gay person will molest scouts but then implys that those men who do molest scouts must be gay because they are engaging in gay sex, never mind that the vast majority of them are straight men that are married and have children of their own and never mind how often folks are told that molestation, like rape, is about power, not sex. No matter how many times the BSA says its not bigoted, or how many times we point out that child molestation is about power and not sexual orientation, there are going to be people that just will not deviate from their perception based opinion. I've made no secret that I disagree with the current policy. I think the BSA makes itself look like the Westboro Baptist Church folks when they say that gay people aren't moral enough to be leaders. I think the BSA makes itself look like ignorant twits when they give any credence at all to the notion that molesters of scouts must be gay because the sex is gay sex. I think the BSA deserves every bit of bad press when they pull a mother's registration as a den leader because she's a lesbian, or deny's a boys rank because he's gay (and lies about it while doing so). (By the way, Schiff, Mount Diablo Council did not approve of the lad's Eagle and send it on to National - the District approved it and sent it to the Council, and the Council didn't approve it and it died right there, without it going to National). It's these kinds of actions that are contributing to the increasing perception that the BSA is the "last bastion of anti-gay bigotry". I also disagree it's the "last bastion". Frankly, I think Congress, particularly the House, and legislatures in states around the country, are bastions of anti-gay bigotry. Don't even get me started on certain churches (and really, don't give me any guff about "biblical principles" - many of these same churches used "biblical principles" to justify slavery, and discrimination based on race, and some are still using "biblical principles" to discriminate against women). The PR stuff isn't going to work. I can explain to Brew until I'm blue in the face that his perception is wrong - but he's not going to change his mind, so I have to accept that he has that opinion and try to work to make sure that people don't act on it. The BSA can get out there with all of it's "look at the great things we do" but at this point, they're preaching to the choir - it's not going to change folks minds. Saying "it's national policy, not my Scout Troop's policy" is passing the buck and doesn't really answer the implied question of "why are you still part of the BSA". If you're part of a Troop, no matter what your Troop might think, you're part of the BSA. People don't see the difference. Adults, especially, are quick to hear justification.

Data doesn't have political biases. How data is interpreted can have political bias, though the most common way politics steps in is when data is collected, the report is prepared, and the politicians step in and demand that the report not be released because it doesn't agree with what the politicians hoped it would prove.

Pack, I try and try but I just can't get Andy Williams to rhyme with Houston.

Beavah, You are correct that Mutual Funds are not insured by the FDIC (as they are an investment) but Money Market Deposit Funds are insured by the FDIC. I'm pretty sure I said Money Market accounts and not Mutual Funds. But I can understand the confusion as some Mutual Funds call themselves "Money Market Mutual Funds" but they are still Mutual Funds.

Yeah, I thought it quite ironic that 5 people were shot at gun shows on "gun appreciation day" and then I thought "these are the people the NRA wants to trust with assault weapons and guard our schools?"

JoeBob, The limit is now $250,000 per individual per bank per ownership category. For instance, if you, Individual JoeBob, has $100K in a checking account, $100K in a savings account, $25K in a money market account, and $30K in CD's at the bank (total = $255K), the FDIC will add all of your accounts up and insure $250K of it. If you want to ensure that all $1.5M is insured, you'll have to go to multiple banks (not branches or subsidiaries). You would have to open an acccount at the First National, the Second National, the Third National, etc. A new account at the First National branch in the next town over will be added to your total for the bank. To further keep you on your toes, if First National buys Third National, and First National goes under, the Third National accounts are only insured in conjunction with the First National accounts, so if you have 250K at First and 250K at Third, you're only insured to 250K total. But, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't be insured for more than 250K at one bank - there's also the "ownership category" to take into account. Joint Ownership is considered a separate ownership category than Individual Ownership, so you can have up to 250K in individual acounts, where only you can take funds out, and you can have up to 250K in joint ownership accounts, where you and your spouse have equal access. Now you're up to $500K. Have an IRA or 401K through the bank? It's another ownership category and now another $250K is insured. Want to create an irrevocable trust to pay for your children's college? A new ownership category and you're up to a million insured at one bank. Want to put money away in a trust for your chldren but want to be able to take it away if they turn out to be bums? Now you create a revocable trust, which is another ownership category - and now you can make sure $1,250,000 is insured in one bank. One last thing - the FDIC insures deposits, they do not insure investments. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics but so that we're speaking a common language, if you invest in a bank, that is buy stocks in the bank, then your investment is not insured. When you make deposits into a bank account, even a savings account, you aren't investing in the bank. For savings accounts, mutual funds and certificates of deposit, the bank is paying you for borrowing money from you - that's the interest you get. It's not a return on investment.

When GW Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act at a student assembly at a public high school in Ohio, no one criticized him for using children. President Obama invites four kids who wrote the President to attend a ceremonial signing and the right comes out in droves to condemn him for it. Is your hatred of our first black President so deep that you can't accept that this was a nice gesture to four lucky kids who wrote the higherst office holder in the land? Today, the Los Angeles Kings raised their Stanley Cup Banner and invited the family of a victim at Sandy Hook to take part in the ceremony. Who's going to be the first one to say the Kings did it for selfish, cynical reasons? Acco - Congress changed it's mind and has restored lifetime secret service protection to former Presidents. It was passed, and signed into law by President Obama, in December.

I'm pretty sure it's heavy metal music that's the issue, though having to listen to James Taylor or Country Music would do me in. No wait, it's television, definitely television - Sponge Bob, Teletubbies and Barnie would cause me to snap. No, on third thought, it's movies - Shrek? Talk about triggering violent tendencies. Hmm - never mind - video games - Ms PacMan? No good can ever come of that. Here's a couple of wild ideas - first, decriminalize most drugs - in fact, legalize them and tax them like alcohol - us banning drugs hasn't stopped people from wanting or using drugs (that should be an argument the pro-gun folks should be able to get behind), but it has contributed a great deal to the violence levels in this country. Second, stop publicizing mass shootings - is occurs to me that, given how many mass shooters take their own lives at the scene, that they are just wanting to go out in a "blaze of glory" - well, if we stop publicizing them so much, we eliminate the possibility of them getting their moments of fame.