CalicoPenn

So once health insurance reform is passed, what will be the battle cry? For Bush it was "The President Lied, and People Died" For Obama, will it be "The President Lied, and People Lived"?

Could it be that there are more proposed bannings in liberal areas because there are more likely to be books right wing conservatives find objectionable in more liberal areas? It's not unusual for at least one attempt per year to ban a book from libraries, schools or summer reading lists in the suburbs of Chicago. Chicago may be a liberal minded area but the suburbs are not (though that seems to be changing only because the suburbs prefer a moderate breed of conservative and the right wingers are scaring the real base of the GOP). This past summer it was a parent objecting to "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven", by Shermam Alexie which a parent found objectionable because the protaganist, a teen, swears, dreams about girls, and talks about racism against Indians (of which he is one) at his high school. She insisted that it be removed from the list or that folks have an alternate choice. It turns out the school district did have an alternate book and told her what the alternate book was when she first called to complain - and this district has had a policy of choosing alternate books for the past 20 years. Needless to say, she did not do well on her quest (many of us are wondering if what she was trying to protect her son from was the idea that racism is bad - but that's just conjecture). A few years back, a right wing Christian was elected to the school board of a local high school district. At the time, she ran as a fiscal conservative, not a Big C Christian. At her first meeting, she proposed banning a number of books. The outcry was immediate. She lost re-election last year, and she lost because of her book banning stance. Now it's that time of year again - time to choose a banned book to read - maybe this year I'll go with the Chocolate War - that one seems to be getting a bunch of attention

Buffalo, Now I see the dual interpretations of the question - and it's an interesting conundrum. The requirements for the award are listed in the Den Chief's Handbook. The handbook assumes that a Scout will actively work towards earning the Den Chief Service Award. The first thing the requirements state is that before beginning work on the award, the Scout should discuss with the Den Leader and his Scoutmaster, Varsity Coach, Venturing Adviser or Cubmaster the importance of the Den Chief. However, one could argue that such a discussion has likely taken place when the Scout first becomes a Den Chief. Looking over the requirements, it doesn't seem unreasonable to anticipate that a Scout could earn the award just through regular interaction and participation as a Den Chief without having to deliberately work toward earning it. If that's the case, then I can see how a Scout might have earned the award without knowing he did so. If a CM, DL, SM, VC or VA is sharp and has kept track on their own, I don't see any reason why the Scout couldn't be surprised at a Court of Honor, or Blue and Gold Dinner (or end of year Pack Meeting) with the Den Chief Service Award. So yeah, if the Scout has earned it and doesn't know it - by all means, award it to him. On the other hand, if it will help motivate a Scout to see the requirements, then that should be done as well. I'd like to suggest, however, that in any case, if the Lad has earned the award, it be presented to him first at a Blue and Gold or Pack Meeting then acknowledged at a Court of Honor. Even though its a Boy Scout award, it's the result of the service he's provided to the Pack, and it seems much more appropriate for his first recognition to be in front of the lads in his Den, and their parents. I'd also suggest that the Scoutmaster and SPL be part of the ceremony when awarding the DCSA.

I'm thinking the first one of these moments can be either positive or negative. For me, it was being diagnosed with cancer in the lymph system at age 16. It's one thing to say "life is short", it's a whole other thing to learn at an age when you think you're invincible that life really can be short. I've had other "life-changing" events happen since, including 2 more bouts of cancer and developing a recurring lung condition, but as I think back on it, the negative events (as mentioned above) didn't take the same wind from my sails as the first time and the positive events, of which there are a lot, can probably be attributed to opening myself up to as much as life has to offer, because life truly is short, which may not have been the case if I never had that first diagnoses of cancer.

Buffalo, My suggestion is that the SM, CM AND the DL should encourage a good Den Chief to earn the award. As you state, you have a good Den Chief who has already accomplished the tasks without time of service in and who is probably unaware of the award. Why wouldn't you - as SM, CM or DL not talk to the Scout about this award? Why wouldn't any adult not enourage the Scouts to consider earning awards that aren't in the panopoly of rank advancement awards? When the PLC meets and starts thinking about planning a high adventure trip, isn't it an ideal time for the SM to place the requirements for the 50-miler Award in front of them? If a Scout shows a particular affinity for handling woods tools, why wouldn't a Scoutmaster suggest looking at the requirements for the Paul Bunyan Award? If a Scout is choosing to do the environmental merit badges as electives, why not suggest looking at the requirements for the Hornaday Award?

"Obama hired a firm to scan facebook for negative comments! For what purpose? Where is your indignation? Where is your disgust? What happened t freedom of speech?" The above is why there is increasing criticism of cable "news" outlets and why the tenor of discussion in the country is changing. A story is published/broadcast that the White House has hired a firm to "crawl" through the White House sites on internet social networking sites on the internet like Facebook so that comments, which may be considered communications with the White House subject to laws requiring archives, are, in fact, archived, and some cable news outlet with their pundits twist the story to Obama has hired a firm to scan all of facebook for negative comments about Obama. The public, particularly those so inclined to be negative about the administration (and it doesn't matter who it is - the same things happened under Bush and Clinton)take the twist as gospel and factual news when in truth the factual kernal has been buried under what some would call misrepresentations and I would call a lie. Part of it may be because many people don't understand the technology and what things mean. When running a search, Google runs a program that "crawls" through the internet looking for keywords that hopefully bring up what you're looking for. Wikipedia runs the same way - put a term in their internal search engine and a program runs that crawls through their internal database. An archive program can also be run to crawl through a single site (such as the White House site on Facebook) and identify what it has already archived and what it hasn't, so it doesn't continually archive everything it's archived before. There is no substantiation to the claim that the White House is searching through Facebook to find negative comments - it's just a claim made by some pundits with an agenda based on a real news story that doesn't hold up when compared to the real news story which states that the administration is only going through the White House sites on the social networking sites.. Yet the freedom of speech is there for those pundits to make those scurrilous claims. The indignation should be directed at the pundits who took a factual news item and twisted it into something so unrecognizable as to be a blatant falsehood. The disgust should be directed at those that believed what the pundits claimed as gospel without applying any critical thinking skills to what they were told.

With tongue not too firmly planted in cheek, I'd ask the new SPL, at the next PLC, when he plans to make everyone ribs as he promised to do.

Let's not forget that the original indignation over the Patriot Act wasn't about every part of the act itself, but about how quickly this piece of legislation sailed through Congress in the emotional weeks after 911. Not everything in the act has been widely criticized - only parts of the act have been widely criticized (yes, I know "widely" may be a weasel word but the truth is that in a country as large and diverse as ours, if a bill was passed that simply said "the Earth orbits the Sun", someone would criticize it). What has been widely criticized has gotten the most press (library records ring a bell?). The controversy over wire taps wasn't over the issue of wire taps themselves, but of wire taps being done without warrants from the courts. This particular wire tap section may allow the FBI to tap phones and monitor computers likely to be used by a target, but it also requires that a warrant be obtained first with a specfic target of the warrant named. I don't recall there being a lot of controversy over this particular provision so either the media is conflating this with warrantless wire taps, or whatever controversy there was is limited to a very small set of people and the media is overstating the case.

Brent, I have no problem with the administration archiving comments and content on the sites the administration has opened up on the social networking sites, just as I have no problem with Scouter.com archiving the comment made on this site. It seems the biggest complaint is that people don't know their comments will be archived, not that the comments are being archived - let's see what the administration does - it's simple code to put in a notice that comments to this site will be archived. Otherwise, why people don't automatically assume that any communication they make with the White House, no matter how that communication is made, isn't archived somewhere, is just beyond me.

Are all of these girls going to different schools? Because if they're going to the same school, chances are, they already know.

Beavah, you lost me too. The BSA is quite clear thay you have to be registered as a Merit Badge Counselor in order to sign off on a Merit Badge. That's not to say that you can't be a Merit Badge Counselor if you're an ASM, SM, MC. It does mean that you have to register as both - on separate applications no less. One frequently asked question is something like this: "I'm an ASM and EMT - can I sign off on the Scouts First Aid Merit Badge" with an answer like this "Yes, provided that you are alo registered as a Merit Badge Counselor for the First Aid Merit Badge" If an SM, ASM or MC could sign of on merit badges without being MBC's, why would there be a need for MBC's?

What I find most telling is the relative quiet of the media over this versus the circus surrounding the Reverend White and words of his that were taken fully out of context by the right wing, and the media who don't seem capable of getting a simple quote like "The cat is sitting on a chair" right, let alone a challenging concept that makes on think.

The Chief Scout Executive can have my dutch oven and apple cobbler when he pries them out of my cold, dead hands.

The simple answer is "As many as the parent is a registered merit badge counselor for". Yes, Scoutmasters provide names of merit badge counselors to the Scouts, but that does not mean a Scoutmaster ASSIGNS a merit badge counselor to a Scout. A Scout is under no obligation to go to any merit badge counselor "picked" for him. A Scout may request another name, or may request a few names. Any Scoutmaster who refuses just shouldn't be in the job - and any Troop that tries to enforce a rule about which Merit Badge counselors can be used should turn their Scouts over to units that get the program and don't act as barricades to advancement. None of this "Yeah, but there's nothing in the real world to prevent it" loosey goosey crap. If any adult stands in the way of a Lad trying to advance, that adult should be shown the door. You're unit doesn't need a "policy" on this. There's already a policy that covers it all - the one put out by the BSA. They aren't guidelines for putting together Troop policies - they stand alone as THE policy. Follow that policy and you won't go wrong. Want to create your own "policy'? Start your own scouting movement - just remember not to call it Scouts.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

Dutch oven cooking has been around for hundreds, some might say thousands of years. Charcoal briquettes have been around since Henry Ford (so it is said) invented it in 1920. That begs the question, who are the real heretics when it comes to Dutch Oven cooking? I would say that the folks who follow briquette recipes are the heretics. After all, aren't heretics the ones that defy tradition and isn't it tradition to use campfire coals or "lump" charcoal (which is just hardwood burned to the charcoal stage, then stopped before the wood burns completely to ash)?

Speaking of congressmen beating each other with sticks, it was a South Carolina Representative - Preston Brooks, that beat a Massachussets Senator, Charles Sumner, with a cane on the floor of the Senate chambers, while guarded by another SC Rep - Laurence Keitt who kept people trying to help Sumner at bay with a pistol. Sumner was a Republican at the time (and would be a Democrat today). Brooks and Keitt were Democrats, and would be Republicans today. Though he resigned his seat, the people of South Carolina treated Brooks as a hero. Why am I not surprised that it would be a Representative from South Carolina that would once again sully the chambers of Congress with such boorish behavior?

OA is not a unit activity, it is an individual activity. Though some units may put together a contingent of Scouts to attend OA work weekend (aka Ordeal Weekends), there is no requirement that units do so. Candidates and members may attend on their own, with no unit support. Back in the 70's, my Lodge used this same type of form - it was used simply to identify an adult who was present at the activity to act as the adult point of contact in case of an emergency in which a legally minor child was involved. Even if the unit was bringing a contingent, the form was still required for minor children - again, because it is not a unit activity. If you know an adult (probably by OA standards - over 21) that is at the activity, and they agree to take on the task of temporary guardian, then you could appoint him/her and not have to stay over. In our lodge, this form was required for all OA members & candidates up until their 18th birthday. Even a 16 year old who might drive themselves to the activity would still need an adult to be responsible in case the lad needed to visit the local hospital.

This past month, I've heard a number of things that the GOP thinks should be considered - among them the list that Jet has provided. I've heard Tort Reform bandied about many times - yet I wonder if most people understand that Tort Reform can't be done on a federal level (the only federal malpractice lawsuits would be against the VA). Tort Reform is a state issue - malpractice lawsuits are filed in states - and therefore states must pass Tort Reform. The idea behind tort reform is that if there is a limit to what a jury can award for damages, then malpractice and hospital liability rates will come down, which will help bring down the cost of health care. Indiana passed medical tort reform - yet in Indiana, malpractice premiums, hospital liability premiums, and health care costs have continued to rise. Malpractice premiums in Indiana are at about the same level as malpractice premiums are in Illinois, which doesn't have medical tort reform. When I read that, my first thought was "Hmmmm". Changes to professional licensing rules? Again, a state issue - the Federal Government doesn't regulate the professions, states do. And controls on medical schools? Heck, that's not even a government issue - that's a matter between medical schools and the American Medical Association, a private, non-profit organization - in a sense, a "union" for doctors. Decoupling employers from health insurance? What does that mean? I suppose it could mean Single Payer Health Insurance, but since it's the GOP, and they're opposing single payer, I can only guess that it means passing some kind of law preventing employers, who are currently under no obligation in law to provide health insurance (except under certain contractual laws), from providing health insurance, requiring people to go out and get their own (as many employed people are already required to do if they want health insurance). Looking at the GOP list, only one thing is federal in scope - increase (or remove) limits on medical savings accounts. Everything else is state or private. So I guess that's the GOP plan for improving health care insurance in the US - punt it to the states. Other alternatives I've heard: No death panels. Yep, it's pretty obvious the neo-cons don't want death panels. Except there were no death panels envisioned (beyond the already existing private "death panels" (Transplant Board anyone???), so that's easily accomplished. No funding of abortions. Ok - none of the proposals mentioned funding of abortions, and there's been no movement to repeal the Hyde amendment - I think we got that one covered. No coverage for illegal aliens. Yeah, that's pretty much spelled out in all the proposals already, and had been since the beginning. Sure, the Dems in a committee voted against a GOP amendment for a residency test - because it was expensive, and redundant - a shocking switch some would say - but nevertheless, nothing in any of the proposals would give illegal aliens paid government health care coverage. And of course the granddaddy of them all: "Keep government out of my Medicare". Well, I think the Dems and the rational GOP might just want to go ahead and ignore that one - save you from yourselves. Though it's not surprising considering the contempt neo-cons have for government that they would want to see Medicare completely dismantled - and if they get their wish, who's going to take care of Aunty Mildred in her dottering years?(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

I don't know enough about the Girl Scout organization to comment on any policies they may or may not have that fit this situation. I do know enough about the needs of human beings to wonder why anyone would deny a girl a support network of her peers just because of a physical condition, and make no mistake, pregnancy is a physical condition, This girl will need friends she can count on, especially if she's just moving into a new area, and since she's already very familiar with the program, she's turning to a familiar friend (the Girl Scouts) to help her through this. This girl, by your account, admits she made a poor choice - if she's modeling that to the other girls, she would be a positive role model - it can be pretty powerful for young girls to see a peer admitting this was a bad choice, and watching her struggle to get through the day. As for the trip - is her not being able to attend the result of her current physical condition not allowing her to participate in training and conditioning trips? You don't say what kind of 16 day trip it is. If it's not a major camping/hiking/backpacking/canoeing/biking type outdoor adventure trip requiring months of preparation, and is only because you think a mother should be with her baby, then I would reverse course and let her come on the trip - the grandmother-to-be has already indicated they'll have someone to watch over the baby for those 16-days, and frankly, the trip may be exactly what this girl will need after giving birth - it could go a long way to alleviate potential post-partum depression (and she's going to be at a higher risk for this because of her age), and allow her the time to decompress and get her head on straight for her future with the baby. I wonder, do you have it in your heart to start over, welcome this girl with open arms, and an open mind and heart, and be a part of welcoming a new life into this world?

"How dare a school district not play the speech, but yet take federal education dollars? What are we going to do with Democrats who do not follow the state and national party line? We must stop extending our hand and instead push though our agend by any means necessary." Don't people hate it when their tactics get used against them? "How dare a school district not play the speech, but yet take federal education dollars?". As I recall, it was the Republicans who said, in essence "How dare a school district not allow military recruiters into the school and yet take federal education dollars" then pass a law requiring schools that take federal education dollars to allow military recruiters into the school regardless of what the local populace wanted. "What are we going to do with Democrats who do not follow the state and national party line?" This same question was asked by the GOP and answered 20 years ago by the Gingrich Revolution. I can understand Democrats being worried about answering this question the same way the GOP did (after all, look how badly it's damaged the GOP), but why are the GOP so worried about this? Could they be worried that the Democrats will figure out a way to meld the laser-beam like focus the GOP can have on an issue (some would say narrow-mindedness) with the Democrats ability to gather from a wide spectrum of thought? "We must stop extending our hand and instead push though our agenda by any means necessary" Why is this thought so abhorent to Conservatives when it was Conservatives that were so well-versed in pushing through their agenda by any means neccessary. For a time, not too long ago, the GOP-controlled Congress didn't even bother to pretend to bi-partisanship, going so far as to hold committee meetings without informing the Democrats on the committee? Now, when the Democrats hold the Presidency and the majority in both houses, the GOP is insisting on "bi-partisanship"? How often must the hand extended in bi-partisanship be cut-off at the wrist by the GOP? If the vitriol is thick and mean, it's because it's going to take time to remove the so thoroughly disgusting influences of the neo-cons that have stained this great nation's character. "I do not trust the overwhemingly Democrat members of the NEA to conduct discussions in an unbiased manner." I truly wonder, then, why you haven't pulled your children out of school and started homeschooling them. Surely you must understand that your children's teachers will have many opportunities during the day to discuss a wide variety of topics, and that you have no real idea what will be discussed, nor can every really have an idea of what will be discussed. At some point in the school day, or more likely at a number of points in a school day, your children's teachers will say something that you do not agree with. Hopefully it's not something like 2+2 is 4, but it could be a discussion on Martin Luther King, or Abraham Lincoln, or the Sun God Ra. So do, pray tell, what makes this so different other than your apparent dislike of the President of the United States?

Hoover Institute - Highly Respected. Fact? Not in my book - I'd call that an opinion. I don't respect any of the partisan twaddle that comes out of the Hoover Institute, and I'm not alone in this (or, as a certain British television character might say "And I am unanimous in this"). To be fair, I don't believe the Center for American Progress is universally highly respected either. The folks on the right would call their output "partisan twaddle" as well. What respect I have for both those institutions, and other relatively respectable institutions (such as the Cato Institute) comes only from their use of real factual information to develop their opinions (unlike, say, a Fox News, which is real good at using falsehoods to advance their opinions (death panels, anyone?). So that leads to the crux - for the last 20 years, more and more people are misreading Opinion as Fact. What Sowell has published, though using factual information to do it, is essentially Opinion. What he has skillfully done is massaged the facts to support the opinion he wishes to present. To call Sowell's book "Fact" is not accurate. Though it may be non-fiction, it is not fact. Someone else can take the same facts he has used and skillfully massage them to support a completely opposite opinion. Or more to the point, someone else could take a completely different set of facts to create a compelling argument that the blame rests with Reagan and his borrow and spend policies, or that the blame rests with Kennedy for insisting that a man be sent to the moon. I'm always wary of any author that can skillfully lay the blame on one group - it immediately raises alarm bells in my mind that the person has an agenda. I just wish more Americans would start using the critical thinking skills they should have learned in school and at their parent's knees. Alas, it won't happen, and we'll be stuck dealing with this partisan claptrap forever and ever.

Let me see if I have this right - approx half of a district meets on Tuesday nights, the other half on Thursday nights (with a few outliers) and the solution is to rotate the Roundtable between Tuesday and Thursday nights? I speak only for myself but wouldn't the simplest solution be to change the Roundtable meeting to Wednesday nights?

Miracles? Miracles are easy to claim, impossible to prove, and impossible to disprove because there are no witnesses other than the person claiming the miracle. Either you believe the person making the claim of a miracle, or you don't. Even among people who believe in miracles, there are those who scoff at other people's miracles. I do not believe in miracles and never have. I was raised in a household with two scientists. My parents taught me to question everything. I've heard a woman claim that is was a miracle from God that her toaster worked in the morning. I'd call that irrational - but that's just my opinion. I tire of athletes hiding behind the false modesty that can be had under the guise of calling an exceptional athletic performance a miracle. When Mary Lou Retton nailed the perfect 10 on her vault performance, it wasn't a miracle, it was the result of years of hard work and dedication to her craft. When the US Hockey Team won the gold in 1980, it wasn't a miracle, it was the result of their dedication, hard work, and wanting it more. When a person is told, based on diagnostic images that they have cancer, and when the surgeon discovers there is no cancer, it's not a miracle, it's the result of mistakes made, or equipment malfunctions. When a 120 pound mother lifts a car off her child, it's not a miracle, its the result of the extraordinary power adrenaline can have on the body at a specific instant. When a man claims his eyesight cleared up just long enough to drive down a mountain and deliver a van load of Scouts safely to their home, I say prove it - with real, objective, measurable proof. Otherwise, I call BS and state that it's a tall tale designed to help sell more books to the kinds of people that believe a car starting up on a 70 degree morning is a miracle.

One more thought - as you're downloading info on the other unit, I'd make it a point to point out how your unit had adults AND Scouts at this function, and the other unit only had Adults - and ask what that says about the differences in the Troops. Good for you for having the wisdom to have Scouts at this function!

The lad is showing initiative - this is good. The lad is showing judgement by talking to the SM before he initiates the visit - another good thing. As for what the limits of the Scribe's job is: There's a saying I've heard of used in the business world: "Dress for the position you aspire to, not the position you're in". I think the corallary is "Think and act in a manner consistent with the position you aspire to, not just the position you're in". I don't know what other people think, but it seems to me this lad has every intention of being SPL someday and wants to make sure he does well at it.