JMHawkins

Yeah M1 Garand thumb...Beretta bite too...how embarrassing.

Not to mention that in their haste to look like they were doing something, they forgot to exempt Police, who typically carry 15 round magazine in NY.

... I was NEVER told or asked or even given a vague hint that I needed to do anything other than to report what I thought was the objective truth.

I don't doubt that for a moment. But that's not how the bias creeps in, especially when it's research grants.

A few years ago, when I briefly had more money than sense, I started the project of building a house on a 5 acre parcel outside of town. That of course requires lots of permits, studies and what not. One of the biggies is a biologists environmental study. My builder had a firm he recommended. They were scrupulously honest and definitely would not bend the truth at my order. I can attest to that as it was a fairly contentious meeting when I explained to them that I thought it was incorrect (and a bad idea) to describe our pet domestic ducks as "migratory waterfowl." But they did approach the study from the standpoint of finding a way for the project to go forward. Their mindset was that we were building a house on the property and their job was to identify any mitigations necessary to do so in an environmentally responsible manner.

The biologists at the county planning department had a different mindset. Their mindset was that development should be limited and their job was to find reasons why a house could not be built on the property. Would it surprise you to know that there were disagreements between their biologists and my biologists? (and as far as any dishonesty goes, there later was a minor scandal when one of the county folks had to leave her job after a judge caught her in some highly questionable testimony on a case involving one of my neighbors.)

Two sets of fully credentialed, respected professionals, neither being intentionally dishonest or responding to overt pressure from their paymasters, but both disagreeing because they came into the situation with different mindsets, biases, and objectives. And let me reiterate, in both cases, they were chosen by their employers (me and the county respectively) because of those pre-existing mindsets, biases and objectives.

If I control grant money for climate research and I believe in anthropogenic global warming, I don't need to pressure the researches who get the grant money, I just need to give it to Dr. Michael Mann. And if I believe in AGW, I see no problem with that - he's a credentialed scientist. Sure, there's been some controversy and some people say he's a fraud, but it's easy to dismiss those criticism as politically motivated because they disagree with his position.

OTOH, if I'm an AGW skeptic, I still don't need to pressure any researchers into finding what I want. I just have to make sure the grants go to someone like Dr. Tim Ball. And if I do think AGW is a load of hoey, then I'd believe Dr. Ball was a perfectly legitimate choice - like Dr. Mann, he is also a credentialed scientist. Of course there's some controversy over his views on the climate as well, but it's easy to dismiss those criticism as politically motivated because they disagree with his position.

Control over the money means you control the results. I don't need to pressure the artists to get the sort of pictures I want hanging on my walls. I just have to pick and choose which artists I think are qualified. And after all, as the guy responsible for what's hanging on the wall, isn't that my job?

Government FUNDS research. Research is actually performed by regular citizens at universities, research corporations, and other places. That's da opposite of a monopoly.

Nah, that's a monopoly. You're looking at the government as the customer of the researchers, but if you have a situation where there is only one customer, then they're not a customer, they're an employer. The only one. See professional sports leagues for examples of monopolies recognized because of their control over employment rather than prices.

Anyway, you're the one who brought up the notion that we had to fund this reasearch with tax money because private researchers couldn't do it because of health care legislation. Why can these "regular citizens" get around these laws if they're working for the government, but not when they're working for someone else? Seems they need some sort of de facto deputization as government agents for that to happen, eh? So they're paid by the government and granted special powers by the government. That means they're not "regular citizens" and their research can't be considered independant.

So what you're sayin Beavah is that since the government created rules that effectively block private organizations from engaging in potentially beneficial research, the obvious solution is for the government to get bigger, spend more money, and acquire a monopoly on that particular type of research. Research which, by the way, is assumed to be important to answering the question of whether the government should assume even greater power and control by restricting what has been - since the founding of the country - considered a fundamental right.

Now I may be a simple workerbee, but it seems like there might just be a teeny bit of conflict of interest somewhere in there.

Tommorrow.

Maybe the next day. Depends on when you can get 5 scouts signed up.

Don't worry about timing - start the ball rolling. When you have 5+ scouts and enough adults to fill out the charter and take care of the work, do it.

But it sounds like you are in a very similar situation to what we were two years ago (though you have a few more people that we do, we're maybe 6,000, not 24,000). Two packs, a Troop that folded over a decade ago, most kids who continued went to a troop in the next town over, 11 miles away. That was us.

We started organizing things in the fall, got all the paperwork lined up, and had 5 WebIIs committed to join when they got their AoL in March, so we set that as the inception date. In the meantime, we recruited in the community (held a few open houses and the like) and the adults met to plan out the first three months of activities. We also put a deposit down and secured a date at Summer Camp.

We officially started in March and had 23 Scouts for our first meeting.

March worked out great for us because the weather got progressively better for camping over the first six months (though the 2nd campout was an epic rainstorm - set records for out valley, and we're in the Seattle area, so rainfall ain't exactly uncommon). But the best time to start is when you have Scouts ready to go scouting and adults ready to provide the support.

Good Luck!

But of course they didn't ban any research. They just banned spending tax dollars on it.

There's a world of difference.

Let me ask a different question Beavah. Is there any legitimate reason to exercise budgetary control over public money?

Eagledad already answered your main complaint. I'm not missing anything.

Yah, hmmm... JMHawkins, I'm a pretty decent student of history. Can yeh name even one example where registration has been a precursor to confiscation in the United States? Or anywhere?

New Orleans, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain

All English-speaking (well, if you're willing to stretch the definition a bit for New Orleans and Australia) locations. Previously existing registry databases were used for confiscation or forced-buy-back legislation. I'm a bit surprised you wouldn't know that. I'm guessing you will dispute these examples.

As far as the CDC goes, allow me to reiterate what I said before. I am not opposed to research, but I want the tax dollars the CDC spends to be spent on public health issues. Gun control is a public policy debate, not a public health debate. Here's how I differentiate the two. Researching what directions show the most promise for addressing the rise of drug-resistant bacteria is public health research. Debating whether increased gun controls will increase or decrease gun violence, and assuming it decreases it whether the magnitude of the decrease is worth the price, is a public policy debate. I think it is problematic to have a federally funded agency producing material used in a public policy debate. I've spent enough time in bureacracies to know that they will produce the findings expected of them by the folks paying the freight, just like the private researchers tobacco companies paid to "prove" that smoking wasn't bad for you. Being a government agency doesn't exempt them from that failing. It does however compound the problem by forcing taxpayers who disagree to pay for the research they disagree with. That's a bad situation. That is why I think the CDC should be removed from this political debate. It's not like there's a shortage of people with money who favor gun control - they can fund their own research.

Taxes - yeah, who is to say when a tax becomes punative. That's why I think it's a bad idea to tax things as a way of discouraging them. And trying to say "well, it creates costs for society" doesn't get around the problem. If something is bad enough that the force of government should discourage it (for whatever reason, whether it's moral or fiancial) then outlaw it. If, for whatever reason, you can't muster the political will to outlaw something, attempting to tax it into oblivion is dishonest. As far as I'm concerened, an "ammo tax" is on the same moral plane as a poll tax. Both are objectionable because they attempt to make it a financial burdeb to avail oneself of civil rights. How would you feel about a $20,000 tax on "Not Guilty" pleas in federal court? It's just a tax, and we use it to offset the financial burden imposed by these rotten perps who insist on exercising their constitutional rights to a trail instead of just pleading guilty to the deal offered by the DA. What's wrong with that?

[edit: oops, had Australia listed twice above - one reference should be Canada, eh]

(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

What IS "taxing ammo in a punitive way"? At what threshold does it become 'punitive'?

This of course is the question, and the reason why "sin" taxes, or other attempts to use taxation to discourage legal behavior are problematic.

At what threshold would a tax on ink be punitive and start to infringe on 1st Ammendment rights? At what threshold would a tax on attorney's fees be punative and an infringement on someone's 4th, 5th and 6th Ammendment rights?

Clever lawyering around the 2nd Ammendment by trying to claim the right to keep and bear arms doesn't include the right to load them with real ammunition is not all together honest.

1. I'm not a proponent of registration and background checks. I don't see much evidence they are effective at keeping guns out of the hands of loons or criminals. Of course there is the argument that the existing registration and checks aren't sufficient and if we just do more, it will start working. It's a point I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on. It would be moot if there wasn't also a downside to registration and checks. Registration has been a precusor to confiscation often enough to warrant concerns about a slippery slope, and background checks are subject to abuse, both intentional and unintentional. The TSA "No Fly" list has been a source of problems, and you don't have to be a conspiracy nut to worry it might be abused. So for me, the potential for trouble from registration/checks outweighs the potention for good. Your milage may vary, but I oppose it.

2. Even propoents of gun control agree this doesn't do anything. It's symbolic, and symbolic gestures are a bad idea when there is a) a serious problem, and b) disagreement and distrust among the folks searching for a solution.

3. I'm not opposed to research, but this Executive Order raises two concerns. First, I'd rather the CDC spend what resources it is given out of the public purse on actual diseases. Gun control is not a health issue, it is a public policy debate, and attempting to cast it as a health issue is a dishonest tactic. Sure, gunshots kill and wound, but they are not a disease. Encouraging (which soon becomes requiring) doctors to ask about guns in the home is a highly questionable tactic when asked of adult patients, and a complete betrayal of trust when asked of children.

The second problem I have with the CDC executive order is that Congress has the authority to determine funding, and if Congress has prohibited the expendature of public funds on gun research, then it is unconstitutional for the President via Executive Order to spend money on it. Fundamentally, this is about proponents of gun control wanting to use public money to lobby for their goals. We have enough of a budget problem as it is, we don't need to fund political advertising with tax dollars. Sure, in an ideal world, the CDC would be above such things, but they're not.

If a District approves a person or even a married couple for all 126 merit badges, isnt that a problem that should be addressed somewhere along the line?

This is exacttly the sort of thinking that's wrong. The Scoutmaster is the place to address the problem. He or she should address it by maintaining some quality control over the MB experience the Scout has. But all you "smack down the SMs ego" folks don't like that. You want to take the SM - the person most acutely charged with mentoring the entirety of the youth's Scouting experience - out of the loop. For you it's a bureaucratic issue - "the District" screwed up. It was "the District's" fault.

Convenient, since "the District" isn't a person, so no individual needs to take personal responsibility.

No. All that is the wrong approach. The Scoutmaster is charged with the personal responsibility of handling this problem. That's why it's important that the SM have the ability to deny the Scout a blue card, or to impose certain conditions upon issuing it. That's the only way they can actually provide the guidance and ensure the standards. Yes, some SMs abuse that authority, but that just means they're poor Scoutmasters. The solution to that problem is better Scoutmasters, not more rules and less accountability.

Alot of scoutmasters need their egos deflated.

Then they shouldn't be Scoutmasters.

This is a poor way, a bureaucratic way, of going about solving a leadership problem.

But then that's what I've come to expect out of National.

We need to encourage more, and better, use of discretion at the local level. Instead, we're substituting rules and proceedures that only empower the very people who are eroding the value of the program.

Alot of scoutmasters need their egos deflated.

Then they shouldn't be Scoutmasters.

This is a poor way, a bureaucratic way, of going about solving a leadership problem.

But then that's what I've come to expect out of National.

We need to encourage more, and better, use of discretion at the local level. Instead, we're substituting rules and proceedures that only empower the very people who are eroding the value of the program.

Probably time for someone to come in with a competitor system of awards for all da units who want to do scoutin' for real. Either that or just do away with appeals at all levels, not just T-2-1. Close as I can tell, they're not value added.

I sorta consider the National Outdoor Achievement Award the competitor system for Eagle. I'm more impressed with the requirements for it than I am for Eagle (certainly considering the lax standards). At least 125 nights camping, several challenging MBs, WRFA and LNT trainer certification, plus planning and leading a big trip. I think it beats Eagle for participation, accomplishment, and leadership.

So what about you all? What successes did you have last year?

Our Troop celebrated it's first birthday, congratulated it's first set of First Class Scouts, and went on it's first 50 miler.

Glad to hear it! Crewing a boat is a fantastic learning experience.

Oh, hang onto that ice breaker. If the predictions about a new Ice Age are right, you can use it to come up to Seattle and fetch me...

"I wonder if it wasn't scouting would it be some other activity"

Might just be something to that. Fraternal organizations are on the decline. Maybe years ago there was an Antlered Ruminant lodge the guy could join for friendship and comraderie. I suspect there were some Moose Lodge Orphans back then too. And stopping off at the neighborhood bar for a drink a la Cheers! is sort of frowned upon for the family man these days.

It's always a balance. I think we should do like Beavah and remind each other when it seems like we're out of balance.

The Super Scouts are gratifying to have and can be much more fun to deal with but frankly they don't need us -- they'll do well no matter what

I'm not so sure about that. When the kids who do all the right things don't get much recongition for it, are they going to continue doing the right things? One of the sobering things I took away from reading A Fine Young Man was that good kids can fall apart in their teenage years. There are enough changes going on in their brains and bodies that we can't take them for granted.

What some folks seem to be suggestin' is that da average civilian first aider should be carryin' IV clot-buster drugs just in case da 12 year olds they're with in da woods suffer an M.I. That's neither prudent nor rational.

Actually, I think the more relevant First Aid analogy would be EpiPens. The law says the uncredentialled civilian should not be carrying around an EpiPen for use on someone else if that someone else should need it. Instead, the uncredentialled civilian is supposed to dial 911 and hope the experts get there in time to save the guy.

In da mean time, if yeh can't wrap your brain around da notion that ... you're not a reserve police officer defendin' da America

Actually Beavah, we are. Of course it's not an offical title and some folks don't want to accept the responsibility, but we are all responsible for taking care of our selves, our families and our communities. This modern notion that everything should be left to the crednetialed experts while the unwashed masses sit around wating for somebody to save their bacon is a very un-American notion.

also reckon I'm not altogether comfortable with random folks of varied levels of trainin' comin' together without any chain of command structure to start firin' on strangers in their neighborhood durin' a natural disaster.

And they may not be altogether comfortable with sitting around their neighborhood un (or under-) armed if a natural disaster leaves them cut off from duly constituted authorities with chains of command when strangers with guns (the strangers being of the type who don't pay much heed to what the law says) come saunterin' in.

Remote possibility? Who's to say. Your opinion against theirs, your comfort against theirs.

Not da point, JMHawkins.

Point was that da folks were isolated invaders of another nation, which isn't the same thing.

When you're in that position, yeh are organizin' your community for mutual defense, eh?

Not imaginin' yeh have a need to defend yourself from your community.

Da issue is one of honesty about da meaning and intent of da language, nuthin' more.

As perdidochas pointed out, organizin' to defend yourself from your community isn't necessarily a notion relegated to the archaic past.

How many rounds does one need for ... basic self/home defense? What's reasonable? 6, 10, 30, 50? Just asking?

Dunno. How many rounds is it going to take to drive off or incapacitate the bad guy(s)? 7, 11, 31, 51? What do you say when the answer ends up being one more than the number you advocated as the limit? Oops, sorry? Just askin'...

Most of da population was livin' on da frontier, or was only a generation or two removed from livin' on da frontier. Arms were necessary for protection, and quite frequently for defense from hostile natives...

Obviously no one needs to defend themselves against hostile people these days. If someone attacks your familiy, the police are only 20 minutes away.

I wonder if the founding fathers had AK's, SKS or any of the AR clones in mind.

Absolutely they did.

Well, they didn't call them that back then. They just called them "arms." They wrote the 2nd Ammendment in a way that it guaranteed people the right to bear the most sohpisticated, deadly, weapons of the day. They didnt' even ban private citizens from owning field artillery (though honestly it was expensive and hard to come by).

The Founders trusted the average citizen with firepower. You can argue they were wrong, or you can argue they were right then but times have changed and they're wrong now, but either way, the agreement they proposed to the country, and the country adopted, said citizens could own military grade weaponry.