scoutldr

During the campaign, and being a reasonably smart guy, I always wondered how the Obama administration and Democrat congress were going to pay for "universal health care". In a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal (which, I assume 99% of the voters don't read), the details are emerging. It's "health care redistribution". In a nutshell, the proposal, hidden in the $825B stimulus bill, will allocate $1.1B for studies to determine the relative "cost-effectiveness" of various drugs and medical devices, with an eye toward limiting their use to save money. The bill says that the "more expensive" medical products will no longer be prescribed. "The bill gives incoming Health Secretary Tom Daschle wide discretion to set priorities, and he's long advocated a US approach based on the British agency, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Mr. Daschle argues that the only way to reduce spending is to allocate medical products based on "cost effectiveness. He's also called for a "Federal Health Board", modeled on the Federal Reserve to rate medical products and create central controls on access." Article written by Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute. PS: The article was sent to me as a .pdf file, so I can't post the link. If anyone's interested, I'll forward the file by e-mail if you PM me.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

The DE works for the SE, who is the Chief Operating Officer of the Council. In large councils, there may be intermediate supervisors, such as an Asst SE, Field Director, District Director or Senior DE who give them their daily marching orders and monitor performance toward goals (more units, more members and more money).

BREAKING NEWS: Chief Justice Roberts goes to White House and re-administers Oath of Office to Obama on advice of White House Counsel. Also read that Biden took a cheap shot when administering Oath to White House staffers..saying, "I need a copy of the Oath...my memory's not as good as the Chief Justice." The Prez was not amused, accorging to reporters. Editorial comment: Biden is an idiot.

My 1950's version of a BC is on papyrus...should last longer than I do.

gwd- I didn't say I was a journalist...just that I took a class once. And I don't think of myself as partisan...just objective. Believe it or not, I didn't vote a straight ticket in November. I voted for those who made the most sense to me, my family, my job, and how I think the world should be. Obama did not get my vote. Biden is a buffoon. Bush would not have gotten my vote again, either. Palin was a joke, but I was willing to compromise.

Well stated, Liz.

No animus intended, pack. I wasn't quoting you, but the insinuation that I gleaned from your statement, "Consequently, he was at great needless risk". From that, I assumed you were implying that he could reduce that risk "if he wanted to." I, too, worked with a close friend who weighed significantly more than I do...I would guess close to 400 lbs. Unfortunately, he died two years ago at age 58. He used to tell me, "if it were as simple as knowing what to do, we'd all be thin." I did manage to lose 50 lbs a year ago...I had a raging case of diverticulitis and was on clear liquids for over two months. So I know what works. But as soon as I resumed a "normal" diet (meaning solid food) following surgery, the weight came back with a vengeance. BTW, when I was sick and down to a "normal" weight, all I heard was how sick I looked (sheesh!). Someone posted here not long ago, that smokers have the luxury of quitting cold turkey. Eaters have to "lie down with the devil" every day...we don't have the option of "quitting".

What makes you think his weight was something that he could control, "if he wanted to?" Obesity is a very complex disease comprising an interaction of many physical and mental factors, not the least of which is genetics. The same could be said of smokers. But we look the other way, because, "the poor souls are addicted and they can't help it, and it's really, really hard to quit." BS. I feel the same way toward smokers that other people feel about me..."just quit putting stuff in your face, stupid." Would that it were that simple.

Perhaps more explanation is needed. A scout is not "nominated". The SM is asked by the election team to compile a list of "eligible" scouts, based on Scout Spirit, rank, #of nights camping, etc. It has nothing to do with "desire", however if a scout really does NOT want to be in OA, he can always decline to attend the ordeal. Some do this, however it can be viewed as a huge insult to your troop-mates who have honored you with selection. Then the troop is visited by an election team of OA members, which explains the OA and what the election means. Every scout on the list of eligibles can be elected...or none of them can. To be elected, a scout must have a majority of the votes cast by those casting a ballot. It is not a competition among those eligible. Scouts are to consider each name separately, and, if they feel they are worthy of being chosen (i.e., lives the Scout Oath and Law in daily life, and is an example of "cheerful service"), put a check mark by their name. As I said, they can check ALL the names if they want...or NONE...or any number in between. This is a little different from the OA of OUR youth, where only a certain number could be elected, based on the size of the troop. Is it sometimes a popularity contest? Sure. But in my 30+ years, I have found it rare that the boys make a bad decision.

Perhaps because most boys don't dream of becoming Professional Scouters with 8 figure contracts? And we don't usually penalize scouts for missing functions, like the coaches do.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

A potential arrowman should not "ask for a nomination" or campaign for votes. If he wants to be elected, he just needs to be the best scout he knows how to be. And if he's not planning to actively exercise the honor bestowed upon him by his fellow scouts, he should politely decline to be considered.

C'mon, skeptic, you're a smart guy. Look at who controls the BSA and it's clear why only Gays and Atheists are on the radar screen.

Just the unattractive ones.

Just be patient. The list of "undesirables" is slowly growing. Fat guys were just added.

Tuning in Hannity on Fox expecting "objectivity" is no more logical than tuning in Olberman in MSNBC expecting the same thing. In my lifetime, I have witnessed the death of "journalism", which I was taught in Journalism class to be a reporting of the facts without bias. Hannity, Olberman, Limbaugh, and the rest of their ilk do not claim to be journalists, they are entertainers. I do listen to Hannity on the way home from work every day, and agree with him that the reaction to Obama has been much different than what a Republican would have been received. There are many questions remaining in Obama's background and associations which have sunk your average Republican candidate or cabinet nominee. I mean, a Secretary of Treasury who cheated on his income tax, and we're supposed to just ignore it as an "honest mistake"? Pulleezze. Do they really think we are THAT stupid? Since the election Obama has throttled back his rhetoric quite a bit. Perhaps with the realization that his empty socialist promises cannot be realistically fulfilled, even in 8 years. A "day of service" for MLK day...I guess that's why the movie theater was sold out full of kids yesterday? I think MLK would have much preferred that the kids be in school learning how to read and write...a skill no longer needed for graduation. Unfortunately, I have come to believe that the Democrat party could have nominated anyone and won...just because he's "not Bush". Obama was just there at the right time. Sad. Really sad.

Welcome! I, for one, can tell you...Scouting is not a bad life to have! Enjoy the journey.

To General Robert E. Lee, born on this day, 1807. Sic semper tyrannis!

"A man's gotta know his limitation."

I think Greaves' question is interesting, especially in today's society when a "family" has many different definitions, only one of which is the 1950's model many of us grew up with. Anyone have an "official" answer? Here's another twist...what if little Johnny has two Dads and no mom? Or Mom has a girlfriend?(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

Assuming that each child has (or had) 2 biological parents, TAV=(2)(TAY). Add in those (like me) whose boys aged out 9 years ago, and there should be more than enough.

What's wrong with just using the English language as it's intended, rather than how people THINK it is? Reminds me of the furor over the word "niggardly" by those ignorant of the language of our land. costume NOUN: 1. A style of dress, including garments, accessories, and hairstyle, especially as characteristic of a particular country, period, or people. 2. An outfit or a disguise worn on Mardi Gras, Halloween, or similar occasions. 3. A set of clothes appropriate for a particular occasion or season. regalia PLURAL NOUN: (used with a sing. or pl. verb) 1. The emblems and symbols of royalty, such as the crown and scepter. 2. The rights and privileges of royalty. 3. The distinguishing symbols of a rank, office, order, or society. 4. Magnificent attire; finery. So I guess either word could be appropriate...depending on who it is you're impersonating.

Having looked up the definitions, I think the word "costume" is more appropriate.

scottmphoto said, "Our younger Scouts stayed in camp and worked o merit badges and our older Scouts went on a canoe trip and went on a guided cave trip." Sounds like you have a lot of qualified adults to serve as MB counselors, etc. We're lucky to get 2 adults who can sacrifice a week of vacation time. Sometimes we have to tag-team it to cover the week. The parents usually take off and take their own vacation that week.

Any Scouting event, including OA, is open to any parent who wants to observe. That is BSA policy. There are no closed meetings or ceremonies (to parents, that is).

I think you answered your own question...you haven't had a District Chairman in two years? That's why the DE is filling that role. Your concept is correct...the Volunteers should be running the program side of things...but if your key volunteer positions are vacant, that model doesn't work.