vol_scouter

As churches have thrown their tenets to the winds and liberalized in order to increase the numbers, churches have seen even more rapid declines. So to will go scouting. For some of you, changing the membership requirements will be more attractive to some parents but I doubt that a significant up swing in membership will be seen. In other parts of the country, the results will be a disaster with loss of membership and support. The YMCA was at one time a large Christian organization. As it ceased to have standards, it has become increasingly marginalized. Boy Scouting will have the same fate. Their may arise a more traditional values version of scouting but the national BSA will not release its' trademarks, etc. So Scouting as we have known it will die. Standing for shared values attracts members rather than pushes them away. Scouting is just a microcosm of the liberalism of the 2 coasts contrasted with the more conservative heartland.

The way that the democrat bills are setup, the option will soon be the only option - the opposite of freedom. Once again, tort reform does not restrict anyone's abilty to sue. The democrat bill may do so by providing 'protection' if physicians follow certain guidelines - even if those guidlelines are not in the patient's best interest.

The results of such a 'vote' of all volunteers may surprise and disappoint many members of this forum.

The fredoms lost in the health care bill pale in comparison to tort reform. Tort reform does not prohibit lawsuits but restricts pain and suffering - not damages. So that someone who has never worked and is in their 40's will be compensated for actual damages but cannot win tens of millions of dollars for pain and suffering. So freedoms are not restricted - only the amount of awards. When you are your loved one needs dialysis and the democrat health panel says that they 'do not qualify', then you have lost freedoms. As to letting the states handle tort reform, the federal government has no constituttional power to enact the present bill butwill do so anyway so why stop there?

Gern, John had it: Health Benefits Advisory Committee. They will make the rules on how everyone will be treated or more correctly, denied the optimal and appropriate treatment for the individual patient.

JoeBob, The attorneys will continue to sue the same folks - doctors and hospitals. Insurance companies are not sued because they do not prevent the doctor (and hospital if applies) from doing what is in the best interest of their patients by not paying. The doctors and hospitals can simply do whatever without payment. This bill does NOTHING to decrease liability suits or defensive medicine,

This is not meant as a criticism of Obama, but I do not like to see the Presdient in such settings no matter who the president may be. Just as I agreed that in the joint session of congress, the outbursts that we hear from both sides of the aisle, deserved or not, are best kept to themselves. They should simply refrain from applauding those issues that they do not agree with the president about. I feel that as each new context occurs, the office is degraded a little bit. Obama did not start this but is slightly extending it mainly by number (I do not think that he should be on news shows either). I applaud Mr. Obama's attitude on racism last evening from the reports of the appearance (I never have cared for Letterman). The country would benefit from more civility and respect demonstrated by its leadership. Just as being an adult in scouting, I am not there as a friend to the youth but as an adult leader - I do not want my president to be my friend but to be my president. Both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama could have been and in the case of Obama be more presidential.

Another approach is to try to go camping on those weekends for a 3 day trip. We have done that with good success. Especially MLK day where the youth are off and many parents have to work. Thus, it gets the boys out doing something constructive instead of potentially having too much unsupervised time as some of these holidays become. Emily, You appear to be new to this forum. I would like to kindly and respectfully ask you to reconsider the decision making ability of the youth in your troop (this is Boy Scouts and NOT Cubs). Though they need guidance, this is the time for them to begin to learn how to make decisions and be responsible for their actions. It would be much better to allow them to make a decision that may not turn out well that is then changed than to just over rule them. Scouting is difficult for parents (I have been through it with my children) because the youth should be in control of as much as possible. That helps them to learn. So if a troop's PLC wants to meet on minor holiday Mondays and very few attend, they will change it. Family trips should always take precedent over meetngs - scouting should support rather compete with the family. As to the original question, I agree wth others. In the future, do not ask for approval from the TC but simply inform them of the calendar. I would not try to change things ths year but wait a year.

I agree with John in KC. I have seen so many times where Merlyn loses arguments but continues to attack. He does this just to make us angry. I doubt that anyone on this forum goes to atheist websites to cause trouble. Any sympathy that I had for his position is long since gone. He is only interested in the non-establishment clause of the 1st Amendment but likes to ignore that the free exercise clause follows that prohibits congress to limit religious expression. I have gone back to the founding fathers words and deeds to point out how the constitution's meaning has been twisted. I find him a sad person to revel in denying scouting to our youth. I think that everyone should ignore his posts.

There have been proposals from the republicans to reform the insurance industry but they go ignored by the main stream media.

skeptic, I believe that you are probably correct. A few years ago, Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" was banned because of an offensive word which was the common term for black people. I read the book as a fourth grader and later in college both times for fun. It helped me to realize how blacks were mistreated in this country. The folks trying to ban the book (with some success I might add) wanted to ban it because they claimed that it was racist.

Lisa, If the representative refuses to vote the views of the majority of their constituents, then they are not being represented. The minority opinion loses of course. Thus, the democrats (or republicans for that matter) who do not vote the view of the majority of their constituents are destroying the representative democracy. I distanced myself from the 'birthers' and asked you a totally reasonable question about the meaning of natural born. I did not expect to be attacked for asking someone who teaches political science what the understand of the meaning as addressed by the founding fathers and any court rulings. If you do not know, then just say so. The fact that the POTUS has a different citizenship requirement is of interest to me and I was asking a reasonable question of an expert as to the original intent and court interpretations. I do not understand the vitriol.

Gern, The relationship is obvious, the democrats are moving forward with a plan that 50% or more of the American people are against by polls. If this was still a functioning representative democracy, the democrats would back off on the madical care proposals. If the elected representatives are no longer representative of the views of their constituents, then the people are longerbeing represented. Thus, they are correct in their analogy. You have presented no cogent arguments to support your case and call people names that are rather degrading. Too many on the left call people names when faced with evidence contrary to what they want to believe. I can respect those who say "I want socialized medicine because I think that it is better for the US in the long run even though it will lead to higher costs to the taxpayers and less good service, more are served so that it is worth the costs." However, to act as if the Obama plan will do as advertised is absurd.

Hal, You may be right about the reasons conservative areas ban fewer books. It also be that those people are more concerned about banning books than the left likes to think and that folks on the left are not as tolerant of opposing thought as they like to believe. As to the school libraries, it is a difficult problem. I would not expect an elementary school, especially in a predominately Jewish community, to have a section of books written by holocaust deniers though I would expect to find some books in a major university library. The same thing with overtly sexual or violent material. With the internet and online book stores, children have more access than ever before to different points of view. What one group finds OK for children may be controversial for another but that goes both ways. In a democracy, there is no correct point of view on most issues so an absolute set of values can be determined for many things. In the absence of those absolutes, it is better for children not to have those controversial books ordered in the first place. It is appropriate that they are available in a public library or in major university libraries as well as from online sources.

PAcksaddle, Thanks for the link. I am always amazed at the list. Banning books , especially at public libraries, is dangerous. I do believe that school libraries should have age approporiate materials and that sensitivity to the community mores should be exercised in the ordering of library materials since school libraries are small. Banning though is never the best solution.

Lisabob, Gern made the statement: "If you take just the Birthers, I think the majority of them are racists. They simply don't like an undocumented, Kenyan born muslim as president." The second statement implies that it should be just fine that the president (no just this one) could be undocumented as long as it was from a country with a different racial composition. My point is, the so called 'birthers' would be equally outraged with anyone that they do not believe meets the natural born clause of the constitution that appiles to the president but not to congress. Since you teach political science maybe you can shed light on this aspect of the discussion. To my knowledge, a court has never clarified what natural born actually means. I have read that some of the founding fathers wrote that it meant that the person had to be born on US soil to citizens but I have never bothered to investigate for myself. Do you have any knowledge about the meaning of natural born and what the founding fathers actually said about the meaning of the term? There must be a difference or they would have used the same term.

Packsaddle, I agree with you about the insurance companies. If the democrats wished to only reform the health insurance system by preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage when someone ends up with a serious medical problem and addresses pre-existing conditions problems, the bill would be wildly popular. Having dealt with insurance companies for nearly a quarter of a century, I have many sad stories but so far none personally as you (I hope that your wife was able to get the care that she needed and did well). The insurance companies need to be compelled to have a different attitude in providing coverage.

Gern, Your prejudice is incredible. You are simply not correct. The Tea Baggers are correct. What is being proposed makes no sense financially - that is why in today's Rasmussen poll 56% OPPOSE the democrat plan with 44% strongly opposing while only 43% favor with just 24% strongly favor the democrat plan. The American public realizes that this is a pig in a poke. To say otherwise is to be a moron. Socialized medicine has been an economic hardship to an economic disaster everywhere it has been tried. Our citizens are more independent and demanding than the citizens of most countries which means the dissatisfaction will be higher as well as the economic failure. The democrats look silly trying to sell this plan as budget neutral while saying that it is $1,000,000,000 in new spending and that the spending will be covered by cutting medicare without a change in services. That is moronic. It is laughable. The democrats obviously believe that the citizens are fools (which may be borne out by the citizens having elected the democrats who make such silly claims). I think that if Obama or any president were proven to be born a citizen of any other country, the same people would be upset - it is not a racist stance but a belief in the rule of law which you appear not to care about. They are believe that the Constitution defines our system and should be followed. If being a natural born citizen can be thrown out for any president (once again, I am NOT agreeing with the so called 'birthers'), then the Constitution has no meaning. We can not pick and choose what to enforce and what not to enforce and have a rule of laws. The left says that it believes in the rule of law - is that incorrect?

Gern said: "I think you need to subdivide the anti-Obama movements. If you take just the Birthers, I think the majority of them are racists. They simply don't like an undocumented, Kenyan born muslim as president. " So would have no problem with a foreign born undocumented president? I do not think that Obama falls into this camp but your statement makes it seem that having an alien as president is not an issue. I cannot believe that even you can say that! Might as well shred the entire constitution! "If you take the Tea Baggers, I think the majority of them are morons. Their cry of no more taxes when none have been proposed is stunningly stupid. And all of them would be uneffected by the rollback of tax cuts to the 1% wealthy." No, the morons are the ones that believe that Obama can add 40,000,000+ people on a government medical care plan, provide all the services available on Medicare, not raise taxes, and be budget neutral. That is moronic. Make it up from fraud and abuse? Ridiculous, the dollars don't add up and there will be a cost in finding the fraud and abuse, prosecuting it, and finally collecting - once again moronic. The services will be cut and the wealthy cannot and will not make up the difference - middle class taxes will rise. In order to ration services, boards (committees or whatever you wish to call them) who will decide who will get what services and who will be denied services. That means some will not be saved. Medicare is planned to be cut whether this plan goes through or not, to believe otherwise is not to believe what your government has publicly stated - it is moronic to believe otherwise. The quality of care will have to go down to meet the demand (the system is currently overloaded). To believe otherwise is moronic. To believe the democrats are telling the truth is moronic. If you want socialized medicine, then just be honest and say so. Say that everyone's quality of care will decrease, the wait time will increase, the costs will skyrocket, the quality of physician will decline in the future (too much work for too little pay), and our taxes will increase. That has happened every where it has been tried. If that is what you want, then just say so and I can respect that. The proposed plan is moronic and that is why it is getting less popular with time. "But the Pice de rsistance is the elderly screamers at town hall meetings shouting for government to keep their hands of Medicare." I agree, that is silly. "Overall, I don't think race is the motivator. But for racists, it is the sole motivator. I think in the majority of cases, we are seeing the sore loser reaction. " I am sure that there are some racists just as some denigrate southerners without good reason. The majority do not want socialism and are angry at the arrogant, condescending, from their elected democrat members of congress. To say otherwise is an insult.

Packsaddle, You ask a good question. As one might imagine, the majority if not all students going to Carribean medical schools were not able to get into a US school. The first 2 years are in the Carribean and the 3rd & 4th years are done in the US at established programs. My opinion based only upon my personal encounters (I am unaware of any studies)is that most of the individuals are highly motivated to be a physician and work very hard. I believe that the education is probably not quite as good as US schools but the desire of the students makes up for the difference. I have practiced with several physicians who graduated from Carribean schools who are very good physicians ( and a few from very good schools how are not so good). My opinion is that if the individual is primarilyt motivated to care for patients then they are good physicians. Those that have other motivations may or may not be good physicians. Currently, those from foreign medical schools have to repeat their residency training here in order to assure quality of care. If the shortage becomes too acute, that restriction will likely be dropped (partly due to the time required to get the physcian trained and the other portion is the cost).

On the health care debate, or more correctly as pointed out so well by Thomas Sowell - the medical care debate, there are plenty of misleading if not absolutely false things being said by all sides. There is an article in a recent New England Journal of Medicine about physicians being in favor of Obamacare. The story was immediately picked up by NPR. The study concluded that a majority of US physicians favor a single payor system. The authors discuss the limitations of the study - it was done in the summer so physicians could have changed their mind and there were only 43% respondents to the mail-in study. What the authors, the NEJM, NPR, and everyone else quoting the article fail to point out is that the survey was only of a subset of AMA members. The AMA represents only~18% of US physicians and has been losing membership mainly because of stances such as supporting socialized medicine. So the pool was very biased in favor of the plan. It cannot be used to infer the views of most US physicians. Certainly among the hundreds of physicians that I know, the IBD is closer to being accurate than the NEJM article. It is important to note that the IBD says that ~50 of physicians would consider (not would) leaving medicine. I suspect that the percentage is less than 50% but will still be significant. Faced with severe physician shortages, driving these practioners out of medicine seems dumb to me unless the plan is to replace MDs with NPs and/or foreign medical graduates. If that is what the left is driving for, then I can only say that you get waht you deserve though unfortunately you will subject everyone else to a lesser standard of care.

I am working only 3 days a month now because the government has made it so difficult to provide high quality care. I am a Fellow of my professional organization and have been named as one the best in my speciality for my area for > 10 years. I did not leave for any other reason. I am doing research since I also have a PhD in a technical field. If Obamacare passes, I will quit medicine for good because I do not wish to be forced to provide a lower level of care. I have already had pressure to discharge patients (medicare and medicaid) before it is medically wise to do so. So far, I have not succumb to the pressure but in the future I will be prevented from practicing if I do not do so. So medicine will lose a well trained and accomplished MD. As usual, the left only wishes to change the issue. Obama is not doing as he promised - obviously no liberal is willing to criticize him.

The left is so predictable. Whereas, I and others conservatives have criticized Bush, the left will not dare to criticize Obama. He PROMISED you to get rid of the Patriot Act - not pieces of the act. He do not campaign on getting rid of parts but the whole thing. He wants to keep the whole act - he has not kept a promise that he has a lot of control over. Liberals never criticize other liberals. David Axelrod says that between 1-2 million people (as estimated by the USA Today's chart for Obama's inauguration) do not represent many people's beliefs and were right wing extremists. Now democrats are calling those folks racists. Maxine Waters wants all people that can be identified at last Saturday's rally to be questioned - where are the screams about McCarthyism? 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? Cass Sunstein believes that free speech should be government controlled. Are you not concerned? Or did you not know as Charlie Gibson did not know about the ACORN scandals? The left prides itself on defending rights - why are they not defending freedom of speech? The real reason for the loss of civility is that this boils down to a fight for the country - socialism versus capitalism. That is why so many people who have never protested anything are taking to the streets. This summer at the town hall meetings, the most of the signs for the left were printed and most for the right were home made. The accusations made by the left are wrong. These are the heart of the country and they do not want socialism/fascism/communism that the left is determined to achieve. The winds of change are blowing but I fear that it is a storm blowing in rather than a warm breeze as we are told. Liberals will not criticize a liberal because by their actions - the end justifies the means. Like others from the south, I have been slandered and called names by so many "open minded" liberals just because of where I was born and live. Same thing as racism isn't it? I am judged for something that I cannot change - where I was borne. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black. Their appellations no longer have the effect that they want - I only get angry. As to Joe Wilson, he spoke the truth as shown by the actions of the congress to change the bill to make it appear that illegals will be excluded. However, he should have not interrupted the joint session of congress (I assume that it was in session - if not, then there was not an issue). At the same time, he does not deserve to be singled out in the history of the house as the only one to be censured in such a manner. I remember the democrats as a whole being critical of Bush during the State of the Union - they were vocal and by this standard, should have been made to apologize or been reprimanded. I am not defending the incivility of Rep. Wilson but rather the hypocrisy of the democrats.

Pack, So go on and decry Obama. The left just will not criticize their own even when they are clearly wrong. Then they wonder what has happened to civility. The answer is that the left has killed it.

From ABC News: "The Justice Department has indicated that the Obama administration is in support of renewing a pair of controversial sections of the USA Patriot Act that expire later this year. The provisions that will expire in December include Section 206, that allows "roving" wiretaps so FBI agents can tap multiple phones or computers (with court authorization) that a specific person (target) may use." Obama and the democrats were very critical of Bush about the Patriot Act (they are correct, it should have never been passed). I have mentioned on this forum before that Obama was not keeping his campaign promise and was told that I should not worry, he will let it expire. So now I am awaiting all the liberals to condemn Obama for not getting rid of the Patriot Act.