BrentAllen

Hawkrod,

In your initial post, you said the boys were staying home playing video games. That didn't sound like they were being kept from Scouting events due to their parents other obligations. I have never seen the type of behavior you are describing from adults. I've seen the opposite, where parents push their kids to advance when the boy wants to take things slower and have more fun. I've never seen Scouters who kept their sons out of activities. Sounds to me like there are more issues going on than described, but what do I know.

I am having a hard time seeing how adults joining an organization where they agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law can be a bad thing. Yes, there are a few bad apples, as there are in any organization. Key word - few.

Hawkrod - a Scout should set his own goal for advancement, the goal shouldn't be set by his parents. I fail to see how a Scoutmaster going to training and serving loyally for three years (earning him the Scoutmaster Key) would have anything to do with the rank of his son. If the SM's son decided Scouting just wasn't his thing, are you saying the SM should resign?

I'll respond, after thinking about this for a long time.

First, I see lots of posters forbidding anyone to judge the 16 year old, but are quick to judge the concerned parents, and harshly. I find that interesting.

"What you do speaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say." GBB, Handbook For Patrol Leaders

I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if my daughter was 14 years old, and had just joined this Crew. This 16 year old is going to be teaching and mentoring her? As a parent, I should just accept this? I shouldn't have any concerns about any discussions held late at night among the girls? This 16 year old obviously isn't mature - if she was, she wouldn't be pregnant. Am I to believe she is suddenly going to be mature, now that she is pregnant? That she will refrain from talking about sex to young minds?

"What you do speaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say."

I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if my daughter was about to turn 14 and wanted to join Venturing, and we visited this unit. How would I judge it on carrying out the Mission of the BSA? To prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. If I am honest, I'm most likely looking for another Crew. Some here will argue that being in a Crew with a pregnant member would be a great learning opportunity, a great life lesson, and there is some truth to that. But as a new parent to the Crew, I'm weighing the pro's and con's, and the con's are probably going to win.

If I am a leader of this unit, do I ever look in the mirror and ask are we succeeding in our mission? If not, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to make any changes, or just keep doing what we are doing?

Yes, she made a mistake, a big mistake. We continue to love and support her. But are there no consequences? Does this young woman even consider what she has done to the reputation of her Crew? If not, she should. She should have some pride in her self, her family, and her Crew.

Just to be clear, I do not advocate abortion. IMO, she should carry the baby to term and decide if she can raise the child herself, or if she needs to seek adoptive parents.

If I ever had to face this issue, I am fortunate that my pastor is our IH, a man I greatly admire and respect. I am sure we would think and pray about this long and hard, and I would abide by his decision. I am confident God would give us direction.

Back when I first got back into Scouting, our district was offering Cub Leader training sessions adjacent to Roundtable. We had good attendance at both the training and RT. Most of those attending training had never been to RT and didn't even know what it was. Usually someone would ask "what's going on the other rooms?" and the trainer would explain, "that is RT, a monthly gathering of leaders to share ideas - you should start attending when your training is completed, and bring your other leaders with you." Attendance at RT was very strong for several years after that, but has since fallen off to low numbers. I think offering the training next to RT is a great idea. I think you will find you are reaching new leaders who aren't "in the loop" and you have a good chance of getting them to a RT meeting or two.

Beaver,

That was much better than my eclipse story. I saw it begin around 1:30 AM, in holes thru the clouds. I went back out at 3:30 AM to see nothing but thick clouds - no moon in site. I did catch the ornamental reindeer on the front lawn in a very compromising position. Get a room!

Basement,

Even with all your success, I'm sure you have one or two members of the Pack complaining that you are doing things wrong, that their kid is being treated wrong, that they are left out the "clique" making all the decisions.

No difference between your Pack, and all the success that Wood Badge has. Even though thousands go thru the course every year and love it, there will always be one or two who are going to complain. There's one in every bushell...

Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Proverbs 31:9

I think we have lost site of who the real poor and needy are.

Years ago, we were running a housing rehab program in a rural south Georgia town, providing the materials while Habitat for Humanity provided the labor. Everything was going fine until the volunteers got to this one particular house. The house was in bad shape, with a bad roof and the ceiling falling in. In fact, the residents had a 2x4 set up on the back of a sofa, holding the ceiling up. Two unemployed healthy young men in their late teens/early twenties lived here with their mother. Not only would they not do anything to help, they complained when the workers asked them to move off the sofa so they could make the repairs. The two young men kept complaining that they couldn't lounge on the sofa and watch tv while these volunteers did all the work. That was the last house we rehabbed - the volunteers had enough and quit; they figured they could go elsewhere to find some truly needy people to help. The real problem is these people are spoiling the well for those who truly need the help.

http://www.macon.com/2010/12/16/1379464/funding-cuts-leave-many-without.html?disqus_thread%3Fstorylink=addthis

The picture says it all - the woman wants tax payer dollars to pay here utility bills, while she watches her monster tv. In my line of work, I see this all the time. Usually the tv and furniture are on a rental plan, paying weekly (at an astronomical cost). Neal Boortz took her to task, as well he should. Sell the tv, cable and game system and use that money to pay your bills before you start living off my taxpayer dollars!!

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/12/2010-the-year-of-the-moocher.html

Interesting stats on the "poor":

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

It really makes it hard to want to help the poor when you feel like you are being taken for a ride. Luckily my church does a lot of mission work and I feel very confident those missions are helping the truly needy.

OGE,

Please stay on subject, or start your own thread. ;^)

"NEW YORK, Dec 15 (Reuters) - The premium of Brent crude over U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate rose to the highest level in seven months on Wednesday, pushed up by a big increase in crude oil stocks stored at the key delivery hub in Cushing, Oklahoma."

Just in case anyone missed that news. I've always been fascinated with the fluctuation of the premium of Brent over WTI.

Moderation in the forums is like government - the less, the better. Zero tolerance usually equals zero brains - people can't think for themselves, so they need policy to do it for them. Now, should I tell you how I REALLY feel?

Our Troop has a Facebook page, started by our SPL on his own. I don't think you can use it to replace a Troop web site, as some people refuse to use FB. Ours doesn't get a lot of traffic, probably due to us using SOAR for our Troop web page - it offers the photo albums and very good email capability. That being said, it's not a bad thing to have, to add to your communication tools. I have found that many of our Scouts don't check email regularly, but they do check FB.

Glad to see you are getting up to speed on current events.

Go back and read page 2. Nearly all the economic predictions about this bill count on the 23% cut in Medicare to physicians. The "Doc fix" is going to be a major problem for this program, and for seniors.

"But there are problems with that projection since spending slow-down hinges on a planned 23 percent pay cut for physicians who treat Medicare patients going into effect. In June, Congress passed a law to update physician Medicare rates by 2.2 percent, but that temporary fix runs out on Dec. 1. Come January 1, 2011, physicians would also be slapped with an additional 3 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement.

If history is any indication, Congress will likely vote again to override the cut, likely making the projection that healthcare spending will slow in 2011 no longer applicable."

This piece was written back in September, before the elections. I wouldn't be so sure that the new congress will vote to override the cut. I expect we will see many more Dr's refusing to take Medicare patients if those cuts become real. Just another unintended consequence of this boondoggle.

Try this, Gern - unless you don't consider ABC News as "news."

'Obamacare' Costs More, But Covers More

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/obama-health-care-plan-spends-bit-covers-lot/story?id=11591835

I know enough about this plan to know it stinks. Evidently most Dems agreed, as they couldn't get far enough away from it during the election. I wonder why so many unions and companies are getting waivers from this supposedly fantastic plan?

Beavah,

That link is pretty general. It doesn't even mention the changes to the HSA plans starting Jan. 1.

Here you go, Gern. You must have just missed these on your favorite news source:

The Obamacare Problem Is Not the Individual Mandate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-blackwell/the-obamacare-problem-is-_b_794305.html

Virginia Panel Acknowledges Utility Of Individual Mandate, Urges State To Build Off Of Obamacare

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/virginia-panel-acknowledg_1_n_797146.html

It is really hard to have a productive conversation with you, if you don't keep up on current events.

Which truth would that be, Gern? The "truth" when Obama said if you like your plan, you can keep it and it won't change? All of us with HSA's know that is a lie, as our plans change in just a few weeks.

Or how about the "truth" that our premiums will decrease or stay the same? Our insurance costs are increasing significantly next year.

The really funny thing to come out of all of this is, I have several young, liberal college-educated business associates. They love Obama and believe he can do no wrong. They thought Obamacare was going to provide "free" health care to everyone. Imagine their shock when they learned Obamacare was going to require them to pay for insurance even if they didn't want it (they weren't purchasing insurance - part of the "we're young and healthy so we don't need it" crowd). Even though I have shown them that part of the plan in writing, they still don't believe it. They still think they are going to get health care for free. Liberals... They should have been watching Fox News so they could have learned something.

Beavah,

Not sure where you are getting your council insurance info, but it appears to be out of date. I quickly found this insurance info on the St. Louis Council page: "Accident medical benefits are limited to $15,000; sickness to $7,500; ambulance to $6,000."

http://www.stlbsa.org/volunteers/Pages/Insurance-Information-for-Volunteers.aspx

Our Council has similar coverage.

http://www.atlantabsa.org/openrosters/DocDownload.asp?orgkey=1437&id=79371

Sure, it isn't going to cover the entire cost, but it isn't too bad of coverage, especially considering the cost.

Congratulations to your son on a job well done!! Congrats too, to you and your wife for your support of his Scouting efforts!

Beavah,

For the record, the only people I said the hospitals should go after (all the way to bankruptcy) are those who have health insurance offered through their employer, but chose not to participate. You know, those who choose to drive a brand new SUV or high end car instead of paying for health insurance. Those with the new ski boat but no insurance. Those running off to Disney World or some other big vacation every year instead of setting their priorities and paying insurance premiums.

Gern,

Under ObamaCare, there are going to be lots of freeloaders. All those who have the rest of us taxpayers paying their insurance premiums are going to be freeloaders. Right now we have nearly 20 million kids on free or reduced price lunch (kids of freeloaders?) and over 8 million kids with at least one parent unemployed (more freeloaders?). Do you think any of those families are going to pay for their ObamaCare insurance premiums? You are going to have to add a lot more names to your "I don't like" list.

"I'll worry about making sure every American has access to basic health care without worrying about being financially ruined."

Already done - just visit your local county Health Department.

Amen, pack. What a bunch of haters. I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant and accepting, not a bunch of mean-spirited haters.

scoutingagain,

I think you are confusing employer-offered plans with something else. Just because an employer offers a plan doesn't mean the employer is paying all the costs. Employees often pay most of the cost, through payroll deduction. The full cost doesn't hit the bottom line of the business, so I don't see how that makes us uncompetitive in the world market place. Your argument is one for doing away with unions, which drive up the cost of business here in the US. Good luck fighting that battle, if you are even for it.

Beavah,

I thought the BSA (or at least the Councils) provided insurance that was secondary. Is this a real case or hypothetical?

Or, you have hospitals go after those who had the option to purchase insurance through their employer but chose not to, for the full amount of their care. Run them through bankruptcy, if you have to. Offer more tax incentives to businesses to provide health insurance for their employees. Expand Medicare to cover low income and unemployed.

The US Gov't can't afford social security or the prescription drug program - how in the world are we going to be able to pay insurance premiums for the millions who don't currently have insurance? What will be the premium cost for the average family that the government will have to pick up?

No, Gern, just simply calling something a tax does not make it so, nor does it make it constitutional. Congress would still need to have constitutional power to institute the tax, and I don't see how this has anything to do with interstate commerce. Taxes usually cover government services. I fail to see how being forced to purchase private health insurance is somehow a government service.

Sure, call it a tax. Except Obama was adamant that it wasn't a tax.

From CNN:

In a testy exchange on ABC's "This Week," broadcast Sunday, Obama rejected the assertion that forcing people to obtain coverage would violate his campaign pledge against raising taxes on middle-class Americans.

"For us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said in response to persistent questioning, later adding: "Nobody considers that a tax increase."

The exchange, from ABC:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I -- I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that its a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

So, which is it? A tax, which would mean Obama is breaking his campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class? Or something else?

I doubt Obama is very good at chess.