ThenNow

On 6/1/2022 at 5:20 PM, MattR said:

True shame, but given that people are ripping off trailers for scrap I'm unfortunately not surprised.

As an art person who is also very sentimental and protective of monuments, this sickens me. My youngest son is with an auto insurer's Special Investigative Unit. Thefts of catalytic converters rose 325% during the pandemic and not because people needed money all of a sudden. Simply, cars were sitting everywhere begging to be stripped of precious metal. One company had $21M in these claims in a six month period of Covid lockdowns. Skilled thieves take less than a minute. One report was of a ring hitting retirement homes and ambulances. I do mean ring, btw. 30 people involved in one general location. Disgusting. 

48 minutes ago, Tron said:

This absolutely absurd; the private owners of Purdue Pharma are the target of the third party waivers. Are you attempting to say that Councils and Charter Organizations own BSA national?

Cool. This is the first time I and/or one of my posts has been dubbed absurd. I think I’ll let someone who “knows” me, the case, my posting history, and this specific issue defend the point (and me). 

39 minutes ago, Tron said:

What does your post have to do with the BSA bankruptcy? Are you blaming BSA for the opioid epidemic?

I assume this is a serious question and you're not just messing with me. If the latter, yes, and COVID, gas prices and and global warming.  Just levity, my friend. See, below. 

As follows:

1. Relevance - See Inquisitive's comments. 

2. Relevance - Purdue got kicked back to Judge Drain after the District Court said it can't be approved due to the third party, non-debtor releases. 

3. Relevance - This case, like Purdue and as stated in the excerpt, will end up being more about protecting those that follow us than providing closure, justice and recompense to survivors of past BSA child sexual abuse. Thus, my previous rantings about YPT and youth protection. 

An emphasis on prevention rather than the past

Lahav says she sympathizes with individuals who call the settlement unfair. That maximum payment for a death, in the range of $40,000, is a fraction of what other drugmakers have paid to settle lawsuits, according to attorneys who review such cases.

But this settlement is different because it was negotiated in bankruptcy court and there was a fixed pot of money.

For what it's worth and though it's dated, I find this article interesting and relevant. Some may, as well. Here's a snippet and the link:

An emphasis on prevention rather than the past

About 90% of the settlement, which could deliver between $6 billion and $10 billion over time, will go to states, local governments and tribes. They're supposed to use it to fight the opioid crisis. University of Connecticut law school professor Alexandra Lahav says that ratio prioritizes the greater good, going forward.

"To me it shows an emphasis on how do we fix what is broken for the future," says Lahav, "versus people who were already hurt in the past."

NATIONAL 

As Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Nears Approval, Family Members Write About The Human Toll

Lahav says she sympathizes with individuals who call the settlement unfair. That maximum payment for a death, in the range of $40,000, is a fraction of what other drugmakers have paid to settle lawsuits, according to attorneys who review such cases.

But this settlement is different because it was negotiated in bankruptcy court and there was a fixed pot of money. Lawyers representing individuals and all the states disagreed about how to divide it. Some attorneys who followed the proceedings say states had the advantage and prevailed.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/28/1040447650/payouts-purdue-pharma-settlement-sackler

48 minutes ago, elitts said:

I'd just love there to be a reasonable conversation about what kinds of controls make sense and are reasonable without the more hardcore folks sticking their fingers in their ears, shutting their eyes and screaming "God and the 2nd amendment said I get my guns!" over and over until people give up.

Yes, Likewise, enough with "guns are evil, only law enforcement and military should have guns (but let's defund the police, reduce our military and ignore the facts evidencing blanket restrictions don't work while we're at it) and I will 'stand with' the families (while I stand on the bodies of their children to signal my virtue)" while it happens again. 

28 minutes ago, elitts said:

At a minimal level I'm good with just establishing a system allowing family or friends to file a report to get the process started. 

Is this a statement to the effect that, "S/he is a danger to herself and/or others"? Who gets the report and is it filed under penalty of perjury as to the facts stated? It has to be a verified statement of some kind. Is this the preemptory "red flag" process, the confiscation trigger or both? 

31 minutes ago, elitts said:

I just know that they tried to pass a law  along those lines here in Michigan 10-15 years ago

I don't know a ton about this but would like to read the bill.

31 minutes ago, elitts said:

In Michigan the only way you can be restricted is if you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness.

What is the restriction, how broad and does it have a sunset or expiration clause and/or conditions for retraction?

33 minutes ago, elitts said:

In Michigan the only way you can be restricted is if you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness. That leaves a LOT of open ground since about the only way that happens (here at least) is if you commit a crime and plead mental defect.

It does, but drawing these lines is very complex in my opinion. 

38 minutes ago, elitts said:

And when I talk about taking guns away from people, ideally I'm not talking about the government just straight up seizing them.  Forcing them to give them to a relative works just fine for me.  Seems like a better option than forcing kids to "steal" the weapons from parents when their judgement starts slipping. 

I think there is a big assumption here around the fundamental requirement of observant, caring family and friends. Fortunately for me and others I've "run with" over the course of my struggles, most of us had people sequester weapons when they had a hint of trouble. In all of those cases it was about a "danger to self." One of my friends, my NA sponsor, was a vet and very good at projecting confidence and model recovery behavior. No one thought to remove his weapons from his home. As it happened, he used his shotgun to end his life while huddled in his sleeping bag in a concrete drainage pipe by the side of the road. One of my friends called me yesterday to say she had locked away the one gun in their home. Her new to recovery husband has suicidal ideation and others-focused rage on a cyclic basis. I offered to fetch it into one of my safes. I am not a disinterested or dispassionate debater on this topic. I am very interested, personally invested and vexed. I need to start printing and seriously reviewing the research, not that anyone is going to ask me for my suggestions. I appreciate yours.

22 minutes ago, elitts said:

I just can't see things like the option of a court taking guns away from people with diagnosed Dementia or other major psychological disorders as something any rational person should be against.  I don't like the idea of someone not taking their pills resulting in weapons being in the hands of someone having a psychotic break.

1. Who is making this list of Dementia patients and psychologically disordered individuals, to whom is it reported, how does the pre-purchase "red flag" work, and who executes the search and seizure of those weapons already in their possession? Are all weapons included in the prohibition and seizure? Are family members mandated to "report" and, in the event they fail or mishandle the reporting, are they liable for any resulting injury? Mental health providers? Geriatricians? GP? Friends, employers, colleagues, children...?

2. How do we define "major psychological disorders"?

3. Does your research indicate that all/most/many of those found to commit gun violence are "off their meds"?

4. Beyond these laws, how do you see your suggestion being drafted and implemented?

 https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

39 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

My high school teacher son was just telling me how many suicidal  students have approached him for help. He takes them immediately to see the councilor but sits with them while they wait. He is glad they trust him, but struggles with the number.

Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among people age 15 to 24 in the U.S. Nearly 20% of high school students report serious thoughts of suicide and 9% have made an attempt to take their lives, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

####

“Teenagers and young adults have the highest rates of suicide compared to other ages,” Dr. Fleisher says. “The things that make them vulnerable are where they stand socially and where they stand developmentally.”

Developmentally, their judgment and decision-making abilities are still coming online, he says. The prefrontal cortex — the brain’s executive control center — doesn’t fully develop until one’s mid-20s.

That makes young people more impulsive, Dr. Fleisher says: "They're not going to weigh risks and consequences or values in quite the same way that older folks will.”

Socially, teens and young adults don’t have the same connections older adults do. Someone who is married, has a long-term partner or has children or grandchildren is in a different place socially than someone who is just coming into their own, living with roommates or alone.

The isolation of the pandemic exacerbated social disconnection even more.

https://connect.uclahealth.org/2022/03/15/suicide-rate-highest-among-teens-and-young-adults/

58 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I certainly wish they had the courage to talk it out

I will leave it at this, but IMNSHO that is a terrible and egregious assumption from someone - I ASSUME - who has not been in the head, heart and circumstances of someone who is suicidal. I really wish you had not said this and, more so, that you didn't hold this opinion of young men you saw meet their end. This is the second time this opinion has been expressed on the forum and it deeply saddened me both times. Utterly.

18 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

And not a single upvote.

There has been a ton of angst expressed here for child scouts who were subjected to child sexual abuse, yet for children being MURDERED, not a word.

I stand appalled.

I'm not a heavy up-voter, especially if a post has what I believe to be more than one point, any one of which I vehemently disagree with. I surely grieve. See my point about gun violence, CSA and sex trafficking. I put them in the same sentence. "Failure" to punch the wee emoji-producing icon neither negates it nor allows you to assume I or anyone else doesn't grieve. I hope that's not what you meant. It's a post that is upvoted. I see nothing where I can upvote line by line or point by point. For me, I couldn't do so because of your advocacy for a total ban and, presumably, confiscation. Trust me, I grieve. Not stating as much is no sin of omission, just my choice not to affirm your entire post. 

14 minutes ago, Navybone said:

In response to your comment on mass shootings in the 60's and 70's, have to wonder if part of reason that there were not as many mass shootings (this assessment is based on anecdotal, not any specific research by me) was due to availability of types of weapons used today.  By this I mean, were AR-15 and other weapons  available to the degree they are today?

Not directly responsive, but I thought I would post it. From my conversations, most people don't know this. I have not researched the background study or studies. Next to this chart it is must be noted that 4 of the 5 most deadly shootings involved a semi-auto rifle.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

19 hours ago, Navybone said:

I purposely stated that the political leadership lacks the ability to do anything.  I do not believe this is a guns only issue, or a mental health issue, or a video game issue.  It is a complex issue that requires adults willing to talk consider all aspects of the issue.

Amen. Like child sexual abuse, as well as trafficking and mental health overall, where are the real champions of the cause(s) Who will humbly and earnestly convene a true coalition of thinkers, donors and doers? I see precious few.

Our oldest some was a Criminal Justice major with a Homeland Security emphasis. His track was graduate, Police Academy, then FBI, Homeland or the like. After Ferguson, his now wife begged him to reconsider. He did and I'll spare you the subsequent details. In any case, I have put a great deal of time into thinking about and researching the topic. I am no expert, merely a troubled citizen and father, moderately passionate gun guy, lifelong hunter, lifetime NRA member and yada yada yada. I know a good bit about guns and a good bit about mental and behavioral health. I know a decent amount about the flux of society and have a better than average knowledge of politics, policy and party loyalty idiocy. A few thoughts. I am not trying to indict or incite, merely share my musings.

1. If guns were the only issue, my hometown, with guns hanging from a rack in the back of every pickup truck and bouncing around in the trunk of many cars, would've had a real problem with mass shootings in the 60's and 70's. Didn't happened and that's a good data point. (This is borne out as a clear trend in the US.) Did I or others typically own a tactical rifle then? No. Do I think it would've made a difference? I don't. I have 8 long guns and two pistols. None has wandered out of the safe or otherwise and committed so much as one crime. I've had the 20 gauge since I was 11 and the BB gun since I was 10.

2. Mental health is clearly a major factor or there would be many statistical data points highlighting the number of murderers and shooters with previously identified maladies. As it is, a great many have been identified pre-action, but often unreported or, if reported, not acted upon by friends, family, professionals and others. I am not blaming, just pointing it our. Also, all mental health issues are not in play as high level candidates for identification, study and analysis. If that were the case, more people suffering with clinical depression, eating disorders, anxiety disorders and childhood trauma would be on the list of offenders. They're not. Anger, a history of violence toward self, others and animals, exposure to violence (especially domestic and neighborhood), inner city gun violence, delusional behavior and public, extremist communications are the top line. There is a ton here to discuss, including retaliatory domestic and workplace rage. In most cases, there were signs there, too.

3. Taking back or restricting guns when we have 400M of them in the US is impossible, unenforceable, and would not be carried out by many sent door to door to do it. I've spoken with people who would have that task and they would be subtly non-compliant. Ditto forcing registration. Threaten heavy restrictions on guns and ammo? See the data from 2020-2021. My wife asked for a pistol for Christmas in 2020. True fact. "If they're going to take away my right I want one before they do." Will law abiding people register? Not many. Why? It is a clear infringement of their right. "Come and take it" and "Don't tread on me" are not just bumper stickers, flags and slogans. Again, not picking a fight here.

4. Virtual violence is definitely deteriorative and a contributing factor. Studies have shown it is not major, though. With those virtual worlds, violence is celebrated and rewarded, but where is it far worse?

5. Answer: Media complicity and sensationalism. The media loves selling views, clicks, "papers," likes and Tweets around mass shootings. IMHO, this is a chronic disease showing little decency, knowledge of human behavior, responsibility and basic civility. They go so far beyond what is healthy, necessary and societally beneficial as to be grotesque and prurient. They are "standing on the bodies of the slain" for reputational benefit and financial gain. Fact. 

6. Lest I forget, which I already did, very few people want to research or acknowledge the data on defensive gun use vs offensive. The same goes for the instances of deterring crime by law abiding permit carries, often including off-duty law enforcement. 

All that to say, those interested in doing a small part will teach safety, societal and interpersonal decency and responsibility, pay close attention to their children and those for whom they caretake, and understand how they can build character through example, time with kids and being advocates for life and personal development in children and. adults.. BSA is a part of that (I think). I've been on the shelf for a long time, so I'm not expert.

That's all for now. Gotta do some work.

11 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Did you get on?  There was a bit of a delay in their admitting people to the hearing today.

I gave up. The (film) trailer wasn’t compelling anyway. 

Anyone else having trouble getting on the Zoom hearing? It's never happened to me before this.

Univ. Of Calif.'s $375M Deal Brings Abuse Payments To $700M

The University of California system unveiled an additional $374.4 million for more than 300 individuals who say they were abused by a former UCLA Health gynecologist, bringing the total amount in settlements with alleged victims to nearly $700 million.

What's that per person? Oh yeah. $2.33M and change. Nice. 

48 minutes ago, clivusmultrum said:

I think STEM is overrated. There are STEM this-that-or- the-other in their schools. I’m watching the kids glaze over at all the extra homework activities that go with a lot of the merit badge work. It feels like we are just hooking on to a hot topic while neglecting our core appeal.

I know zip-a-dee-doo-dah about the STEM program. Please suffer me one question and one thought. Once the latter is out there I will be at my quota for the day.

1. Is there anything offered in the schools or elsewhere that's attached to an outdoor and character building organization like Scouts? 

2. For an entire segment of the population STEM and bookish things are what they do, at least in part. I raised 2 boys and 2 girls. One of each would do traditional Scouting, though they didn't for obvious reasons. The other two can and did "light" outdoor adventures but an all OUTING scenario was daunting and pretty much undoable. My youngest son has since become and enthusiast, but was a bookish boy (excessively), loved Legos, solo sports like Fencing, Archery and Wrestling and did a lot of deep thinking. One of the twins has CMT Disorder, which stands for Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disorder. She was supposed to be in a wheelchair by the time she was a teenager. She has beaten all the odds and has and continues to travel the world. From my limited understanding, something like STEM could be the honey that draws them in, opens them to a world of the outdoors and slides in character building, traditions, camaraderie, tinfoil dinners, Dutch oven cobbler, knife skills, lashing, reflector oven biscuits and dodgeball. Oops. I said that which is verboten. Please don't ban me...  

I would like to know more about STEM, but do understand the point you're making.

/s/ I.G. Nernt

On 5/21/2022 at 7:29 PM, PaleRider said:

If this Judge confirms plan how likely is the district court to confirm it?Al's the upcoming hearing could you explain what it's about.I tried looking it up but I'd have better luck reading Japanese.

I don't think anyone can lay the odds, but I would say better chance of approving than not. I believe the Notice of Agenda Matters landed today. I'll see if I can find a few to review. That rhymed. It is usually in English, but you need a special incandescent bulb to decipher the legal lemon juice. 

15 hours ago, qwazse said:

One of the abuse survivors who took the time to tell us on his story on this forum told us about how his SM was super meticulous… to the point of bringing a ruler to measure patch placement on uniforms. That struck a nerve with me because I had a stickler of an SM when it came to language or bad behavior, but when it came to uniforms, he gave the inspection sheets to the SPL, whose responsibility was to read it and rate us. If my old-school-as-it-got SM was not inserting himself into the nitty-gritty of uniform inspection, nobody’s SM should have been.  It’s now on my list of red flags.

That be me. I'm calling making this connection a "good get" on your part. He was all about him and how things looked and projected on "his Troop." How we presented and performed was a huge part of his identity. As to Mr. Pink Shirt Hater, I say the same. All about how he thinks this "looks" to others who see one of "his" kids wearing a PINK shirt. Pah-lease. "No Scout of mine is going to be caught dead wearing a PINK shirt...!"

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

@ThenNow @MYCVAStory ... do you know if the youth protection changes from bankruptcy require BSA to include an anti-retaliation policy?  

I don't see anything in the terms. Someone should be made aware of this gap, though. Are there other documented instances among members here that would put together a pattern beyond isolated examples? Regardless, it shouldn't happen at all if anyone wants YP to really work as a core element of culture and practice. 

Possibly only relevant to my musings on the state of play, but as fate would have it, NESA was born 50 years ago today and 50 since I joined Scouts. “What a long, strange trip it’s been.” And how.

Just landed on the docket, whatever this means.  

Minute Entry: The Court will not be ruling on confirmation at the omnibus hearing on May 25. The only matters going forward at the omnibus hearing are those listed on the agenda. - RE: [9714] Order on Omnibus Hearings scheduled for 5/25/2022 at 02:00 PM US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware (LJJ) (LJJ)

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=3552&tagid=1153&dateFrom=05/15/2022&dateTo=05/21/2022

10 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Some judges like this and in Purdue Pharma Judge Drain read his decision for OVER two hours! 

His reading (and expounding on his ruling) was over six hours long. Pop some corn and grab a beverage...

34 minutes ago, yknot said:

If the YPC is going to do any good, it has to be looking forward as well as taking instructive lessons from the past. 

Of course. From my understanding, BSA doesn't control the selection of survivors and, I think, it would be reasonable to trust the TCC and SWG. That is what I'm trying to say, for the most part. Consider the applicant pool, as well. My sense in this particular conversation is you both are assuming BSA is in control of this Committee. At least half of the members will be survivors, per the plan provisions. If the members are anywhere as close to as accessible as the TCC has been, which I believe they will be, survivors from all quarters will be heard, in the most active sense of the word. You are 100% entitled to rely on your experience with BSA and its reticence to do any manner of things you think advisable and sensible. My take from hearing the representatives of the TCC and SWG during the trial is they are VERY SERIOUS about these terms, making sure YP is fashioned to protect ALL current and future Scouts, etc. Why would they be engaged if they were merely backward looking? That doesn't compute. The case is about the past. YP is about the future. No? Are they to be equated in any way with the past behavior of BSA? I say not. Trust is called for, but I understand you have a long history of broken promises, deafness, non-responsiveness and wagon circling. If anyone thinks survivors behave in the same way and with the same motivations and interests as BSA they have not been paying attention lo these many days. Just my two cents this time. I spared you the other three. 

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I am quite sure that the total expenditure out of the over $100 million only a couple percentage went towards crafting new policies. 

My bet is on completely and totally fractional. Also, I am NOT advocating for other than a diverse group, but my understanding is the vast majority of claimants are men. Then, there is some commonality of age, as well. Simple facts, no? There MUST be diversity of experience - which includes multiple factors - but shouldn't it be in keeping with the proportions, whatever they are?

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

in a passive, non-transparent advisory YPC ...

Is this a fact-based assertion or assumption, or crafted out of whole cloth? I really don't know. Not poking. Oh, I was being somewhat jocular. YP is critical, but I think she trusted the TCC and SWG on that score. "Whew. One thing off my overflowing plate!"