Beavah

Yah, I remember Carter as an ineffectual and weak president, eh? Naive in many ways. But I always saw him as a good man. And da one area where he really succeeded was in brokering the Egypt-Israel accords. At the time, I wouldn't have given him a chance in a hundred of pulling that off. Figured it was just him being naive again. But here it is over 30 years later, and that peace has held against all odds. That alone is a better legacy than some presidents. I think if yeh really believe a bunch of former heads of state traipse off to North Korea on their own, then you're as naive as Carter was. As a president or a secretary of state, I think yeh use all da tools yeh can, eh? And yeh especially make use of 3rd parties when direct contact is inappropriate for a variety of reasons. When yeh have an egotistical nut job like Kim Jong Il, not any third party will do, but former heads of state can open doors. Neither Bush would be acceptable to NK, so that leaves Bill or Jimmy, and Carter has a history with da fellow. Nothing more than practical diplomacy. And you're missin' another trick, eh? If North Koreans start starving, yeh don't expect da Chairman is goin' to just sit by and risk a revolution, do yeh? Are yeh ready to spend another trillion dollars defending South Korea against military incursions? Carter and other ex-Presidents can make a call for humanitarian aid that provides some cover to do what's necessary to buy the fellow off as we wait for him to follow Bin Laden to his just reward. I know that strategy is unappetizin', but it's da strategy that's been used by every president, Republican or Democrat, since Truman. Beavah

Yah, I've met this young fellow, eh? Several times. I think it's very telling that the lad who is being raised to attend church all the time is the one who is rebelling. Doesn't surprise me one bit. A lot of things we church-goers do are just plain ridiculous in the innocent eyes of the youth. It's stuff that's more about religious identification than it is about God. So I like young fellows like SMT224's new scouts. I think both of 'em show potential for a wiser, deeper faith than many an adult I know. That's what we're here for, eh? To be friends and guides to such lads, to help 'em, in the words of Luke's Gospel, "grow in wisdom, age, and grace, before God and man." Yeh give the lad his scout badge, SMT224. And yeh look forward to many future Scoutmaster conferences with a twinkle in your eye and a smile in your heart. We silly humans can't do everything, eh? Sometimes we're just sowing seeds, and lettin' the Almighty's soil and rain and sunshine do their thing. That takes time, and patience. But it's da only way there is to grow good fruit, eh? Beavah

Yah, well, perhaps that's so, FScouter. Still, I drank a toast last night to the president and to the men and women of da nation's services. I lost friends on 9/11, good friends who left families behind. While I'm not fond of da death penalty within a civilized society, when yeh don't yet have a civilized society yeh sometimes do what yeh have to do. It is lack of justice which begets killing and hate. There is a time for every purpose under heaven, and Justice is a cardinal virtue. This was naught more than justice delayed. And if it makes someone else think twice about wanting to live in fear in darkened rooms for 10 years only to die an ignominious death cowering behind his wife, all the better. It's been a good year so far. Ben Ali, Mubarak, Bin Laden. Here's hoping we can keep up da streak. Quaddafi, Saleh, Assad, Zawahiri. To quote Clarence Darrow, I have never killed a man, but I have read some obituaries with great satisfaction. But what I find truly hopeful is that an entire generation of young middle eastern men (and women) are being defined by their desire for a peaceful, relentless struggle against corrupt dictatorship rather than by religious violence against the West. Those are young people to respect, eh? And pray for, and support where we can. Because in the end, all those who are willing to sacrifice for freedom are our friends and allies. And there's nuthin' wrong with teaching 'em that years of hard work and sacrifice will eventually bring justice to those who would indiscriminately kill civilians. Beavah

I look forward to it, BS-87. At least it will be entertainin'. Might I make a suggestion, though? Yeh should not start, end, or draw from any neo-con or similar blog, website, or commentator. Begin with reputable outlets that have a stake in maintaining a reputation for accuracy, and then work back to original sources. Then triangulate by referencing democratic party statements. If yeh don't really understand da underlying legal or economic issues, take some extra time to read up on those or have someone who knows them well step yeh through it. Having limited knowledge of a topic means that yeh can be duped by people with an agenda who can play on your background and fears. Those are da ways to improve the quality of your argument. Beavah

This is just fascinatin'. I've never quite seen folks throw around legal terms in quite this way. BTW, BS-87, for da purpose of being a U.S. citizen, embassies don't count as U.S. soil. Yeh see, most of our foreign embassies are staffed by local nationals. In smaller nations, yeh might find nobody but the ambassador and the marine guard are U.S. citizens. So the law has long been that embassies don't count. Saves on locals tryin' to climb the fence to give birth, too. And da 14th amendment didn't start da notion of naturalization. Far from it. It just federalized the notion. Prior to that, each state could set its own rules for how yeh became a citizen of that state, and when yeh became a citizen of that state you became a citizen of da U.S. All of the states had naturalization rules for immigrants. Dred Scott overturned this longstanding custom by ruling that no black man could become a citizen of the United States even if he was a citizen of an individual state. The 14th reversed. Even funnier, though, was this: Then let's look at the issues. Obama's a hypocrite on the debt ceiling. Huh? So is every politician. When it comes down to it, da Republicans are goin' to vote to raise the debt ceiling no matter what they've said to their constituency. So are the Dems. Because the alternative is a U.S. sovereign default, which is financial armageddon. World wide Great Depression II. Obama's for indebting our unborn generations. Are yeh daft? The debt has been buildin' ever since Reagan. The George W. Bush years were da worst borrow-and-spend years in the history of the Republic. This has not a thing to do with any individual president. Congress has the power of the purse. It's an issue with da Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, who have discovered they can buy favors and re-election on da backs of other people's grandkids. Obama's for refusing to fix entitlement programs, leading to their eventual implosion when the children of today are retiring. And congress is responsible for writing laws, includin' those that govern entitlement programs. Bush didn't fix 'em, he made 'em worse with an Rx drug benefit. Clinton didn't fix 'em. Bush I didn't fix 'em. Reagan rescued Social Security from its first near-default as a result of LBJ's borrow-and-spend games, but not enough for long-term stability, and he didn't fix Medicare. Obama's for entangling our nation in foreign conflicts with oil as the motive. WHAT? Iraq I & II weren't about oil? Yah, France has an interest in Libyan Oil. France has a longstanding interest in North Africa, even those nations without oil. That doesn't mean protecting democratic revolutionaries from out and out slaughter by a madman isn't just. We certainly won't get a drop of oil from Libya. Obama's for expanding welfare programs, perpetuating and making incentives for the welfare state, and making it harder for people on welfare programs to escape their current and dire situation. No welfare programs have been expanded under the Obama administration, unless you are talking about the emergency extensions of jobless benefits for the unemployed. Obama's for raising taxes on EVERYBODY by increasing taxes on the rich and corporations, as these job, service, and product makers can easily pass on their increase in taxes through their prices in services and products. No taxes have been raised under the Obama administration. None. Zero. Obama's for subverting America's national sovereignty and passing its decision making onto world organizations. Name one example. This is complete poppycock. Now, there are some things afoot, eh? Some of da bigger U.S. corporations have discovered that they can get around Congress by lobbying with other nations on treaty terms. Da worst offenders so far have been media companies tryin' to use treaties to enforce ever more preposterous copyright/trademark rules. It's a tactic of U.S. companies that are no longer competitive or have dying business models to try to use government - any government - to grant 'em subsidies or monopoly protection. Always has been. Compete in lobbying or in da courtroom when yeh can't compete in da marketplace. Only difference is that they've gotten slightly better at buying politicians of late. But that has nuthin' to do with this president, or any president. In fact, da Republicans have by and large been da most receptive to corporate "influence" from outside their own states/districts. I'm not a huge Obama fan, and I'm currently a fellow without a party since da neo-cons and nutjobs hijacked the Republican party from da conservatives. But despite never having been a Democrat, I don't feel it necessary to oppose 'em by making up fiction. I figure da truth is sufficient for any argument, eh? Also has the advantage of not makin' yeh look foolish Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Would we have had this discussion if Obama, or any other president, had simply published their birth certificated at the beginning, nope. Yah... Except no other president had ever been harangued or questioned about it, eh? I can understand da president's sentiment. If I were standing in a line to buy something and they took everybody else's cash in front of me, but when they got to me they demanded that I prove my cash wasn't counterfeit by goin' back and getting a notarized statement from my bank stating that they verified my withdrawal and issued true federal reserve notes, I'd tell 'em to shove it in some anatomically inappropriate places. Da real ethical question for me is what I would do if they did that to someone else while I was watching, eh? Would I do the right thing and stand up for da fellow? And I think as scouts, that's the proper ethical question for us. BS-87, I completely understood your argument, eh? It wasn't a lack of comprehension on my part. It was incredulity. Da argument is foolish. Andrew Jackson's parents were virtually fresh off da boat from Ireland. None of da other presidents mentioned would be eligible either given your bizarre interpretation and today's laws. To say that da argument is "novel" is like sayin' Elvis is having your love child next week is novel. It might play well in those supermarket tabloids, but that's about it. Da way we resolve minor constitutional issues is through the courts, and citizenship stuff has long since been resolved. The opposite of natural is naturalized, and da procedures for naturalization and when it is required are well defined. Now, we could of course amend da constitution as vol_scouter suggests. That's the sort of overly specific nonsense that doesn't belong in da constitution in my opinion, but yeh see tom fool folks in California do that kind of thing to their constitution all the time. Venezuelans too. But let's be clear, eh? That would have excluded a number of past presidents. It would exclude many a child born to US servicemen and diplomats stationed overseas. It would exclude children of parents who happened to be on work abroad at the time of birth. We also don't have control of dual citizenship, eh? Other nations set their own rules for citizenship, and we don't have a say in that. I forget da details on Israel's right of return, but it seems like if you're Jewish and yeh went there on vacation you could have dual citizenship. . And all that leaves out da folks like Eamonn's son, many of whom have given their lives and their limbs fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it's really a question of standin' in line at a store, and your neighbor walks up to da counter but his cash is not good enough for 'em. What do you do? Beavah

Yah... hmmm.... Reality is strange, eh? Sometimes yeh just can't make this stuff up. Oh, wait. I guess you can! So to be "natural born" and eligible for da presidency, you have to be a child of two citizen parents. God only knows where that leaves us for sperm bank kids or da non-science-initiated equivalent. But's let's take a look historically, eh? Barack Obama is certainly not the first president born to immigrants. In fact, there were six: Andrew Jackson (both parents were immigrants and were NOT citizens at the time of his birth), Thomas Jefferson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover. The interpretation that there is some separate category called "native born" that applies to persons who have one or more immigrant parent is an utter and complete fiction. The constitution even prior to the 14th Amendment never made that distinction, nor was that the common interpretation of international law of the day, which generally applied jus soli. I think perhaps people are mixin' things up with da notion of American nationals. Non-citizen American nationals are folks who are born in some of the smaller territories like American Somoa who do not have at least one U.S. citizen parent. But however this notion got started, it's great for comic relief. Were yeh also abducted by space aliens, BS-87? Beavah

Yah, what a great example that family is as big or as small as our generosity of spirit makes it. God bless yeh for makin' it big. Scout Salute, mate, and congratulations! B

I think he got yeh there, packsaddle. Did you catch that the title of the attending physician was the "minister of puppies?". Actually, it looks like his parents' marriage (well, "carriage" actually) license superimposed on a birth certificate scan. Clearly JoeBob is just tryin' to cover up that he's really a French Poodle. I'd be embarrassed if I were French, after all. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

What is it with organized religions choosing to "protect confession" over protecting children? I think there's a role for confidentiality between private parties in society, eh? I don't think the state has the right to demand access to all of our conversations whenever it wants. We protect spousal privilege, because we feel that da conversations between a husband and wife are private matters. That means that yep, sometimes spousal privilege makes it harder for a prosecutor trying a serious crime. We protect other kinds of confidential conversations, between attorney and client, between physician and patient, between counselor and client. And, yes, between priest and penitent. Such protections can make it harder to prosecute criminals. But it's better than living in a state which can demand access to all private conversations, even the most intimate, whenever it wishes. Beavah

Yah, boy, we've got some weird threads this week, eh? TAHAWK, you're actually expectin' BSA materials to be consistent, are yeh? What, are you a newbie or somethin'? Da BSA has never done any sort of job of continuity editing its various materials. Besides, yeh missed a few. I agree with yeh, there are a number of things in both da G2SS and the most recent YPT that are flawed and a bit over the top. If someone really takes 'em literally instead of inserting their brain into da process they might get yeh in trouble in some (or many) jurisdictions if da stars align poorly. Or at least give yeh a bad headache for a while. But I believe the way to think about this stuff is that da BSA expects us to use our brains a little, rather than behave like computers and just crash when they mess up a line of code. Right now, cell phone cameras are all the panic among policymakers and school officials because of "sexting" and whatnot. Yah, the adults always come late to the party. If you've seen policymakers in a panic as often as I have, you know it happens when they don't know anything but want to be seen as "doing something". Hopefully they just bounce off walls entertainingly for a while rather than actually pass some policy or regulation that we're all saddled with. Otherwise we get "zero tolerance" and NCLB and that gawd-awful mess of "financial reform" legislation. So when one of these panics hits (like da G2SS prohibition on water drinking right next to exploring abandoned mines...), best to just laugh about it. Some poor Irving staffer like RichardB got jumped by someone further up da chain who got jumped by some exec board member who read da expose on teen sexting in the West Texas Chronicle and wants 'em to "do something". And so rather than havin' time to let it cool down and be thoughtful and wait to see what best practices emerge, now there's a deadline to "get something out." And so we have no water drinking contests, only adults handle "discipline", and immediately confiscate the kid's cell phone if he left it in his pants when he went to da shower house. Don't let some lines of bad code put together in a deadline panic crash your system. Just treat 'em with a bit of wisdom and humor. If yeh need some inspiration, I suggest yeh take a look at the documentary. That would be "Dilbert." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'd point to the adult application which states, among other restrictions, that a Scoutmaster must be age 21 or older. Nope. That doesn't make the case that you suggested. By contrast, you can find any number of places where we make the case for our other restrictions. I'm surprised you'd make such a weak and completely unsubstantiated claim, but then I can't even figure out the bit about children as Scoutmasters, which is why I haven't commented on it. Yes, the BSA can rename the Senior Patrol Leader job "Scoutmaster" and can call the adult leader "Advisor". So then da "Scoutmaster" can be a kid. Otherwise the responsibilities require a legal adult. But I reckon that these things along with the comment about low-quality leaders means we've hit da end of the discussion. Folks who hold prejudices always come up with reasons in their own mind why da way they see other people is the way it must be for everybody else. Neither argument nor example can sway them. Our old adult brains, yeh know. They get hard-wired in and don't learn well anymore. Da way we learned it once upon a time is da way it must be. Morse code should be required for all license classes above Novice and all da rest, eh? 73 Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

So, can I suggest that its decision to discriminate to some extent of the basis of age is a result of it feeling that leaders of certain ages in certain positions is incompatible with the Aims and Methods of the Boy Scout program? Sure, yeh can suggest it. But then yeh have to explain where in da BSA literature that case is made. All of the BSA literature I'm aware of runs in the other direction. But I'm game, eh? Find us one BSA document anywhere that claims that young adult leadership is incompatible with the Mission to instill the values of the Oath and Law. Then, if we actually find that da BSA makes such a claim, the next hurdle is to decide whether that claim is valid. Da BSA can claim the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it so. I think one critical area to look it is how the Scoutmaster must work with the oldest Scouts in the troop The oldest scouts in a troop might be 12. And, too, yeh might well find that a 19 or 20 year old student leader who was looked up to by his old high school mates might be an exceptional leader. Seems to me that da best people to be able to decide either of those things are the parents and committee and CO that run the unit. People in businesses get promoted all the time, and find themselves supervising former coworkers. It's not that big a deal, really, especially if da coworkers aren't prejudiced against young people. But if your troop thinks it is, you're free to select an older SM. Why shouldn't someone else's troop be able to make a different decision? I worry that often young adults in leadership positions are seen more as "older brothers", and less as mentoring adults. Older brothers are mentoring adults, eh? Mine sure was for me. I worry that often older adults in leadership positions are seen more as "parents" or "officials" and less as mentoring adults. There's a special magic to younger adults, eh? They don't tend to dictate rules, they tend to listen and guide. Yeh rarely see a young adult yell at kids da way yeh see with older adults. Plus, a young scout can see himself someday becoming a cool college kid, where he can't see himself ever becoming an old, married guy. In that way, da young folks are better role models. I'll let yeh have your worry and let your troop make its own choice, eh? Why won't yeh let me have my worry and let my troop make its own choice? putting a young adult in this position will certainly lead to parents keeping their children from attending certain activities, or provoke them to leave the program all together. Putting some older adults in da Scoutmaster position certainly leads to kids leaving the program all together. So what else is new? Yeh seem to be assumin' a perfect older adult vs. a caricature of a young adult. I can't tell yeh how many older adult SMs I've seen destroy units. And like I said, da same was once true of women Scoutmasters. Still is in some places. Causes parents to keep their kids home and quit. So what? That's da parents' problem, not the troop's. Sometimes yeh just do what's right and let those with biases go pound sand. I've seen young early-20s Scoutmasters that da parents simply adored, eh? Young lads who grew their troop by leaps and bounds in a few years. They would have done da same thing had they been 19 or 20, without a doubt. So yeh see, the assumption that age alone will cause what you describe is just that, eh? It's an assumption, and one based in prejudice no different than da same assumption made of women Scoutmasters. That's how prejudice works, eh? We find or make up reasons to support it, because we hold it so tightly. Why can't yeh let other troops experiment? You keep your old SM, let a troop who wants a young fellow have one. Then we might actually see which does better. Also, CO's as a whole do not have a great track record for selecting quality leadership, as the decade worth of archived threads on this forum can attest to. Doesn't matter what their track record is, eh? It's their right and their responsibility. Either that or go back to Congress and ask for a different charter and amend da BSA's Bylaws. This forum is an odd lens that can lead yeh astray. The vast majority of scouters out there are wonderful, dedicated, caring people. The notion that a few folks here have of fellow scouters runnin' around like half-cocked egotistical lunatics is just balderdash. Yah, a few are in positions that don't use their talents well, a few are old and tired, some get cliquish. No different than any organization. But calling 'em low quality is just a lie that any scouter should be ashamed of. They are some of the finest people I have ever met. I would be on board with an approval process that goes to council level, not just the committee. Again, that's not da structure of the BSA, or somethin' it would ever agree to. Chartered Orgs. use the scouting program to achieve their own goals. Council officials can't make judgments on who is best for an LDS Ward or a Catholic Church or a VFW post, eh? All those organizations have different goals. So it's up to those organizations to pick their leaders. If you are a unit scouter, you are selected by, and work for and on behalf of the Chartered Organization, not the BSA. That's also a part of da BSA's risk management, because it means that the council and the BSA itself are shielded from liability for unit scouting. We act as insurer only, and insurance has limits. If we are involved in the actual selection of unit leaders, then we become vicariously responsible for everything that happens in a unit, eh? If a claim blows through the insurance cover, now da council camp or Philmont are on the line. As da Catholic Church has shown us, that ain't so farfetched. So you're not goin' to see councils interviewing and deciding on unit scouters. Nuthin' more than helping the COs by providing background checks and da like. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

In these matters yeh should always follow da law, eh? By and large the BSA is just a bystander to most issues of child abuse, because they occur in the home or otherwise outside of scouting. All we hope is that by makin' kids and adults aware of these things, they might be in a position to recognize and help a child in need. Yeh report to da BSA only when it's not a bystander - when stuff occurs in scouting. Most report-for-suspicion laws like this, whether the reporting is mandatory or optional, come with statutory immunity for good-faith reports, eh? But only if the report is made to the state authorities. If you make a report/accusation to anyone else, then yeh aren't immune from civil defamation claims. Including if you make a report to da SE. So follow the law. Then follow your CO's reporting requirements. Last follow da BSA's. Above all, though, do what yeh need to do to help a child in need. If yeh do that, da other stuff will almost always work out. Of course only for real injury or abuse or such, eh? Not for low-level YP issues like what da original post was about. Beavah Beavahs are furry critters that like cold northern climes rather than southwestern deserts. Nuthin' herein should be taken as legal advice or opinion, especially in places where Beavahs aren't licensed to build dams or do any other thing. Besides, yeh have dam big dams in Arizona, yeh don't need our industrious little beaver dams.

Oops, missed one. Better respond so da red herring doesn't resurface Should Cub Scouts discriminate against the mentally retarded (by limiting age)? No, they should not, and in fact they don't. The official policy is quite clear: Youth members with permanent developmental, mental, or physical disabilities may be registered with units outside the normal age range. In other words a Cub Scout may be older than 11 years of age and a Boy Scout can be older than 18 years of age. Many units are happy to serve boys with special needs outside of da normal age range, and the BSA provides special needs units to serve others when that seems the more appropriate course. Beavah

What you're saying is that in wider society there are examples of where age restrictions are not applied, and thus should not be applied to Scoutmasters. Nope. I'm sayin' in society we recognize that young people under age 21 are perfectly capable of doin' all the sorts of tasks demonstrating the same and greater maturity and judgment that are expected of a Scoutmaster. Therefore a claim of lack of capability on the part of those under 21 is refuted. So let's flip it around, eh? What evidence would you accept that would demonstrate that it's OK for an adult under age 21 to be a Scoutmaster? You have rejected the notion that the parents in the unit agreeing the under-21-year-old is the best candidate for Scoutmaster is enough. You have rejected the notion that the committee and chartered organization agreeing the person is the best candidate is enough. We have demonstrated that adults under age 18 serve successfully in every manner of field successfully, including long-term mentoring relationships with youth, social work fields, outdoors fields, and fields which entail significantly more stress. We have pointed out that it is quite possible that an under-21 year old has more experience leading youth groups, more experience in scouting, more experience in the outdoors, etc. than any available parent candidate for the position. We have shared research data that personality and judgment are well-formed at that age, and that interpersonal differences swamp any small age-based generalities. We have shared personal experiences that show under-21 year olds are perfectly capable of dealing with obnoxious, fearful, or prejudiced parents just as effectively as women were once able to deal with obnoxious, fearful, or prejudiced parents. You have answered that Scoutmastering is different. So what does it take? If no argument or evidence will suffice, then I respectfully submit that is prejudice, not prudence. TwoCubDad gives a passionate plea based on his own experience, eh? But if we're honest, not many adults in da BSA are TwoCubDads. If his qualifications were a requirement for Scoutmaster, we'd have very few adults of any age who could be SM. I think his argument works in favor of under-21 Scoutmasters, eh? After all, a unit may have a 19 year old Eagle Scout, OA member, who is NCS trained and worked as senior camp staffer the last two years, is a LNT Master, is in his 3rd year of a teaching degree, serves on da district training team, who has hundreds of nights in the field working with young people and more danglies on his uniform than any adult in his unit. Indeed, relatively few Scoutmasters have that 19-year-old's bona fides. Their alternative could be a loudmouth second year parent who was once a cub scout, whom the other parents don't trust, and who only comes camping when it's good weather. Justify to me telling the unit it should accept a 2nd year dad with no experience as Scoutmaster when the CO and the parents want the young adult above. Is it possible that the BSA also feels that quality "adult association" needs to occur by having some adults around who are of at least a certain age? Clearly not, since we routinely use under-21 year old adults as ASMs and camp program staff. If not, could you please explain again how the age requirement is inherently different from the sexual orientation and religious requirements? The BSA has no expressive association interest in age restrictions. Under Dale, the BSA is permitted to discriminate on the basis of faith and sexual orientation only because those things are incompatible with the Scout Oath and Law, and it is the mission of the BSA to instill the values of the Scout Oath and Law. So the operant question is da one I raised, eh? Is a claim that adults under age 21 are inherently inferior or incapable of certain tasks a fundamental principle of the Scout Oath and Law? Is that something it is our mission to instill in young people? If not, then why are we doin' it? Heck, it might even be illegal in some jurisdictions. Just as an aside, the "Wild In The Streets" movie I referenced earlier... Yah, I just love da way SeattlePioneer clings to a work of fiction as justification for his argument, eh? Yeh see some parents who can't wrap their brains around youth leadership cling to Lord of the Flies in the same way. Apparently they don't recognize it's both a work of fiction and an allegory about adult society, not about kids. SP, we are stuck with society's legal definition of adulthood, eh? If yeh want to argue that should be different, take it up over in Issues and Politics. Da question at issue here is whether all qualified adults should be allowed to be Scoutmaster if chosen by the committee and chartered organization as the best candidate. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ah, TwoCubDad, now that's a rational argument! I was wonderin' when someone was goin' to get around to it. While I admit it's rational, I confess I don't have much sympathy for it, eh? Yeh see, I've had to referee fights in a mess of units over adding a woman as an ASM or SM. It used to be prohibited, but now is not. Many parents believe for a variety of reasons that only men should be Boy Scouters. They are better role models, they are more outdoorsy, women will be inclined to sexually harass teenage boys, boys have too many women in their lives already, ... on and on. Holy Smokes! I can't tell you how many parents I've had to talk down off a ledge. So, should women not be allowed to be ASMs or Scoutmasters? Of course not. At some point, somethin' is just the right thing to do, so you do it. Those who harbor prejudices can suck it up or move on down the road. Even if they couch their prejudices in arguments about role-modeling and point to figures on female teacher sexual liaisons with teenage boys. Those arguments don't refute da prejudice, eh? They are simply a manifestation of it. Honestly, I've never seen da problems you mention be any worse for young adult leaders than for older folks. In fact, quite the opposite. I have had many parents express serious reservations about the capabilities and fitness levels of older adults, and their ability to "carry Johnny out of the woods" if he needed it. So by that measure, young folks are better in parents' eyes. Plus, odds are that a 19- or 20-year-old SM is goin' to be someone like MtIB, eh? A boy who has grown up through the troop whom everybody knows who has been leading people's kids on independent patrol outings and teaching skills for years. It's the unknown that breeds fear, eh? But such a boy is a known quantity. Remember, half of da parents in MtIB's troop voted for him as SM, eh? That's not a set of parents who are afraid of da capabilities of a young adult. So again, if a troop committee and a chartered organization decide that an under-21 adult is the most skilled, best candidate for their troop community, why would we want to substitute an admittedly arbitrary restriction for their considered judgment? Beavah

Yah, SP, I don't know how much more clear I can be, eh? The Bill of Rights defines restrictions on the power of government, not on the freedoms of private individuals or groups. So every claim that you are makin' is just spurious. Nobody is talkin' about asking the government to sanction the BSA for the audacity of setting Scoutmaster registration to age 21. Da argument at hand as BSA members is whether such a limit is justified and whether it is consistent with our mission and values. That has nothing whatsoever to do with "rights" and everything to do with our own morals. People have a right to be dishonest, eh? But they shouldn't be. Certain whites-only clubs have a right to set that as a condition of membership, but that's morally wrong and they should change that rule. This is da same. The BSA has a right to set age 21, but should it? It is entitled to make that choice, but it may be wrong for it to do so. In some ways it is a question of whether those of us who are votin' members of the BSA should act to amend that paragraph in the R&R, much as the votin' members of a whites-only club should act to amend that paragraph in their bylaws. It has nothing to do with rights, but everything to do with values. So now are yeh more clear about da difference between legal right and moral wrong? Blacksmith finds it tedious for me to point out that there is no downward point at which your argument against age restrictions would naturally stop. Nah, I think MtIB probably finds it childish, not tedious, eh? It's been asked and answered. The downward point stops at the when the person is no longer an adult in the eyes of society and the law. A scoutmaster has to be recognized by the state as being someone who is legally able to make, and is responsible for, his or her own choices and decisions. No one has advocated for making a child the Scoutmaster. We just don't recognize two different classes of adult citizens. Separatin' adult citizens into two different classes, one privileged, one not... gee, what does that remind you of? The simple fact is that BSA doen't NEED to justify it's policy. The BSA could implement a policy that because the BSA doesn't want to be seen as a paramilitary organization, no serving member of the armed forces or veteran will be permitted to serve as Scoutmaster. That's within it's rights. It wouldn't need to justify its policy. But we as citizens and members would still have every right to debate whether such a policy was justified, whether it was a good idea, whether it unjustly discriminated against our servicemen and women. And I would have every right to call such a policy stupid, prejudiced, and not consistent with our Mission and our Timeless Values. If the BSA wants to refute a claim of prejudice, then it must explain how the discrimination against veterans is justified. As you say, there is just discrimination, eh? But when we discriminate against people as a group, sound ethics require us to exercise strict scrutiny of such claims. So debate da issue on its merits, eh? Yeh seem to be sayin' "Daddy BSA said so. Don't talk back!" That's not a very effective argument from an adult. Beavah

Well, Beavah, you can't have it both ways. Nah, KC9, yeh need to understand relevance in argumentation. That the military has a prohibition on women in combat is irrelevant to an argument that women should be denied access to engineering schools. Saying "look, in society we use gender to prohibit some other things!" is irrelevant to da question of whether it is just to use gender to decide on engineering admittance. Your only remaining claim to justify an age restriction on being SM is that there is something so unique about da Scoutmaster role that it requires something more than being an adult approved by the troop committee and chartered org. So to make your argument, you have to justify that claim, eh? Otherwise your claim fails. Just as we'd expect anyone who proposed that adult women can't be engineers to justify that claim. There are arguments that adult women shouldn't be engineers. I listed a few. But those arguments have failed. So, again, unless you can clarify what is so all-fired special about the position of Scoutmaster that it requires an age restriction more than being an adult, what you have described is prejudice against young adults, pure and simple. You are judging a person without just basis for doing so. Now I'll throw you one bone, eh? In some jurisdictions, it is illegal age discrimination to set auto insurance rates based on age. Insurers in those states use years of driving experience, which is far more rational. I agree with that statute. Which raises an interestin' question. In those same states, it would be illegal for the BSA to impose an age requirement other than adulthood on the Scoutmaster position if it were a paid position. So if da Chartered Organization establishes a policy that they pay the Scoutmaster $1 a year, the BSA age-21 rule is voided. And remember, unlike da Dale case, we do not have an expressive association interest in claiming that young adults are incapable of taking on leadership roles in da program, so there is no cogent rationale for Constitutional challenge. How do yeh like them apples? I think moosetracker's age biases are showin' as well. I agree with MoosetheItalianBlacksmith that young people really aren't that fragile. I expect they'd deal with dysfunctional adults about as well as any of us. Seriously, lots of young people serve in waiter/waitress jobs, where they have to deal constantly with dysfunctional adult behaviors! In fact, my guess would be that they'd be more rational about it than da average adult committee member whose ego often gets wrapped up in things. As a commish I once worked with a unit that had a young 22-year-old Scoutmaster and a dysfunctional unit committee. Old SM quit over it; but what happened was the young Scoutmaster after a few months just stopped attending or paying any attention to da Unit Committee. He and some other young scouters ran the program and communicated directly with da parents themselves while the committee argued with each other. If da treasurer didn't reimburse them the SM just billed the parents directly. Gradually, people realized da committee was irrelevant and fewer and fewer people showed up for committee meetings. Da troop did fine. As commish when I got it, I just convinced da IH to dissolve the old committee and appoint the folks who were really doin' the job. Can't remember if any were under da official age, but it really didn't matter. I must say, that was one of the most effective "unit transitions" I'd ever seen. MtIB is also right on da bit about how young people tend to pull in other young people, eh? I've seen that many times over the years. Seems like every time yeh really give a young adult responsibility, he or she draws in at least 3 more young adults to help out. I've also found da young adults are more reliable. Unlike older adults, who will often make promises and not deliver, the young adults who make promises will bust their buns to deliver. We've been trainin' these young people for 4-7 years or more, eh? Why wouldn't we use 'em? What is so all-fired special about da SM role that it is fundamentally different from all of the many jobs and roles we as a society allow young adults to do? Equal pay for equal work. Equal opportunity for equal ability. Welcoming our young alumni as adults. These things are moral issues, eh? And it's right to expect da BSA to live up to 'em. As an aside, a Happy Passover and a Happy Easter to all of you, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Though I wouldn't be opposed to the BSA being able to make exceptions to its baseline policy for those rare occasions. Well, then I think we're done! Does the BSA have any interest in making provisions to ensure that its program is delivered with some baseline level of consistency and quality Goodness gracious no! When have you ever seen that happen? The BSA does not supervise unit programs. If it did, then it would be liable for unit programs and the actions of those running unit programs. The BSA regularly asserts as a matter of fact that units are owned and operated by Chartered Organizations, eh? So as a matter of law it is the role of the Chartered Organization to supervise and ensure "quality." The BSA offers some tools like JTE to help with that, but using them or not is up to the unit. In fact units are free not to use advancement, not to use da uniform, ignore patrol method, be adult-run, and so forth and so on. The BSA does have an interest in protecting the reputation of its program and its copyrights and trademarks. So it has an interest, for example, in its copyrighted and trademarked awards, like Eagle Scout, and da use of its name and insignia. It also has an expressive interest in the faith and sexual preference of the adult leadership. But all those are very different things than ensuring uniform program quality, eh? Da BSA doesn't do that. An emancipated minor is able to enter into some legal contracts without parental approval, and is legally no longer in the custody of his/her parents. Yah, yah there are some subtleties in some jurisdictions. Not mine as it happens, but perhaps yours. Describin' those nuances can go on and on, and none of it is particularly relevant to da question at hand, which is whether the young man or woman can make and be responsible for their own decisions. How do you respond to age requirements for school teachers based on grade level? On restaurants giving senior discounts? The age of candidacy in the United States? On auto and health insurers treating people differently based on age? I don't. None of those things are relevant to da question at hand. But there's more to the SM position than exhibiting leadership. Yah, so you keep saying. More to being a Scoutmaster than being a teacher, or firefighter, or pilot, or social worker, or a nurse, or a parent, or even a scoutmaster in any other country. Who'd have thought? So tell us clearly. What is it about being a Scoutmaster in da U.S. that is so all-fired challenging and unique? What makes it so vastly different from all of da other things society allows young adults under age 21 to do? I don't think there is anything, eh? Which is what makes this an issue of prejudice rather than prudence. But I'm all ears! Beavah

Yeah, but you also have to realize, a parent who p[ays a bunch of money to send their kid to a chgarter school usually has a lot more blood sweat and tears involved in their kids lives too. Yah, hmmm... It might be worth mentioning that charter schools are a type of public school, and that as such parents don't pay any money to send their children there (though they might have to provide their own transportation). Private and parochial schools parents have to pay money for, unless they are in a school-voucher area. ScoutFish's point is still valid, though, because da parent(s) of charter school pupils did have to go out of their way to do the work and research of picking a school and applying for it. So it's a good bet they're pushing their child's education more than most. I like John-in-KC's thoughts. And skeptic has an elephant-in-the-room point. What to do with Special Ed? Most of da special ed funding (and all of the special ed mandates) comes from the Fed. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Is the club justified? Absolutely as they own and are the club. Nope. Because we're a club that believes in ethics and values and sound judgment. And we teach young men and women that all choices, even those of "owners" - be they bank owners or business owners or club owners - should be thoughtfully evaluated on those grounds. Choices based primarily on prejudice don't pass that test, nor do choices that are inconsistent with our mission and values. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Too many people think there are skilled enough, smart enough, ready enough to do "X". but they are not really ina possition to see themselves objectively. I agree. Which is why da Scoutmaster should be selected carefully by the troop committee and da Chartered Organization, no matter what age they are. But if those other, more objective people decide the best person for the job is a 20-year-old, then that should be OK. True, but they belong to a club. And that club said you must follow these rules to play the game. But that's not da question. The question is whether it is justified for the club to set a particular rule or not. A private club can set a rule discriminating based on various personal features or demographics. Da question is whether or not it should. Many a club has been embarrassed and ashamed of da rules they set that were based on prejudice of that type. So what is consistent with our Mission and our "Timeless Values"? I submit that our entire program in Scouting is based on the belief that young people of all ages can exhibit real leadership, and should be allowed and encouraged to do so. Every document and publication we have, every speech and presentation we give extols the amazing abilities and achievements of young people! Da Oath and Law that we take resists unjust prejudices with every syllable we utter. Our duty to God demands fairness, our duty to country requires equality among adult citizens, the Scout Law rejects prejudice, our duty to others demands we help them use their full talents and our duty to ourselves demands we rise above our own biases. That's how we instill da values of the Oath and Law. If a quiet, introverted young adult Eagle Scout isn't well suited to be an ASM but is a great organizer and support person, what good reason can there possibly be not to put da fellow on the Committee? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The competent adults made back handed deals to get what they wanted, but later backed out of that same deal to get what they wanted. All that suggests to me is that we should be skeptical of da maturity and competence of people over age 21, eh? BSA's rule for 21 years old may be to prevent the folks who bed or break every rule from electing a 18 year oild SM, CC anD CM who would do even worse and dumber stuff that could cause the collapse of a unit or district within a few years. Plus, just as in firefighting, you ever see what happens when an 18 year old tels somebody twice his age what to do? Doesn't matter if it's correct thing to do or not...the older person is is jesitant and resistant to having a young snot nosed pun k telling him what to do. And both of these things would be clear examples of prejudice, eh? There's nothing at all wrong with expecting a firefighter to be an adult (age 18). Nor a Scoutmaster. You were successful as a firefighter and indeed a responsible supervisor before age 21. Why assume the same can't be true for a Scoutmaster? Older folks often serve as employees under younger folks' supervision. If they have a problem with that, that's their problem, eh? If it becomes too big an issue, da younger person should fire their ass. That's not entirely consistent with what your position thus far has been (allowing a 16 year old emancipated minor to be a Scoutmaster, for instance). It's perfectly consistent. An emancipated minor is an adult in the eyes of the law. I, for one, am saying is that the rare occasions where a troop will be best served by an SM under 21 do not outweigh the occasions where a troop is best served by an SM older than 21 This quote above is where I took you to be saying otherwise. If the two are independent, then there's no reason one would "outweigh" the other. In the occasions where a troop is best served by an SM older than 21, they can select a SM older than 21. Along your same train of thought, why do we not allow each individual unit to set its own rank requirements, or uniforming standards, or positions of responsibility? LOL. Now you're really stretching. I suspect you're not really serious about this, eh? Advancement and uniforming are things, not people, and there is a difference. They are national program elements, which belong to the national council by virtue of copyright and trademark law. To protect their copyright and trademark, they have to do certain things. By contrast, Scoutmasters are people, and they don't "belong" to anybody. They are volunteers who work for a Chartered Partner, and da selection of unit leaders is primarily the responsibility of the Chartered Organization, in which the BSA only assists. To put it another way, a school can reasonably set graduation requirements or the dress code for graduation. But it would be unreasonable for a school not to allow a person over 40 (or a woman, or...) to enter the engineering program. Even if a school were allowed to (as they once were allowed to discriminate based on gender or age), it still wouldn't be reasonable. It would be prejudice. No different with da BSA. It can set an age limit, but if that age limit is based primarily or solely on prejudice, it shouldn't. Since we all agree that young adults can and do serve in a wide variety of positions demanding maturity and responsibility successfully, including Scoutmaster, there is no reason other than prejudice to prevent them from doing so. Da argument that Americans are more culturally prejudiced against young people than other countries doesn't count. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I agree with skeptic too. In most of da rest of the world there is a well-respected non-academic educational track in schooling. Not our vocational Ed which tends to be a holding pen for weak students, but a real, rigorous program that attracts bright students who aren't thinkin' in terms of university. But let me come back at yeh, skeptic. What "strictly upheld consequences" would yeh propose for non-supportive families? Are yeh ready to have the state take the children away from such parents? If not that, then what? Beavah