Beavah

Yah, perhaps some definitions of "proof" would also be in order. Generally speakin', it's nearly impossible to "prove" that something caused somethin' else. Especially when yeh don't have the luxury of bein' able to do a few thousand repetitions of somethin' under different circumstances in isolation. So we've established some standards of proof, eh? "Beyond Reasonable Doubt": A strict test. Not beyond doubt, just beyond what a prudent person would consider reasonable doubt. We believe enough in this "proof" to sentence people to death or a life of imprisonment. "Clear and Convincing Evidence": Not the same level as beyond reasonable doubt, but the evidence makes a convincing case. We believe enough in this "proof" to take a child away from his parents. "Preponderance of the Evidence": There is more (or substantially more) evidence on one side than on the other. We believe enough in this level of "proof" to take large sums of money away from one person or corporation and give it to another, even if it results in bankruptcy. Other fields have some other standards, eh? In statistics, they consider 95% likelihood to be clear and convincing. So when we're talkin' about "proof" of climate change, we have to be clear what we're talkin' about. My guess is that at present we have "clear and convincing" evidence of global warming, and a "preponderance of the evidence" that a substantial part of that warming is caused by human activity. Just my estimate, but it seems like it fits what's goin' on. Put a 12-person jury of scientists together and you'd have more than enough to find for the plaintiff, but yeh might perhaps have a single juror holdout in a "beyond reasonable doubt" capital case. We accept standards less than absolute proof because it's necessary in human society to act. Yeh can't wait for absolute proof to put a murderer behind bars, because the risk is too high. Yeh can't wait for absolute proof of child abuse, because the risk is too high. Yeh can't wait for absolute proof of civil liability, because the risk of justice not being done is too high, and then yeh get people takin' justice into their own hands. So a question is, "What would cause you to act in defense of your children and your nation?" My guess for most of us is that our standard of proof for that would be even lower, eh? I reckon we'd choose to act on reasonable suspicion to defend the welfare of our kids. We acted on reasonable suspicion to invade Iraq, eh? In da case of global warmin', I reckon we're talkin' about the welfare of our kids and our nation, eh? I think it's just fine to act based on reasonable suspicion, but I think what da scientific community is tellin' us right now is that they've got the same level of proof that we expect when we take kids away from parents or award judgments that bankrupt companies. It ain't beyond a doubt. Probably isn't beyond reasonable doubt. But it seems like enough to act to me. Beavah

Interestin'. All kinds of reasons, eh? If the kids were doin' what kids often do and snuggling down inside their sleeping bags (breathing into the bag) but you weren't, that would make the difference. The boys' sleeping bags would be damper than yours, but your tent would have more condensation. The cold outside air on the tent fly is what causes the moisture in the tent to condense on the inside of the fly. The moisture in the tent comes from you breathin'/sweatin', and from anything damp that you have near your body heat to turn into vapor. You can't help your breathin'; you can help the rest by not sweating (adjust layers and bag so you don't overheat) and not tryin' to dry out too much stuff in your bag. Mostly, though, yeh have to deal with it by letting the moist air out, and keepin' the temperature inside the tent close to the temperature outside the tent. That means ventilate! That fly in the picture really goes all the way down to the ground, so if you're rigged for a storm you've got no ventilation. The boys' tent fly leaves a big gap at the end which allows a lot more ventilation (but will make it a lot damper in a storm!). Open up the vestibule doors some, either from the top or bottom. Pitch at an angle to the wind so you get some cross-flow of breeze without being annoyin'. Or, if you really don't tend to be out in wind-driven rain, trade the tent in for one with a less secure fly. Beavah

Yah, the buck stops here. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, eh? I think we're all personally responsible for our own choices and actions. I think that's the right thing to be, and the right thing to teach. So I'm not much of a buck passer. The reality is it's my choice. If I'm choosin' to enforce something, then I'm making that choice. And I should have the courage to stick by my choice and not blame someone else for it. This is da rule, and I'm choosing to enforce the rule, and I'm doin' it because that's the most responsible thing to do. But that's my choice, and I am responsible for that decision, and you can blame me. "I'm only following orders" is the excuse of the corrupt and the coward. And when it comes time to prosecute, it doesn't hold water. We are responsible for our choices. I listened to an older scout a couple of months ago talkin' to a younger scout. The younger scout was complainin' about some decision of the Scoutmaster, and why the older boys would go along with it. The older lad didn't pass the buck. He stepped up and said "I go along with it because Mr. Scoutmaster does a lot for us, and has earned my respect. I support him even if I disagree. That's what allows us to do cool trips, we support each other." Yah, that to my mind is real character, eh? Don't pass the buck. Take responsibility for your choices. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm havin' some trouble findin' da specs on that tent, Mafaking. Old model yeh bought on Ebay? Some old model tents didn't have da factory taped seams, eh? Did yeh seal the seams or at least look to see if they were factory taped? Lots of tent floor seams need to be sealed even if the factory taped the fly. Temps, location, humidity, whether yeh had vents open, etc. would all help us diagnose. I suspect that the tent has less volume than the boys' tent, and that you have more volume . It's that volume to volume ratio that matters. If you're in the real cold, it's hard to avoid condensation in a tent. I prefer flies, bivvys or snow shelters for winter campin'. Beavah

Let's see, I have no political party just Science. Yah, Science is a reputable journal, eh? Official journal of da American Association for the Advancement of Science. Possibly the preeminent scientific publication in the world. Seems like there's quite a body of literature in Science which supports the notion of climate change. Perhaps you'd be good enough to point to a research article there which provides evidence to falsify the theory? I wonder, though... do yeh even subscribe? Beavah

Aw, shucks. I thought there was goin' to be news, and here it's just da usual suspects revivin' da thread that will never die.... B

Yah, again, da consensus science is that da Boy Scouts is a good program for kids, and does a lot of decent things for communities nationwide. But if you're Merlyn and comin' at it from that angle, you can cite a number of articles to the contrary, claim that we're lawbreakers, talk about the manipulation of our policies with respect to government entities, claim loudly that you're not fringe, point to a few scouters like GAHillBilly who are skeptical of the consensus on the value of scouting or others that don't like da membership policy. Yeh can join Kudu in hollerin' about how modern scoutin' doesn't fit historical evidence or pick out individual quotes from here or there or individual cases that show misinterpretation. Even a few cases like child-molestin' scout leaders and claim that the "consensus" folks are just a bunch of frauds and villains. And then from all that conclude that Scouting is a farce and not worth a plug nickel. Unless you're Mentally Awake, recognize the limits of reporters and the agendas of different groups, put 'em in context, and then strongly weight the fact that there are few million kids, parents, and adult leaders who feel differently, and that consensus of real experts in the scouting field is probably worth a lot more than outsiders with agendas. But I reckon I'll never convince Merlyn or Kudu of that, eh? And I reckon I won't convince partisans of other sorts either. Beavah

Yah, that was funny, eh? Can yeh tell us a bit more about what you're goin' to be doing at camp, cclman? And where in the nation you happen to be? Winter campin' in Puerto Rico is goin' to be different than winter campin' in Barrow, AK. B

Yah, as always, there's no issue with being "on your own" for insurance, litigation or all that, eh? Anybody who hauls out that old tripe is just not being honest with you. The issue is whether yeh can do the activity safely and whether it's age-appropriate for your scouts or venturers. I'm not sanguine about anything that has enough energy to launch a projectile. Seen plenty a lashed catapult that were very dangerous and really inappropriate for younger lads. Often more dangerous than havin' a venturing crew servicing a piece of field artillery, as Stosh describes. If it's got enough energy stored in it to launch a projectile, it's got enough energy to hurt a kid, and a lashed-together thing is more likely to fail. So be smart, eh? Read through the Sweet 16 safety checklist in your G2SS and think about whether yeh can make each point work for your kids and your adults and your unit, whether it's spud guns or catapults. I'd personally say yeh don't want to be usin' spud guns at a cub event. The lads are too small and the things are too finicky. Older scouts and venturers if anything. Beavah

In the last lengthy thread on this topic the anti-AGW team in the debate produced a ton of documentation (ie-article citatations and the like), whereas the pro-AGW team told us the evidence was there but did not put out a lot of references. Yah, curious. Are people really bamboozled by that sort of thing? Shout louder and cite a list of obscure references? It ain't hard to find the mainstream view if yeh try, eh? Isn't it the job of a citizen and scouter to stay mentally awake and informed? If yeh really want to understand Scouting, don't listen to the people who are emotionally opposed to Scouting or tryin' to advance a political agenda like Scouting for All, eh? And don't listen to the media reports, especially not media that are only presentin' one political view, where scouting is goin' to show up in a bad or awkward light. If yeh do listen only to that kind of source, you'd believe that Scouting was a hotbed of child abuse and illegal discrimination, punctuated by burning down a forest, bullying, and kids gettin' killed. I can cite dozens of articles and such (Merlyn probably has ). If yeh want to know what scoutin' is really like, you need to be more discriminatin' in your sources, less emotional, and less connected to a political agenda. Yeh need to read the other side, and listen to real, live, scouts and scouters. Same with climate change or any other field where yeh have to stay Mentally Awake. Here's just a few organizations of professional scientists who have policy statements and related papers readily available for anyone who is interested: The National Academy of Sciences The American Meteorological Society American Geophysical Union American Association for the Advancement of Science Findin' the consensus view in the literature isn't hard, since almost every published piece of scientific research has been in agreement with the notion of human climate forcing. Just go to Google Scholar and search "global warming". I find about 26,000 articles for the last couple years. It's hard to pick from that large a pool to offer citations, eh? Just like it's hard to pick from the huge number of small town articles describing boys earning Eagle, boys doing service projects, boys saving lives because of Scouting. That's da difference between a consensus opinion and a political fringe argument, eh? Da consensus opinion of scouting has thousands of citations, but none of 'em has the "punch" as the political argument citing that one juicy child molester case in Idaho, or the rantings of the atheist parent who is offended and filing lawsuits. Same with any field, eh? Like global warmin' science. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, not sure we really needed another one of these threads, eh? It is amusin' when the media bungles the reporting on science and then blames the scientists. But depressing when folks don't exercise a little skepticism on both sides.. B

A reasonable statement except we in Illinois are stuck with these things because fish farms and water treatment districts in the south imported them Yah, this is da real issue, eh? There should be much, much, much tighter and stricter regulation on importing and holding live critters like this. With some criminal and civil penalties attached that have real teeth. B

Beavah - Oh, yah, and da original SCOTUS ruling went against Illinois. Please enlighten us. "The plaintiffs are entitled to have the diversions stopped by injunction, to be so framed as to accord a reasonable time within which the Sanitary District may provide other means for sewage disposal... until the sewage shall be entirely disposed of thereby, whereupon the injunction shall become final and complete" - Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 368-369. B

Not a great message, CNY, I agree. I've worked in and with councils that do the EBOR thing both ways, eh? As district/council boards or as troop boards with a district rep. There are pluses and minuses to each, but I have to say that I prefer the troop level EBORs. It avoids a lot of da confusion that the districts generate and it makes things consistent for the lad comin' up for the BOR. He's not goin' to see something very different than he saw for his Life BOR, leastways not if the district rep. behaves properly . Plus I think da folks who have worked with a lad for 3-7 years should be the ones who get to see the result, eh? EBORs are special things. In most cases, they're the reward for the efforts of those unit volunteers and members of da CO. And those folks deserve that reward of hearin' from a young man what their scouting program did for him. Beavah

Yah, acco, I might not have been being as clear as I could, eh? I don't have much of an issue with a unit wanting to teach proper dress and comportment as part of T-2-1 BORs and such within their unit. I think that sometimes gets a bit over-the-top, too, but it's the unit's call. When we're talkin' EBORs, especially ones at da district level like what CNY describes, we're past the point of teachin' that simplistic stuff, eh? We're tryin' to teach and demonstrate other values. Courteous people don't comment on others' attire, and mentally awake people don't judge based on appearance. Besides, yeh run into too many differences-between-units issues anyways. These days, da culture of businesses is just different, eh? Google isn't goin' to care as much how you're dressed, they're goin' to care what you are able to do. And a bright, high achieving lad is goin' to walk out of an interview where old fuddies got upset about his lack of a tie and take his talents down the street to a company that demonstrates better values. Unlike scoutin' advancement, it's more of a performance-based culture out here now. At least in the businesses that aren't goin' broke. Beavah

Neighboring Great Lakes states and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which constructed the Canal, are codefendants in the lawsuit. Huh? I think that got all muddled up. Complaintants are the State of Michigan, the State of New York, and the State of Wisconsin together with the States of Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Defendants are the State of Illinois and the Chicago Sanitation District. The United States (Obama administration) are intervenors on behalf of the State of Illinois, but the U.S. is also an indirect party to the suit because of the Corps of Engineers operations. Oh, yah, and da original SCOTUS ruling went against Illinois. Yeh can't build a big project that drains your neighboring states' pond. The subsequent cases have all been supplemental decrees to the original 80-year-old finding. Michigan's AG writes a bit like a politician, eh? Cox has a kind of lame common law public nuisance argument in his filing too; whatever staff member wrote that should be fired. They were clearly rushin' this thing. Still, da case has legs, since da original case was decided against Illinois and it's fairly clear that but for that illicit act the risk of Asian Carp infestation would not be present. It's a really interestin' and quite unusual case. There are probably enough jurisdictional outs for the court to take if they follow their recent pattern of dodging substantive issues, but there's enough here that they might surprise us. I wonder if we have any Sea Scout Ships with boats in the Chicago River that might get cut off from da lake? B

As for expectations, I sure hope that someone who has spent a minimum of 18 months, or however long it is now, in the BSA and going for his Eagle would have a complete uniform, or at the very least an attmpt at a complete uniform. Yah, we can't forget about da Venturers, eh? It's entirely possible that an Eagle candidate last wore khaki over olive four years ago when he transferred from a troop into a crew as a First Class Scout. Since uniforming isn't a method in Venturing, it may be that he owns green-over-charcoal, it may be that he owns a uniform his crew selected (might well be a T-shirt), or nuthin' much, eh? So it just gets a bit silly when da adults get all in a knot over what da lad is wearing. In some ways, if they won't let him in without his ODLRs he should just hand 'em transfer paperwork to a local crew and proceed to the EBOR in his civvies. Or in da crew's tie-died T-shirt. EBORs should focus on the boy, not the pants. To my mind, we're bein' lousy examples to the lads when we get all hyper about this stuff. Teaches 'em that those in charge should behave like officious bureaucrats, rather than like humble servant-leaders. So to my mind, an ideal EBOR member will dress in full uniform or professional civvies, and then demonstrate to the lad the values and character that such dress should embody. Beavah

Yah, GAH is sadly right on this score. Our reputation among most of the land management agencies is not a good one. It is particularly poor among the federal land managers in the western states (which have a higher number of federal lands). Our reputation among other wild lands users is also not that great, eh? Leastways, it's not uncommon to see critical comments directed at Boy Scouting in forums and magazines that serve other outdoor recreational communities that one would expect would otherwise be friendly to scouting. The reasons are complex, eh? I'd suggest these as being the major issues, in order: 1) Lack of LNT practice. We are almost universally considered "bad users" by the land managers for our lack of commitment to LNT practice. This is particularly da case out west, where there have been a lot of bad incidents includin' destroying or defacing national landmarks or important sites. But it also applies in da east, where folks find a lot of axe/hatchet/knife tree damage, poor fire practice, and just plain "wear and tear" after we camp. 2) Lack of skill and preparation. In some of the outdoor communities (paddlers comes to mind), there have been a lot of incidents of other recreational users needing to assist or rescue boy scout units that got in over their head. Our reputation is that we are ill-prepared for da situations we take kids into, and that we rely on or impose on others as a result. 3) Too many kids acting like kids. When yeh put a bunch of youngsters together they're just going to be loud, eh? They're going to run around and shout, they're goin' to climb on things. Whether it's hikin' a trail or sharing a camping area, if da other recreational users are older folks looking for a peaceful, quiet wilderness experience our presence is goin' to ruin that for them. I reckon in some ways this is a LNT issue too... courtesy to other visitors, group size, trail etiquette, etc. But it's also just the nature of kids. We're seein' a lot of regulatory response limiting group size on trails and campsites in a lot of areas. Some land managers will even admit that if they could just ban boy scouts instead of doin' it by making group sizes small, they'd do it. A big part of this of course is that we're a large organization, eh? So our units that behave poorly are remembered and added together, where other folks who behave poorly are just "isolated cases." Reputation is like that, eh? Even if yeh do a lot of good and are good citizens most of the time, your reputation can be spoiled by the few times you are remembered as jerks. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

We've started talkin' about Alien Grey Whales, and now TwoCubDad has lost is mind! B

Yah, lots of information there, CalicoPenn, but not a lot of it seems to agree with the filings or the information that is publicly available. Do yeh have some different sources? Da Figures I'm seeing indicate a $7 billion potential fishing industry loss plus up to a $16 billion recreation loss for Michigan and the affected states, vs. a $1 - $2 billion loss for Illinois. I believe these figures more than yours since da most recent press releases from Illinois are now raisin' the issue of flooding risk to try to bolster their economic claims. And it seems that quite a lot of the to-do is because carp DNA has been found at the pumping stations which are upstream of the electric fences, eh? In other words, the fish have gotten past the fences. As close as I can tell from da filings, there was never any prior science on whether such fences would work on the fish, and the Corps of Engineers admits the fences are not 100% effective. You are also leavin' out that Illinois is responsible for by far the biggest water diversion from the Great Lakes: the Chicago Sanitary and Shipping canal itself. That's actually the basis for the suit, which revives an 80-year old SCOTUS case against Illinois for that canal in which the court found in favor of the plaintiff states and against Illinois. It's also interestin' to me that the Province of Ontario is involved, eh? That raises some other issues in terms of treaty law. We've even got President Obama's people (from Chicago, no less) weighing in on behalf of Illinois, just to up da absurd and political factors, eh? But yeh definitely reinforced my sense that the players in this case behave very much like da global warming debate, eh? Short-term but significant economic loss vs. long-term and devastating potential loss, obfuscating and throwing up doubt about the science on the one hand while overstatin' the science of things they like (like the effectiveness of the fence) without criticism, and the usual back-and-forth about whose economic numbers are right. This Court has so far done its best to come up with ways to dodge hard, politically-tinged questions like this one on procedural or technical grounds, eh? My guess is they're lookin' to do that again here. But my read of the Michigan case is that it's pretty strong; the Court may not be able to dodge this one. That's why you're seein' lots of Illinois politicians now making appeals that it be resolved in Congress or somewhere else, eh? Interesting that Cox is running for governor, Lisabob. This is pretty bold lawyering, and that explains it perhaps. I take it that your governor is also on board, though? Beavah

GAHillBilly's post in the parent thread was a bit inflammatory, but I confess I did find it interestin' in part. I think it's quite fair to take us to task for hypin' adventure and sometimes not deliverin', or takin' us to task if bullying is going on in our units. When I look at da troops in my council I don't see anywhere near the percentages GAHillBilly describes. I reckon it's safe to say, though, that there are a fair number of "Badge Mill" programs out there, and there are certainly more and less active outdoor programs. Yeh can find troops where lads make Eagle before high school with 60 merit badges and projects averagin' 50 hours, and others where lads make Eagle at age 17 with 25 merit badges and projects averagin' 400-500 hours. There are troops that run car campin' trips only in the good weather months, troops that shut down in the summer, and troops that run year-round includin' 2 weeks of camp and 2 or more high adventure treks a year. And yah, if I'm honest about it, there is a correlation between da girth of the leaders and the level of activity and adventure in the program, and it's a negative one. None of this variation bothers me in particular, eh? Different troops with different approaches serve different kids. I enjoy EBORs with all the lads, even recognizing that the outcomes in terms of learning and character aren't the same for different programs. And I reckon that less experienced or fit scouters running less aggressive programs is one of da ways we keep things safe, eh? Better than inexperienced and unfit folks running aggressive programs! Those adults are still giving the time and energy they have to the scouts, and the scouts will benefit from that. Now I do have my preferences, as we all do. I like to see lads really learn skills, and I like to see advancement used well enough to be meaningful, and I like to see an active, youth-run program year-round. Like to see reasonable and fun uniformin', too, though that may be a lost cause all around . What are you seein' in your area? Is there some truth to GAHillBilly's rather pointed critique? Some truth to the level of bullying which he and Lisabob and others have described? If yeh had a parent like him, could you point him to a troop in your area (other than your own), which would meet his expectations for rigor and adventure? Beavah

Yah, I can't vote on my own message I wasn't followin' the gays thread, but in just skimmin' through the tail end I couldn't even figure it out. It was a bit odd. I was participatin' in the Global Warming thread. That was doin' what those things always seem to do these days, become a partisan shouting match. I wasn't bothered by it particularly, and there were still some meaningful exchanges goin' on. I didn't care for da style of the other thread, but I found the substance really interestin'. In some ways there's some truth to it. In other ways it's at least informative to all the rest of us that someone thinks there's some truth to it, eh? I think with a bit of editing and shortening it could have made for an interestin' discussion. Mostly, I'm more fond of moderators doin' some more gentle shepherding through private messages than closing threads. Maybe that was tried first, I wouldn't know. But I'd like to see that tried first. Though I confess Gern's notion of automatically closin' a thread after 10 pages does seem attractive . Beavah

Yah, so here's a new thread for I&P. Maybe I'm just interested in it because it's interestin' law (states sue each other in the Supreme Court relatively infrequently, eh?, and I'm not sure that the Province of Ontario has standing ). What do yeh think of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and New York suing Illinois to force closure of the Chicago shipping canals to prevent the spread of Asian Carp into the Great Lakes? Background: http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-3863-of-asian-carp-and-political-clout.html Recent News: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-durbin-carp-13-jan13,0,7723928.story It kinda has da same feel as the Global Warming debate in some ways. Da folks who will be affected by it economically are poo-pooing the reliability of DNA evidence, and the Chicago Water District has even come out and said "Well, there's no proof that the Asian Carp would actually destroy the fishing industry of the Great Lakes". Even has some BSA tie-ins and LNT-ethics stuff. Beavah

Yah, time for some instant moderator feedback from the community. OGE opted this morning to terminate all of the active threads in the Issues and Politics forum, which I reckon sets a new record for moderator intervention in that area which is supposed to be lightly moderated. Please use the little thumb things on this message to "vote" your opinion. Thumbs Up: I agree with OGE, he was right to kill all the threads. They were gettin' out of hand. Thumbs Down: I disagree with OGE. That was too heavy-handed an intervention, especially for the nature of the I&P forums. Yeh can feel free to elaborate on your vote in replies, but please vote first. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Maybe it was Angry Grey WildEagle this mornin'. I didn't realize he had killed the entire Issues and Politics area. I wasn't followin' the gays thread at all, but it seems to be dead. I always have mixed feelins about da I&P forums. I think they're a really creative way of makin' sure that stuff doesn't spill over onto the regular scouting forums. Sayin' "take it to I&P" is a good way to ask folks to respect the scoutin' area without being too heavy handed. That only works, though, if da moderation is very light over on I&P. Sometimes, though, I think da heat between folks that gets generated over in I&P spills over into their attitudes toward each other on the other forums, and that's not helpful. Still, I reckon OGE needed more coffee this mornin'. B