Beavah

Yah, I think we really needed another thread on the topic. Maybe OGE was afraid da old one was getting long enough to challenge the thread with the woman's son's Eagle appeal drama for "longest thread of all time." And here I always thought that the Issues & Politics thread was to be lightly moderated. Me thinks someone needs to buy OGE his morning cup o'joe before lettin' him use a keyboard. Two I&P thread closures in the space of a few minutes has to be a record, eh? OK, I'll bite. I am opposed to Another Goofy Webelos. We have far too many goofy webelos in our council as it is. However, I do hear that Antelopes are Great Woodbadgers. But it's only a theory, unlike the well established consensus that Beavers are the Best. B

[withdrawn, mistyped response!](This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ayep. That's about as helpful as saying, "Yeah, I'm not sure where that bullet's going, but you needn't worry because sooner or later, if it doesn't hit something, gravity will get it." Amazing insight, that one. Yah, hooray! Somethin' yeh understand. What Dr. Letif is sayin' is the same thing, eh? "Yeah, we can't predict where the next storm is going to hit or how cold it's going to be in Nebraska next year. We can sort of pick up on these longer 20 year cycles. But sooner or later, carbon greenhousing is going to get it." In other words, human forcing is like economic trends, eh? Not like tryin' to predict the weather. Now, I reckon I do understand something about how tenure decisions are made at universities, and a bit about some of the other things you mention. I just recognize that I'm not skilled enough in those disciplines to be able to evaluate climate science research. Neither are you or most people hangin' out here, eh? But since yeh claim to be, I'm all ears. Please explain statistical analysis of data sets for us. No, that's too broad. Let's look back a bit... ah, yes... Please explain Principle Components Analysis, it's relationship to Factor Analysis, and its application and usage in data reduction methodologies. Include in your response the relative merits of various matrix rotations, including the common Varimax technique. Cite several studies which you feel used these analysis tools properly, and then contrast those with what you feel the errors to be in the application of the tool to climate research. Be sure to include effect size estimates of the magnitude changes your critique would suggest. It's a bit like da market stuff, eh? Real understanding takes a lot of work and effort in any field. Just grabbin' quotes and sound bites which agree with your position and pretending to understand is a lot easier. Beavah

Yah, as I've said, I don't know enough to comment about da science, eh? Neither do most of you. I do recognize the way people act during disputes, and when arguments are spurious or being driven by emotion. So we have in just the last two pages a call to pay attention to Dr. Letif!!! He's a respected scientist!! Look what he says!!!! And then Dr. Letif says unequivocally that the evidence for AGW is sound and the conclusion that humans are forcing climatic changes is firm science. So now it's don't listen to Dr. Letif!! The AGW people have gotten to him!! Look at these old out-of-context quotes of his instead of listening to what he just said!! It's funny, eh? It's da nature of partisan advocacy argumentation at its most egregious. But most people with a brain who are older than teenagers can't take that sort of thing seriously, eh? And I reckon that even teenagers know when they're doin' it and are a bit chagrined when called on it. Beavah P.S. I love da little thumbs-down thing. Yeh all should be sure to hit the thumbs-down on this post a whole bunch. That will make your argument stronger. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think it's important to remember that in their role as Board of Review members for the Eagle rank, adults are either serving as representatives of the community, or as district officials. If the former, they should dress as representatives of the community at a reasonably formal occasion. I don't think white tie is necessary, but at least business casual. If the latter, then they should dress as district officials in uniform. I'm a firm believer that the adults should meet the same expectations as the lads, at least. So if they'd accept a lad who just came from a service project in dirty jeans, then it's OK if they just came from a service project in dirty jeans and vice versa. If they're insisting that a lad be in the full field uniform, then they should be in the full field uniform or business attire. Of course if they're doin' the EBOR in the field, then whatever makes sense . All that having been said, it is of course not the boy's place to comment. If the boss does somethin' yeh disagree with, yeh just live with it because he's the boss. In this case, the BOR is the boss. But I reckon it's just fine if you as an adult leader drop the DAC a polite query about whether they meant to come across the way they did to the boys. As for EBORs that get their underwear all in a knot about the boy's uniform, I wish they'd get a grip on themselves. The uniform is just a method, and by the time a lad is comin' up for Eagle it's either worked or it hasn't. Spend your time listening to the kid talk about his adventures and his values and what he's learned, not what he's wearin'. You'll all enjoy it a lot more and learn a lot more. Beavah

Did you even notice that the link was to a BRITISH paper?? Yah, the Daily Mail is a British right-of-center news outlet, eh? It's bein' quoted in the American neo-con blogs to make a neo-con argument. That's da sort of selective, echo-chamber news filtering and slant that I'm talkin' about. Makes everything unbalanced and shrill. Isn't "mentally awake" IMO. So now here is Dr. Latif's real statement on global warming, as opposed to the slanted one reported in the conservative echo chamber (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif). Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change. He told the Guardian: "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming." He added: "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases." Beavah (which is spelled with an "ah", though da HillBillys often get it wrong because they talk funny )

Yah, Oak Tree is closest, eh? Different publications are "owned" by different divisions at headquarters. Some input and decisions on program changes come from focus groups and volunteer committees. Some get decided in-house. When yeh get down to specific text, that could be drafted by anybody from an exec to a volunteer to a secretary to a contractor to a copy editor. Might get approved somewhere, might just get put in. Where the stuff gets really weird is when it's stuff that crosses program divisions, eh? When stuff stays within a program division, the continuity editing is likely to be better, with only one group responsible for it and contributing to it. If it crosses program divisions, that means there's likely to be some loss of coherence as different folks contribute pieces and the thing jogs hither and thither. G2SS, Insignia Guide, ACP&P and such are documents that cross program areas. They're more like compilations than they are like separately crafted policy documents, so the editin' and review isn't always the best. Stuff in those compilations can come from all sorts of different places, with all kinds of different levels of vetting ranging from "none" to "lots." Another spot you're sure to see editing errors is between program and Supply Division. The CSE did a major re-organization at HQ when he came in as well, which in some cases shook up which folks were responsible for which documents, so that's added some more shuffle and kerfuffle. So to answer Scoutfish, nah, it's nuthin' like a representative government in the way you describe. The BSA is a resource provider, not a policy-making body. The program resources are put together by program resource people who are hired or recruited for that purpose. When it comes to big self-governance kind of corporate policies, like whether we admit girls to the elementary school programs, those get decided by the national executive board, which gets nominated and elected at the national meeting, by members-at-large and council representatives. Beavah

When you are performing your duties as an CA, you are expected to follow the G2SS. While I believe the BSA accident insurance will cover it, the liability will not. You will be completely on you own if a negligence lawsuit is brought up. Yah, once again, please do not repeat this false statement to others. The BSA's General Liability coverage is independent of its internal documents like the G2SS, and we do not leave our volunteers "completely on their own." We provide insurance for CO's and registered leaders to protect them even when they make bad choices and mistakes. Lying or giving false information to people about the terms of the general liability coverage does a disservice to Scouting volunteers everywhere. It harms our relationships with Chartered Organizations and harms our ability to recruit adults as leaders. The reasons to pay heed to the G2SS are because we care about kids and we want to do the best we can reasonably do to keep the lads (and young ladies) safe during our activities, not because of fear for loss of our insurance umbrella. Your auto insurance still applies if you run a red light or miss a stop sign or don't maintain clear distance and rear end another vehicle on an icy road. Similarly, general liability coverage still applies even if yeh break the law (like the camp in Utah that permitted fires during a burn ban) or fail to follow one of the internal guidelines of the BSA. As to ski helmets, I reckon that in some areas they're still hard to find in enough quantities for a scout event, eh? Especially ones in good repair and properly sized. Do the best yeh can, be a good example, and do your best to be safe and have fun. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, JoeBob and GAHillBilly, don't yeh get tired of the neocon echo chamber? You'd be more credible if yeh occasionally read something from outside the propaganda press. At least that way yeh wouldn't be jawing on about "spending trillions" and other such silliness. As to a bet, we are all making a bet, eh? Nothing is ever "proven" or assured, so every time we make a decision we are makin' a bet of sorts. Not buying auto insurance is a bet of your family's financial future against your risk of having an auto accident. Not taking steps to secure our reduced-carbon energy independence is a bet of the nation and our children's welfare and liberty against the possibility that we can continue for the next 50 years the way we have for the last 50 years without consequences. Me personally, as a conservative, I believe in payin' our real costs in order to secure our future. That's a set of timeless values that the neocons have largely abandoned. And I'm proud that the BSA is finally teachin' Leave No Trace ethics, even if we're doin' it halfheartedly. Can't see anything at all wrong with "Plan Ahead and Prepare", or "Be Courteous to Other Visitors", or "Be Careful with Fire." Gotta admit that I don't think too highly of Scouters who can't bring themselves to demonstrate and teach such values to their kids. I'm not too fond of government intrudin' into the lives of private individuals or tryin' to solve all social ills. Governments are lousy at that, eh? But I reckon that providing for the common defense, includin' being prepared for natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes, is somethin' that I expect government to be able to do and do well. Don't mind payin' taxes for my local fire and police protection, and don't mind a lick payin' taxes to support bein' prepared for bigger disasters. Wish somebody had listened to those pesky scientists and engineers before Katrina. But too many were willin' to bet the future rather than buy insurance. No need to have experienced leadership. No need to spend all those taxpayer dollars to shore up dikes. No need to "Plan Ahead and Prepare". It's the Bailout mentality. Never buy insurance today for what you can get the public to bail out tomorrow. It's very temptin' to the foolish, I suppose. But it sure ain't conservative. Beavah

I have based my criticisms on the merits of the science. My major concern is the damage that AGW us doing to science and scinetists. Research is now my career having left medicine. So from a personal and societal standpoint, it is important to me that science and scientists are viewed in a positive light with trust in our work. Ah, I understand. I can agree with that. I think it's always our job to police our own first. A bit like removin' motes from our own communities before criticizin' another. I tend to be very critical of those in communities I belong to who have behaved poorly, so I understand and appreciate your sentiment. At the same time, I tend to be less critical of communities I don't belong to, because I don't understand 'em as well. I just hope that the "consensus" of lots of people is enough to shake things out. That's why I like democracies around the world a lot more than da other sort. There's a good chance that in a democracy the majority will work out a reasonable position, even if I don't understand how. So as an external observer to this dispute, I wish yeh the best as yeh police your own community. But I don't think the rest of us uninformed external observers have the right or responsibility to do that kind of critique. We just don't understand enough, eh? And from where I sit, the large majority of the critics fall into that category. Uninformed folks from outside da field who are pushin' an agenda for political or personal gain. Beavah

Yah, I'm with Blancmage, eh? This is just fine, and a great service opportunity. It will also help some of your girls and families develop greater understanding and compassion for those who are truly down on their luck. There but for the grace of God go all of us... Beavah

However, I gather the causes are too complex for anyone to be sure why it really happened -- otherwise more than one or two would have 'seen it coming'. I think a lot of folks saw it coming, eh? Buffet called the things "financial weapons of mass destruction" way back in 2004. Lots of good folks were talkin' about it way before that. They were all just called chicken littles. Real conservatives get ignored when da cash is flowin' freely and everything seems fine. Doesn't take much knowledge of history to know that when yeh remove all of the regulation against greed, and then indemnify bankers from any personal responsibility, and then dump liquidity into the system to really encourage people to go chasin' after fast cash that you'll get a crash. I made 40% in the market in 2008 just doin' my usual conservative thing. That's not just "things go up, things go down" or whatever vol said. Timing when things go up or go down is hard. But knowin' that the average is goin' to get pushed one way or the other in the medium to longer term isn't as challenging. Also, if there was a clearly identifiable cause and effect chain, one party or the other would have been all over it. They haven't been, and although the Democrats blame the collapse on GWB, I have never seen them associate that blame with an explanation. This too suggests to me that either (a) they aren't sure why it happened either, or (b) they do know, but it's as much on them as on the Republicans. (B). Remember, while Phil Gramm led the charge, Clinton & Gore signed off on the deregulation. I don't honestly think GWB had anything to do with it in a direct way. Just that he tended to appoint folks who either didn't take their jobs seriously or weren't qualified to do 'em. I suppose borrow-and-spend warfare and oil speculation did odd things to the bond markets and contributed to the thing. Nah, the real issue at its core is bad business ethics by a lot of greedy people. But when people fail ethically or are tempted to do so, yeh want there to be regulation and consequences. Both of those were removed. Second cause was the Federal Reserve chasin' the trend and tryin' to be political. Yeh don't want the central bank and the comptroller of the currency to be buyin' the bankers' kool-aid. As GaHillBilly said, this does not mean that the models are definitely wrong but it means that it cannot be concluded that they are correct either. Now I may not be understandin', vol, but I thought science was like most things, eh? Yeh can't conclude that anything is ever "correct." You can only falsify what is wrong. When you choose to act on a theory that has some evidence behind it depends on your belief in the quality of the evidence, what your level of risk tolerance is, and what yeh stand to gain by waiting. I hear yeh making claims about the quality of the evidence. I really don't have the expertise to evaluate those. I doubt most folks on this forum do either, since the few terms I do know and understand seem to be misused. I can accept that the science is hard and the amount of good evidence we have is limited and even that some in the field disagree. I'm more a student of people in disputes, eh? And what rubs me wrong here is that this whole line sure feels to me like it's not about the evidence but about the human factors I mention - level of risk tolerance and what some people stand to gain by waiting. Feels like folks tryin' to assemble a litany of obscure reasons to object to somethin' rather than really being objective. To ridicule science and scientists for reasons of personal agenda. I'm not hearin' a lot of folks with real expertise raise anything more than the usual professional cautions about the limits of a study. What I'm hearin' is mostly folks who started by taking one side in the dispute lookin' for evidence to justify their bias by overblowing weaknesses of individual studies. I know that everyone, including scientists, overestimate the precision of their conclusions. I could be all wrong about the science. But I'm not usually very far off in recognizin' how people behave during disputes. So I'll stay where I am in the conservative camp, if it's all the same to you. The risks are high enough that I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance of the evidence as viewed by the experts in the field is enough for me. Besides, like I said, the policy decision comes out in favor of carbon and oil taxes for other reasons like national and economic security. So there's no downside to sayin' that doing the right thing also may help ameliorate climate change. I'm happy to have those liberal fellas vote the right way on a national security issue . Beavah

Eagle732, there's nuthin' wrong with members commenting or offering advice on the forum, eh? It's true I get a bit worried when folks in da forums fuel the fire of a dispute. As someone who's spent a lot of time tryin' to help units through issues I generally believe that pouring water on a burning building and calming things down is better than addin' fuel and heatin' people up. Just seems more helpful and prudent to me. But it's OK. What I reckon is inappropriate is for folks with various positions to engage in direct assistance and advocacy for a boy that they don't know in a council they're not a part of and a situation they can't possibly be really familiar with just because they need to scratch a personal itch. If you're a manager for one division of a company, it's really not OK for you to step in and help an employee file a grievance against a manager of a different division 5 states away, eh? You have your own division to run, and your own channels to offer input to headquarters. Yeh don't get mixed up in somebody else's business or disputes. Just inappropriate/discourteous/disloyal or somesuch. Also not really helpful, since yeh don't have a real understanding of the situation or the people involved. Heck, yeh don't even know a thing about that division of the company! Scoutin' isn't about zealous advocacy by outside folks, like a bunch of wannabe attorneys. It's about mentoring kids. The folks who are in a position to do that are those that know the boy and his family and the unit and all the rest. Just my feelin'. Now I reckon there's nothin' wrong with continuing to post just so that we can see if this thread will make it to 35 pages and time out our browsers while we're waitin' for it to load . Beavah

Yah, I'm with yeh, Eagle92. There's nothing better for the program than a man of age 18-23 who has come up through the ranks. We're never goin' to get any adult who comes in to complete 7 years of training! Havin' watched it over the years in organizations and in laws and policies, I think that as the U.S. population has gotten older and older on average, there's gotten to be more and more prejudice against youth. I think it's a profound shame. Young folks are our best resources, both in Scouting and in other things. They should be treated like the valued colleagues and fellow citizens that they are. Beavah

Yah, vol, I appreciate the problems. Like most of the folks here, I just don't have enough experience or knowledge of this branch of science to be able to say much, eh? All I know is that what the science is sayin' matches my experience. The snow lines are further north, the glaciers I remember as a lad out west are much smaller, forests I loved are now experiencin' blights from warm-weather insects that never used to be able to survive a winter. I don't buy the argument that because it's hard to predict short term weather yeh can't predict longer trends. That's just not the way it works in most things, eh? It's very hard to predict markets in the short term, but in the longer term they're driven by underlyin' economics. It's very hard to predict what cases will be filed this week in court, but it isn't too hard to make good guesses at longer-term averages or what a change in law will do to those averages. Can't speak to the rest though. I do think cap and trade is a stupid risk, eh? It's just goin' to create another leveraged gamblin' market with no collateral. Be better if we just did the straightforward thing and taxed fossil fuels. Use the revenue to invest in nuclear, to pay for our troops, to encourage research and secure our financial and energy future. Payin' for things I reckon is just too old fashioned for modern folks. Here I was thinkin' it was that Barney wierdo fro Massasneezit and dumb Dodd from Conneticant that forced da banks and dose Mae-girls to loan all dat money to people who couldn't pay it back And you would be wrong in thinking that, eh? That's a really good example of a partisan political lobby sellin' cow pies in the hopes that some sucker will buy the story that they're really chocolate. The cause of the bankin' collapse was deregulated gambling with other people's money, using highly leveraged derivatives on dishonestly packaged tranched and bundled bond instruments. It's kinda like this. A guy borrows a thousand dollars from you to make a decent wager on a bet that pays off 90% of the time. Then yeh loan another fellow $50,000 to make a bet that the first guy will win his bet. Now, when the first fellow (the subprime mortgage holder) loses his bet, you could say he was "responsible" for your loss of $51,000, eh? In a way he was. But the reason that you're broke was not the $1000 loan. It was the unregulated, highly leveraged $50,000 loan to the second guy who had no real collateral. The directives to Fannie and Freddie may or may not have been reasonable public policy. But absent the tranching, packaging, derivatives, and unsecured leveraging the bubble doesn't get as big, and defaults on regular subprimes don't put the banking system at risk. The stuff they were doin' was legally inane and economically insane. I can't speak to global warmin' science, but I can say that yeh have to lay the blame for da financial meltdown at the feet of da Republican led deregulation that the Dems bought into. Can't say whether it was because they were Southern boys, Texas gamblers, or just plain stupid . Can say that they sure weren't conservatives in any way that matters. If yeh believe anything else, that's your right. But you're buyin' cow pies, not chocolate. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Merlyn, I think vol has da right of it here, eh? Not at all surprising not to find a cite, either. Scientists just do what they do, eh? Kinda like lawyers or docs. If yeh want to understand why scientists do what they do, yeh need to look for cites from the sociology of science literature, and no scientists read da stuff . Vol goes overboard with statements like "Political decisions that can destroy the economy of the country..." That's just hyperbolic political tripe, which discredits his more objective position on the science. Steps against global warming amount to little more than an ordinary tax. If yeh want political decisions which can destroy the economy of a country, yeh have to go back to Phil Gramm-style deregulation and the decision to repeal all of the depression-era protections which nearly took out our entire banking system last year. Hilo, cigarette tort cases here in da U.S. are decided by "the preponderance of the evidence" not by "beyond reasonable doubt". Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal conviction. But I think yeh all do protest too much, eh? Science is messy business and climate models are hard, but I reckon a lot of smart people are giving us their best shot. Da rate of warming that hilo reports, and da rate of warming that I've seen myself, and the smart people who are workin' on this all seem to agree that we're lookin' at a pretty big risk. Some folks are gamblers, and are willing to take big risks with their own future or their kids' futures in order to make money now. Me, I'm a more traditional and conservative fellow. I don't think that kind of risk taking is at all smart, and I really start to cringe when people start making fun of those sounding the warnings that they don't understand. Heard the same stuff from the bankers before the meltdown. "Oh, the risk is overblown. Oh, we can't compete with foreign banks if we don't take big risks. Oh, it's based on old data. Oh, the smart people are so silly playing chicken little." Fossil fuel use is bad for our national security, bad for our environment, terrible for our long-term economic security, and at least potentially bad for the climate (which in turn is horrible for our long-term economic security). With that kind of thing, true conservatives line up in support of making sacrifices and doin' what we have to do to protect the nation and the world for our kids and grand-kids. It's only fakers and fools who believe we can borrow-and-spend our way to prosperity because we're too fat and lazy to make sacrifices now. And on this issue, da real fakers and fools are linin' up against global warmin'. Beavah

And if it's not a sham it's still inappropriate for scouters from several states away to insert themselves into the process, and they still should feel chagrined for doin' so. Especially scouters who hold silver or yellow-tabbed positions who should know better. Beavah

I also know by name another member of the forums that also assisted her in critiquing and editing Justins appeal to National. Yah, let me just say that it starts to get just a bit ridiculous when out-of-council people start helpin' lads and situations they don't know because they've become internet pen pals. Next we'll have forum members critiquing and editing boys' Eagle project writeups or merit badge presentations. An appeal should be written by and reflect da character, judgment, and point of view of those who are a party to the action. That's part of how folks hearin' the appeal make an informed decision, by understanding how those involved view and present their position. It shouldn't be somethin' where district officials or yellow-tabbers from 5 states away start crafting language and coaching litigants in what to say on the stand. Shame on yeh both for doin' that. Mdsummer's council has a lot of good people and fine scouters in it. If her son needed/merited help and support it was available without the two of you castin' aspersions on the decisions of fellow scouters from afar. Serve yeh right if the whole thing was a sham. Beavah

Yah, I think da answer in all these cases is clear, eh? At the point when the behavior of a boy is causing other boys to leave scouting, it's time to fish or cut bait. I'm with Eagledad. This is a problem that the lads could have dealt with youth-to-youth on the PLC, but now it's a problem that the adults created and have ownership of. So the boys are doin' their job properly - they're pushing the adults to man up and deal with the issue. Every troop needs someone who can be "the heavy." If yeh don't have any adults who can manage that, or who are a strong enough example of principled stances that the boys can follow their example, then inevitably yeh have bullies. Where do yeh go from here? If your son and his friends want to push it, they go to the committee as a group and say "It's them or us." Here are the resignations of the whole rest of the PLC that we will be forwarding to the CO and the district, detailing the reasons and your lack of action as adults. Yeh lose 2 boys or you lose 10 and have to deal with the CO and district. Facing 'em with a choice between two conflicts is often the only way to get the adults who conflict-avoid-at-all-costs to actually act, and even that doesn't work most of the time. Otherwise, yeh need to find a man or woman of principle somewhere in your unit (or import one in the person of a Commish or COR/IH). The kids have done their part to set it up, now yeh need some adult with some gumption to see it through. If it's the SM, he/she might see it through just workin' with the boys on the PLC. If it's the CC, he or she might see it through the way Eagledad describes, by puttin' burdens on the parents. If it's the COR/IH, he or she would see it through by being the "heavy" who removed the boys. If it's the UC, he or she might tell the committee that it's their responsibility to deal firmly with bullying and hazing or resign the committee. But yeh need somebody somewhere to take some adult-like responsibility and ownership to match the character the boys are showin'. Beavah

Yah, I'm with some of da others, eh? If you're just startin' a tradition of your own, I'd lean toward including the Eagle award with the other presentations at a troop court of honor. Better yet, make the Eagle Award really special for the young man. Award it in the field! Somewhere meaningful to him. Have the speakers be his friends and patrol mates and da younger scouts he's helped, not adults and "dignitaries". You know... make it like real Scouting. Maybe I'm gettin' old, but the compete-with-the-Joneses, King-for-a-Day, wedding-banquet style Eagle Courts of Honor just rub me more and more the wrong way. Just seems to fall into the "Me Me Me!!" generation thing which Eagle is supposed to represent the exact opposite of. Funniest thing is that sometimes it seems like the kids who do the least (smallest projects, weakest PORs) throw the most lavish galas. With good kids, it often seems like they're a little embarrassed by the hoopla. More often than not, it's their parents drivin' it, not them. I think da troops that keep control of the thing and tailor it toward being scouting-focused and kid-friendly do their Eagles a great service. And on this Silent Night, Holy Night, it's worth rememberin' that the King for All Time came in the quiet, humble outdoors of a manger, not in the Big Party goin' on at the Inn. Merry Christmas to all who celebrate the coming of the Christ! Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, for folks lookin' at tarp options, friends at Scouts Canada use some of the stuff that MEC (the Canadian version of REI) puts out. Some great deals on stuff yeh don't see in the states: http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_listing.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302702975&bmUID=1261623213143

Getting a patrol of 5-6 scouts to cook meals in a backpackers cookset just didn't work out for us. Yah, I'm not surprised! Wrong numbers, eh? Yeh can't feed 6 people with a single burner and a 1-2 person backpacker's pot set. Yeh have to match the capacity yeh had with the table top. Da troops I know that do this well have two stoves per patrol of 6-8, with two of the larger backpacker pot sets (they usually buy 'em individually, though, not as a set). Gets yeh the same capacity, but with lightweight equipment. The patrol can have two burners crankin' out pancakes or spaghetti (twice the number of boys learning how to cook compared to the "big pot/pan" is an added bonus). Or the patrol can have one stove doin' dinner in two rounds while the other one bakes a cake for dessert. CA's right, eh? Yeh also have to teach 'em how to plan and cook. That's part of the fun. But like I said, if you're only doin' car camping, and you're sure your adults will always only be interested in car campin', then what's important is just that each patrol have its own gear to match your camping style. So yeh should get each patrol its own set of car campin' gear. If yeh let the boys choose, then from what I've seen they'll choose the lighter and simpler, more adventurous stuff most of the time. They want to set up, cook fast, and go play! Beavah

Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That) Steven McIntyre (Climate Audit) Dr. Roy Spencer Roger Pielke, Sr. Roger Pielke, Jr. (Jr specializes more in science policy while Sr is a climatologist -- note that Jr isn't a skeptic per se but he is very troubled by the actions of the Mann/Jones/Briffa/Hansen cabal) Warwick Hughes Jeff Id (The Air Vent) and the most recent http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html I don't have da ability to judge the science, eh? But I can recognize when someone is just throwing bogus sources around. These are all partisan blog hackesters and folks with bones to pick, eh? Yah, there's some on the other side, too. But yeh don't win any points by emulating their foolishness. If these are your sources then you're really naught more than a shill for a special interest lobby. Of your long litany of stuff, da only one I can comment on is PCA. Principle Components Analysis and its cousins like factor analysis have been part of regularly accepted statistics for decades. Lots of public policy and even some legal cases have been based on the technique. I know that there will always be folks like Tobacco Company executives tryin' to make the case that there's no "proof" that cigarettes cause cancer. They take a poke at every study, confuse da issue with scientific babble, trot out the couple of researchers who disagree, talk about the "economic devastation" that regulation or a higher tobacco tax will wreak, complain that the studies were based on epidemiological "models" and fancy-sounding statistical techniques, yada yada yada. We all recognize 'em for what they are, eh? And we all recognize da politicians who are in bed with that lobby, and the citizens who get taken in by it just because they don't want to change their smoking habit or because they like makin' money as a tobacco distributor. Yeh all seem to sound a lot like them. Beavah

Yah, I'd ask baschram645 why in da world as a MBC he was accepting ancient documentation from a long-past summer camp, eh? I think everyone's right, as a counselor yeh finish up a lad under the requirements you started him with. No question. If you're pickin' up a lad who started with a different counselor, perhaps some time ago, yeh sit down with him, look at what he says he's done, talk to him and determine what he knows and understands, and then make a plan from there. Sometimes yeh go with da old, sometimes the new. Sometimes yeh accept prior work, sometimes yeh don't. Remember, there's no such thing in da BSA as a "partial" merit badge. As da merit badge counselor who signs that the boy has earned the badge, it's your obligation to make sure that he has met all of the requirements. Beavah

Yah, gotta agree with xlpanel, eh? That's a very poorly written ethical dilemma. Problem is so few of da folks in Irving really understand the internet. "Wild West?" Try "Open Bulletin Board". And it's not like this sort of thing is at all new, eh? High schoolers have been distributing homebrew school newsletters since da dawn of the printing press. Now, I don't have any problem with a school administrator who knows the perpetrators to have a sit down with the lads and their parents, eh? Far better for the matter to be handled by parents and educators tryin' to teach the boys an important life lesson than for da courts to be dealin' with it as a free speech vs. libel issue. But da way it's presented in this article, the ethical dilemma is how to resist a school administrator whose behavior is a bit over the top. There's no need for the boy to lie, eh? He simply says "Yes, I know who posted the site, and no, I won't discuss it with you. And if you persist on questioning every student who visited the site from the school, I'm calling the superintendent and my mom's colleagues on the school board to discuss your unprofessional behavior." Beavah