-
Posts
8173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Everything posted by Beavah
-
IMO, LNT loses credence when it talks about "visual impact". Is there any environmental impact? So does it also lose credence when it talks about auditory impact? Dat loud stereo so that OGE's boys can find camp if they confused, is that OK? Marchin' down da trail or sittin' 'round da campfire at midnight singing at da top of your lungs OK? Courtesy to other visitors comes in a lot of forms. Somethin' like 90% of our fellow citizens who go campin' do so for the solitude, if yeh believe National Park surveys and such. They go into the woods so as NOT to see other people and to get away from crowds. Courtesy to them means respectin' that wish, eh? Leastways to my way of thinkin'. Givin' 'em a chance to take a picture of that meadow that they can save and treasure, without havin' 6 day glo orange tents on the edge. Stoppin' well off the trail in muted tone clothing so that others passing on the trail get to experience solitude, without seeing us or havin' to step over us. If yeh want to "see and be seen" then yeh go to a dinner party or social function, eh? Not da woods. Beavah
-
So, if I understand the Beav correctly...if I robbed a bank and did hard time, the BSA should still approve my application since it was not in a "scouting context"? ???? Not quite sure how that followed, eh? What da funny old furry fellow said was that this was not an issue where reporting to da SE is mandated, and the CO is da one that has to choose whether to fire an existing leader for conduct outside of scoutin'. They're the owner of da unit, they're the ones responsible for da unit leaders' behavior, they're da ones who need to step up if an adult doesn't meet their standards. Some COs will dismiss leaders for gettin' a divorce, eh? Or for leavin' their church. Some might dismiss a leader for bein' arrested at a tea bag protest, while others may not. As far as background checks, I do know several scout leaders with old felony records who were approved after background checks. Don't know about bank robbery, but if a CO recommends a person and it's a non-violent crime long done and debt to society paid, that won't block an application. Leastways, not if the crime was unrelated to youth. Beavah
-
Yah, I don't have a problem with da free soloists. As a group, they're very responsible sorts. Da video of Osman shows him doin' 5.11 stuff, but if memory serves Dan was a pretty solid 5.13 climber (8 grades higher). An eight grade difference is like da difference between anything you've seen your scouts climb and goin' up a ladder or steep set of stairs. Do yeh let your scouts free-solo up a ladder or steep set of stairs? Heck, I bet most of us let our kids free-solo climb trees . Key is knowin' your ability and knowin' da route. There've been cases I know of where Olympic kayakers have been harassed or arrested by authorities trying to put on to flood-stage rivers that they know really well. For those guys, a familiar river at flood stage is just a good practice ground, well within their ability. Ain't the same as Joe and Melinda goin' out in an open canoe with their 5-year-old. B
-
[bumping to see if mdsummer has any new news] Poor Zathras Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Very sad life. Probably have very sad death. But, at least there is symmetry.
-
Yah, packsaddle, but it's a silly straw man, eh? Just like his next message. If he keeps twistin' da words and facts and circumstances around to fit into his neat little preconceived argument while ignorin' everything else, I don't reckon there's much to say, eh? B
-
Yah, I think da lad did a good job. Short cuts are usually never short, eh? But lots of folks take quite a bit of "hands on experience" before they learn that lesson. I don't see hiking alone as being a bad thing. Yeh just have to honestly assess da conditions and your own abilities. Not just for what's anticipated, but what reserve yeh have for what's unanticipated. The lad was well equipped and experienced. A buddy would not have helped, and might have slowed him down. B
-
Segregation "worked" for a long time too, but that's not a sufficient reason to justify governmental support. ??? Nah, it didn't. Didn't serve those families or kids well at all, eh? Left us with a long term tragic legacy that's hard to overcome. Run out of straw yet? Beavah
-
While the version Beavah just posted is the interpretation that most of us came up with during YPT, the trainer and the DE both insisted that our interpretation was wrong and that the SE should be contacted in ALL cases. Yah, I'm goin' to start soundin' like BobWhite, eh? If people would just follow da training syllabus instead of makin' this stuff up... I mentioned to nolesrule offline that there's one question in da online trainin' that seems to be causin' a lot of confusion. It's got a cub scout and da scenario is somethin' like yeh notice bruises and such. Da picture and the text both clearly imply parental abuse at home, but the "answer" says contact both da SE and children's services because it's not clear whether the abuse occurred within scouting or not. Da disconnect between the context and answer causes everybody to miss da explanation and get the wrong idea. They should fix da thing, but they contract out these Flash jobs and really don't have money for revisions. B
-
Beavah, you're assuming the ONLY solution involves governmental support of discrimination, and that such discrimination ought to be allowed at the slightest whim of pretty much anyone. Yeh must live in da farm belt. Lots of straw lyin' around to make men out of. Nope, Merlyn, I'm in favor of what works. Yah, and sure, I'm guessin' that what works is somethin' that respects families and cultures and freedom of association. Just seems a lot more practical than tryin' to convert everybody. B
-
you're still dismissing the rights of those excluded, just like any number of past situations where Jews, or blacks, or Catholics, etc were excluded, but that didn't matter because the Protestant kids were happy. Yah, Merlyn, dat's exactly da problem I have with your approach. You're assumin' that what works for white suburban secularists is goin' to work for everybody else. So you're willing to dismiss the black Baptists, and da Catholics, and the Evangelical Protestants, and the Muslims and the LDS. As long as white suburban secularists are happy, da rest don't matter. Besides, if da rest want any of da share of their tax dollars, all they have to do is convert to da white suburban secularist way of thinkin'! Me, I'm more in favor of pragmatic respect for diversity. And yah, to answer your question, if da Secular Humanists who Kiss Da Feet of Green Martian Lesbians have a long-standing tradition of volunteering in the park and keepin' it up so Mrs. Beavah and I can take an evening stroll, I don't mind in da least if they get discounted rent to their meeting space in da park building on the corner, even though they won't let me join. That's a good public investment. Same if they're really good at helpin' da 10% of the kids in the school system who are agnostic learn how to read, that's a good investment. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)
-
Oh, and the idea posited by Beavah that the BSA, or any group, may deserve preferential treatment because of all the hours it puts into service to communities is absolutely abhorent to me. I don't reckon dat's what I posited, eh? I said that whether it's vouchers for parochial schools or scholarships for Catholic Universities or discounts for youth groups, it's a good business decision for government when it gets the job done. Public/private partnerships are a good thing. They reinforce citizenship and loyalty in the contributing group while accomplishing the public purpose for a fraction the cost da government would otherwise pay. It's not granting an entitlement, it's encouragin' citizenship. I was out with a church group doin' a big cleanup of da public park near the church a couple weekends ago. The city sent out their representative who brought some tools and told us what needed to be done. City provided free drinks and snacks, we brought lunch. At da end of the day, city rep. gave out a bunch of other free park stuff, includin' some T-shirts for the kids. My church group discriminates in its membership. We're a bunch of dem silly Christians. Probably why we were out helpin' in da first place. So da city used public funds to give a bunch of free stuff to a discriminatory organization. As a result, they maintained a good partnership and I assure you that some of those church folk who live near by go more out of their way to maintain the park. They feel "ownership". They're likely to keep contributing time. When Mrs. Farnswaggle our sweet widow organist who lives next to da park dies, she might just donate that parcel the park has wanted for years because they gave her snacks and drinks, and the park manager gave her a few surplus tulip bulbs for her garden. Da city did not give free snacks and lunch to non-discriminatory groups who did not participate in a park cleanup. I'm sure we have some Atheist group somewhere 'round about, but no free T-shirts for those atheist kids because they didn't participate in da park cleanup. Did our church group feel entitled to free stuff? No. If there were budget cutbacks or whatnot, we'd understand. Is it a good use of public funds? ABSOLUTELY! But here's da kicker: If da city discontinued it just because we were a Christian church would we be miffed? Yah! Of course! Especially if they said "well, we can give yeh drinks at our work day, but only if you agree to let some non-Christians into your congregation." Odds are we'd tell 'em to go pound sand, and go out of our way never to help da city again. That's da point, eh? If da BSA has had a long track record of public/private partnership which has achieved and continues to achieve a public purpose, do we give 'em a discount? OF COURSE. Just good business sense. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
-
Beavah, sounds like you'd agree with the ACLU, and insist that the government not finance programs that discriminate on the basis of religion. But somehow, your platitudes keep whitewashing the BSA's discrimination and you think it's unfair if the government refuses to fund their "private" discriminatory program. You just aren't consistent. Yah, must be my funny accent, eh? You're just not gettin' it. I don't like da notion of any big government denying funding to programs based on da beliefs of the people running or choosing those programs. I think it's dangerous. Yah, there are always extreme fringe group exceptions, but those are rare, tiny minority exceptions eh? It's even more dangerous when it comes to youth programs, because it's such an effective way of indoctrinatin' youth to the viewpoints preferred by the government. So me, I'm perfectly fine with da government financing any program that serves a secular purpose, even if it discriminates to serve a target audience. If yeh want to help African-American Baptist kids in urban areas, sendin' 'em homosexual leaders isn't the way to do it. Yeh won't accomplish your purpose. You'll waste government dollars and not accomplish anything, because da people you're tryin' to reach won't accept your program. If yeh really care about da secular purpose of improving urban poverty, yeh work through the urban churches which are the only trusted anchors in those communities. Even though those churches discriminate in their membership, that's the only effective way to achieve your secular purpose. Just depends what yeh want more: caring for kids, or holding on to your extreme version of church/state separation. Me, I care about kids, and government effectiveness more than ideology. I'm left to conclude that you're a George W. Bush fan, eh? Your approach is to go into some area convinced your own philosophy and view is da right one, and refuse to work with da Sunni Tribal Councils or the moderate Shiite imams or the remnants of the old Baathist Army or da African-American Baptists or da Latino Catholics or the western LDS. That can appear noble. Yeh can look like you stuck by your beliefs and get patted on da back at dinner parties with your friends. Problem is it just doesn't work on da ground. Beavah
-
new here: any news about troop#128, Whitehall, NY T/F
Beavah replied to bets's topic in Open Discussion - Program
Yah, The Onion is an online satire and humor magazine, eh? Did yeh watch the thing? It's pretty hilarious. B -
Yah, this old claptrap again? OK, well, then, I'll insert my usual bits. Sometimes da grant of special rates to one group is because that group provides a public service that merits the special rate, regardless of what da religious nature of the group is. School vouchers for parochial schools in various cities, government grants to Catholic universities, and on and on. Has nuthin' to do with establishment of religion. Has to do with good management of public resources to get a public job done. On the flipside is an issue of fairness. If the government controls a huge chunk of GDP (what are we averagin' now, 30% combined tax rate, local/state/federal plus excise and property and other taxes?), then excludin' religious groups from government funds is just a form of oppression or suppression of viewpoint. "You can have your viewpoint, but we're goin' to deprive it of access to half the available money out there." Good way to make whoever is controllin' da government's voice louder, I suppose. If we increase taxes and fees enough, eventually we get to da Soviet state where you can completely repress religion by defunding it. People can believe what they want, but da government controls all the means of production and it's not goin' to any religious purpose. I think we want to fund any religious group that serves a public/secular purpose in an economical way. That's what almost every other country in da free world does. And I think we want to be very, very reluctant to deny government funding categorically to a group because of their philosophy or belief. That way lies monsters. Beavah
-
I will observe LNT as far as fires and cooking and the reast goes, but clothing and equipment? Yah, like I said, old dogs and new tricks. Unless yeh get da lads involved the old fellers will all choose to just follow da few parts of LNT that they already mostly do, and skip da rest figurin' they know better. Personally, I'd suggest teachin' scouts how to navigate and find their way without relyin' on the (dubious) advantage of looking for large day-glo tents. Just seems more sensible. But if you're sure about it, I've known scouters who do the tent thing but with a big stereo. That way the confused lads can easily find the camp at night, too. I reckon if I was really worried about "going down" and then relyin' on the color of my clothing to save me, I'd figure I was in terrain that's beyond my ability and that I should have a buddy. If I just hike with a buddy or choose an easier route, then no worries! I confess I grumbled about a few things when I first went through LNT, eh? But it's really a pretty sensible ethic. Especially when yeh see how badly our regular old use in ever greater numbers has impacted some areas that scouts and adults once enjoyed. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)
-
Yeh must be seein' a funny version of YPT on your line, nolesrule. Or maybe yeh should start readin' BSA materials with a cute furry northern accent, eh?! From G2SS: How an adult responds to a child when he tries to dis- close abuse can influence the outcome of the childs vic- timization. By maintaining an apparent calm, the adult can help reassure the child that everything is going to be okay. By not criticizing the child, we counteract any statements the molester made to the victim about the child getting into trouble. Reassure the child that you are concerned about what happened to him and that you would like to get him some help. Allegations by a Scout concerning abuse in the program must be reported to the Scout executive. Since these reports are required, you should tell the child that you have to tell the proper authorities but that you will not tell anyone else. It is important that you not tell anyone other than the Scout executive or the child protective services agency about allegations of abuseif the allegations can- not be substantiated, you could be sued for defamation of character. ------- Da online and offline YPT say da same thing as G2SS. This is a very intelligent way to proceed, eh? 1) For allegations of battery/molestation within da program, talk to the SE. (BUT, if there's a separate CO policy and you're a unit scouter for a unit-level "issue", follow da CO policy, which should include notifying the SE when/if appropriate). 2) For allegations of battery/molestation outside da program, talk to law enforcement but not the SE. 3) For reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect (typically by a parent or guardian), call child protective services, and not the SE. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)
-
Yah, I confess as a MBC I don't use da books. My experience over da years is that the books aren't kept up to date very well, eh? They also tend to present requirements one by one, out of the context in which they belong. I don't care for da checklist mentality. I want to share a field or discipline, not plow through a bunch of disconnected checklist items. And in more recent decades the level of writin' and information in the books has gotten weaker. Seems like they're targetin' a 5th grade reading level (or less!). I don't have a problem providin' my own resources to the lads, or having them do research online. Like as not, I'll hand a lad a real book or two. Seems like if you're doin' Communication MB, pullin' in more varied and modern sources would be appropriate. Beavah
-
Oh, more than half da time they just leave, eh? Otherwise yeh find a strong pack that can handle 'em and lay down some conditions up front. Of course, if yeh don't have any BSA units to take 'em, yeh can always foist 'em on da YMCA. B
-
Yah, I've seen da kids take to it just fine. They're growin' up in a world that values bein' environmentally responsible. Plus, it's fun, eh? Yeh can make it much like tracking and Special Operations - a game where yeh try to leave no sign of your presence. They don't mind not wearin' colored clothes. Earth tones and camo are better for capture the flag! Heck, the lads don't even mind not doin' fires, and pretty soon they start feelin' superior to all those goofs out there with da big bonfires who blacken the site for the rest of us. Cleaning is toughest for 'em, and not disturbing other visitors, same as always. Problem with LNT is always the adults. Old folks are set in our ways. So we tend to pick and choose da parts of LNT that we agree with and ignore the rest as bein' "too extreme." Then kids bein' kids, they are looser than we are, and together we live up to da BSA's reputation of bein' lousy and irresponsible campers. Shortridge, I'd say "make it a game", "always push for a perfect score", and get the youth leaders trained more than the adults. Then let da youth leaders conduct camp inspections and critique the adults on their LNT practices. The kids will work harder to show up the adults, and the adults will hopefully be shamed into doin' as well as the lads. Hard to teach us old dogs new tricks. Beavah
-
Who knows, maybe if the committee had taken their youth protection training seriously, this man might have gotten help sooner. Yah, I must be teachin' and takin' a different version of Youth Protection Trainin' than you folks, eh? I can't recall any bit talkin' about drinkin'. Even da rule about no alcohol at events with kids isn't part of the syllabus. When we talk about the requirement to notify an SE about a youth protection issue, we're talkin' about allegations of sexual battery or actual injury or death that occurred in a Scouting context. In other words "a serious incident where our liability insurance is in play." That's it. Da requirement is so that the SE can get the insurers involved promptly and mitigate risk, not so that he can make leadership decisions for da CO (which he's not allowed to do). The notification is not for when Joe's late for work and runs a red light causin' an accident. Not when Fred's dad gets arrested for vandalism when da picket line he was walkin' got out of hand, not when Bobby's mom gets fired for dippin' into the petty cash drawer to pay for his ADHD meds. Yah and not when Billy's dad gets stopped on da way home from his cousin's wedding and is above the limit. Scouting context, eh? DUI is a crime. Alcoholism is a disease. We punish one because of da risk the behavior poses to others. We treat the other, and provide support and compassion. Where yeh fall on this depends on the values and mission of the CO you serve, and da specifics of the individual case. But da unit and the CO doesn't get to avoid their responsibility by runnin' to "daddy" the SE. They're adults who must make their own decision. Beavah
-
Yah, I'm with Eagledad. Problem parents do so much damage to units that it's best to go through da short term pain to avoid da long term agony. If this is an ongoin' issue rather than just "a bad night", and they've had a prior sit-down talkin' to, it might be time for the exit interview. Problem is, dawnydiesel, it ain't your show as a commish. You can advise, but they've got to step up. That havin' been said, as a commish I have occasionally played a bigger role in helpin' a parent move on. Generally speakin', though, the role is to help the family find another pack or youth program to move to. As a commish, you're the one givin' them the face-saving out. "This pack clearly isn't working out for you, so I'll help you find another." Yah, sure, and backin' up the unit folks when the family appeals to you - "No, unfortunately, staying here is no longer an option. This pack has made it's decision, and the BSA supports the pack leadership, they have the right to insist you leave. But we can work to find a cub pack that's a better fit for you." Then be very careful where yeh move 'em too, eh? B
-
If it gets bad enough for Texas to actually secede, I imagine a few other Red states will be ready to follow suit. If Texas remains the only state to secede, their population will probably be doubled by an influx of other disenchanted conservatives and overtaxed companies. Yah, this is a great idea! Let's put all da wingnuts who destroyed our Republican party in one place, eh? We'll take Austin and UT and da other economically productive folks as refugees. They can keep da oil crowd that gave us such masterful businesses as Enron. Heck with any luck, the descendants of a red-haired wimpy liberal university president from Ohio will get a chance to head on down and march through a state all the way to the sea. Just like their great-great-great-granddad did. The ones who still don't get da notion that we live in a Union can flee to Mexico with the other uneducated laborers and whine about the war of northern aggression for another 150 years. Sign me, Proud member of da real Republican party that started with Honest Abe.
-
I wonder what we'd think about a requirement that said "Participate in a program that does swimming for four months." If yeh think about it, a lad who truly is a regular participant for that long should improve in his swimming, eh? In da ARC or YMCA sequences, I think that number of weekly lessons should jump a boy a step or two. Maybe from beginner to advanced beginner. If yeh do it a few times, maybe three sessions of 4-6 months, a boy should make it to swimmer. Just like in 3 sessions of 4-6 months, a lad might learn the skills and responsibility we expect of Eagle Scouts. No doubt, then, some folks would argue that he doesn't have to participate in every swimming event, and yeh can't impose percentage requirements. So as long as you don't kick him out of swim lessons, at the end of da time period he should get his swimmer card, even though he only showed up twice and didn't learn a thing about swimmin'. Even though yeh gave him a swimmer's handbook that spelled out all da things that a swimmer should be able to do. And if a lad is one who really struggles with swimming and needs longer to get good at it, well then that's the adults' fault and the boy should get his card anyways even if he can't swim. If the adults weren't gatekeeping twads, they'd be able to teach any boy to swim in the allotted time. That's what "the program" is designed to do. Either way, if yeh don't think he deserves his swimmer card, then it's up to you to kick him out of swimming lessons before da lessons are done. And if yeh do, he doesn't have to repeat any part of da lesson that he didn't get, he just has to pick up with any swim lesson and finish the remaining time. ------ What is it that we want, eh? Do we want a lad who knows how to swim, or do we want a program that makes us adults feel good because we're givin' out a lot of swimmer cards? Do we think boys learn and grow at their own pace, or do we think they all get what they need in da exact same time period? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
-
Why subject the unit to this process if there is an alternative? Because it's da proper way to do things. And because despite what yeh may think, SE's are not really trained in all the nuances of this stuff. They're as likely to make a hash out of it as anybody. Practically speakin', if yeh approach the SE he needs to turf this back to the CO. B
-
Yah, me, I just can't stand "contracts" with youth. I think it's poppycock, and teaches boys the wrong thing. Youth can't legally contract anyway, and none of these "forced" contracts meet da necessary tests of a real legal contract. They're just adult fakery. Besides, do we really want boys to learn that they should do something because of contract law? In that case, they should read da contract carefully and figure out the loopholes. Or do we want boys to learn to do what is right because that's the right thing to do as a citizen and as a man? I vote for the latter. This gets back to the point that the BSA exists only to help the Chartered Organization achieve the Chartered Organization's goals, eh? If you're chartered to Young Trial Attorneys of America, then perhaps contracts for awards are a reasonable thing. By contrast, if you work on behalf of a church, then I reckon they're expecting you to teach a different view of ethics and awards that emphasizes personal duty to God and to service to others. So sandspur, yeh need to go sit with that uninvolved pastor and talk about what he think is important for youth to learn, and structure your program that way. You work for him. Da BSA is just a materials provider. We exist to serve the CO's, they don't exist to provide our program. If they did, then we'd be payin' them rather than vice versa! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)