Beavah

In the 'debate' I was struck by the failure of either candidate to address the current economic crisis with any kind of clear, specific policy statements. Yah, that was my reaction too, eh? I really dislike it when they completely dodge a question so as to do a riff on one of their pre-programmed "talking points." McCain was doin' a lot of that, but Obama did some as well. Too bad. A lot of those dodged questions were really important ones. Obama had courage to admit the surge has worked, or at least helped cause al-Sadr to bide his time. Wish McCain had da same courage to admit that Afghanistan, the pursuit of Bin Laden, the conduct of da Iraq war and the reconstruction were all bungled because of the choice to go to war in haste. B

BobWhite, my question was for you, eh? GoldWinger took your side in this. He said, in essence, "making a commitment to the community - givin' my word to da Scouts and living up to it" is an ethical imperative. Once I've agreed to live by da rules of that small community, which include followin' through on my commitments and being Trustworthy when I sign up for a trip, I am obligated to do that. Are you now sayin' that it's OK, sometimes, for someone to choose not to follow through on a commitment? Without being an unethical person and a bad Scouter? Would yeh even take your Ship on a ski outing that involved drivin' more than 45 miles after dark? Would yeh even let a sea scout take a quick dip off of a boat without a roped-off swim area and in more than 12 feet of water? Would you, in fact, sometimes, when it's da right thing to do, not follow a rule? Beavah

Yah, ASM59, I'll cop to ridiculous if yeh think it's important to ridicule. I know why you brought up da point. It was to confront GW with an extreme case, eh? We all got that. I just pulled it back a bit from extreme, eh? I wanted to depict it as a harder choice, so that it would actually be a choice where "breaking one's word" had a consequence of some kind. It's really so very easy to make moral judgments like "always follow da rules" until we are confronted with a negative consequence of that choice (like stoning to death an adulterous woman, or bein' a juror asked to vote the death penalty on a 16-year-old). I reckon it's da decisions we make in the face of such consequences, and our compassion toward those facin' similar decisions, which truly define whether we are "ethical." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hi ChuckSt8er, Yah, I think yeh need to answer a question for us first, eh? How big is your pack? How about your troop? Lots of times, small units especially in rural areas just need folks to double-up, eh? If your troop is hangin' on at the minimum of 5 boys, I reckon the best program is goin' to come from enthusiastic adults doin' multiple jobs. Same with your pack. And that's OK, because there are fewer kids to deal with. Yeh just have to really watch out for keepin' good relationships among adults and not gettin' hurt feelings or any confusion over roles. If you're talkin' about a mid- to large- sized pack and troop, that's different. These things are hard then, eh? No question that some adults are more committed to Scoutin' than others, and no question that most Scoutin' is successful because of those overcommitted folks. Proper selection of adult leaders to give the boys the best experience is often to make use of such talented, enthusiastic people in multiple roles, eh? Why would yeh choose not to have the best den leader possible, when da alternative is someone who gets strongarmed reluctantly into takin' the post? On the flipside, there's a "moral hazard", eh? The more those few enthusiastic people do, the less others seem to step forward. People volunteer when they see a need, eh? If they don't see a need, they tend to find other things to do. Problem is, our most enthusiastic and committed scouters tend to see those needs first. So they step up and fill 'em before there's a chance for others to do so. Great for da program in the short run, but it can burn out our best volunteers in the long run. Yah, I think, too, that there are some positions which are rightly incompatible in any unit of fair size or larger. A person who serves as DL for two different dens which meet on different nights might be just fine, eh? But servin' as a COR or CC and a direct contact volunteer isn't a good choice. Yah, bein' CC and DL happens pretty often at da cub scout level in mid-sized packs, but should really be avoided at da troop or crew level. Breaks down too many balances. Bein' COR and a direct contact leader is really mixin' things up badly, kinda like havin' the boss's son as a trainee on the job site, except it's actually da boss! That should happen only in really small units or units with a "unique" CO approach to da program. If you're not a really small program, I reckon da adult has to think long and hard about da COR role. To do that job properly he has to step back from a lot of direct unit involvement. If his love and interest is in direct unit involvement, then COR's a job he should decline. If he does accept the COR job, he should resign as DL and ASM. Those aren't compatible positions. I think he might also consider relinquishing the CC role and drop back to just being an MC (regular committee member), which BSA also allows. Remember, as COR he'll be a district committee member and a votin' member of the council, so there are other duties there that he'll be picking up. Hope that helps. Beavah

Yah, BobWhite. Welcome back to da thread. Current topic is... you've given your word to da boys that you would lead their IncrediblyStupendousWonderful trip. Without you there's nobody else available, and their trip needs to be canceled. Then your father dies. * Do you keep your word to the community of boys? Or are you UnTrustworthy? * Do yeh go to the funeral so that you are present for your family? Or are you unLoyal? And if yeh are just an acquaintance of someone who chooses one of da two options and yeh disagree, do you pull 'em aside and tell 'em that they're wrong? Do yeh lay it on so thick that yeh tell 'em they "show poor values and poor judgment" and are therefore lousy Scouters? I personally believe that real judgment often comes in choices between two competing "goods", as you suggest. Between followin' da rules, which may generally be a good thing, and takin' kids weekend camping fer 6 months out of the year (by driving at night), which is also a good thing. But yeh can't have both good things at da same time, necessarily. So what do you do, personally? Drive at night? Or never take your Ship on a ski trip? Yeh haven't mentioned your religious tradition here, but I've assumed its western. No western religious tradition that I know of quite shares your views. Are yeh loyal to your faith? Or do yeh feel you can "pick and choose" what aspects of your religion you choose to follow? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so now here's a question. Let's assume GoldWinger is really being honest, that he feels the ethical imperative is, as the Lord put it, to "let the dead bury the dead" (Luke 9:59-60) and keep one's word to da scouts who are living and who need him. What does GoldWinger and the rest of us feel about pulling ASM59's adult leader aside to tell him that he's wrong to cancel on a Scout trip to go to his dad's funeral? That it's unethical, and he shouldn't do it, because he's breakin' his word to the kids? That he isn't Trustworthy, and maybe shouldn't be a Scouter at all? Should GoldWinger report this man to da troop committee? To da Council? To the COR? Or, even believing that the man is not doing the right thing, should he keep quiet? Perhaps because dat's really the job of the SM, CC, or COR? Or perhaps because some choices are hard, and good folks approach 'em differently, or because his relationship with the man isn't good enough that he can avoid coming off like a jerk? Or is it "right is right, wrong is wrong, and it's always my job to tell 'em so?" Beavah

Yah, boys follow da lead of their parents and troop leader, eh? Any boy will push to find the limits, and not findin' any will keep pushin' to see if anyone - especially mom and dad - actually care enough about them to impose some limits. You and any other concerned parents can bring this up... once ... at a committee meetin', but it's not goin' to change anything. These folks have years of bad habits of child rearin' with their kids. Ain't goin' to change overnight even if they wanted it to, and I doubt a conversation with the "lower ranking" folks on da troop committee is goin' to make 'em want to. You say the older boys are the ones who are frustrated. Sounds like time to start a Venturing Crew. Have 'em grab friends to boost the numbers a bit, meet with a couple to dream up some cool activities, and go off and give 'em a taste of da adventures that are possible when you are mature and competent and show good Scout Spirit, eh? Or find another troop or crew in your area with that kind of program. Just one favor... be sure to let da COR or IH for your troop's Chartered Org. know why you're leavin'. They deserve that much. Beavah

Yah, treeclimber, welcome to da forums, eh? I think on da surface, GW is right. As a BOR member, one of your tasks is to make sure all the requirements have been learned and completed. It's OK to defer a lad who is "not there yet," givin' him some good guidance on what he needs to do to complete the rank. Generally speakin' that should be somethin' that's done in cooperation with da SM, eh? Or at very least, in a situation where the SM and committee are on the same page about expectations and roles. The only way a BOR "no" really works for a boy is when the SM then meets with him and says "my fault, we didn't check everything together and see that you were prepared, but we'll work on it together now." Or da lead ASM, eh, because a lot of good SM's won't do signoffs or conferences with their own lads. If the committee and the SM aren't on the same page, then I reckon sayin' no is a recipe for adult conflict, eh? I think if yeh have a SM who is really and truly doin' what you suggest - favoring his own son, cheatin' the requirements, holding other boys back, then that's a problem the committee needs to address with him directly. Yah, and perhaps with his successor, eh? Don't put his son in the middle. Beavah

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Washington Mutual customers withdrew $16.7 billion in cash from the thrift in the past nine days, a huge outflow that led to the largest bank failure in U.S. history, the institution's regulator said Friday. The withdrawals were largely concentrated among retail deposits that were over the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp's $100,000 insurance cap, said Tim Ward, the Office of Thrift Supervision's deputy director for examinations, supervisions and consumer protection. -------- Yah, wow. Never thought I'd see an old fashioned run on a bank take out a big bank in my lifetime. B

Yah, da media are useless. I was nearly furious last night flippin' from channel to channel. Here we're lookin' and da biggest socialist proposal since the new deal tryin' to be rammed through in two days by an incompetent executive. And da biggest bank failure ever on the same day! And all the media is yappin' about is petty presidential politics. I was even treated to an exasperatin' Sarah Palin / Katie Couric interview. Who cares? Da role of the 4th estate is to inform the public on matters of public interest, like the nature of the crisis and the details of the bailout proposal and da risks and benefits of those. Not to be People Magazine paparazzi tryin' to catch snapshots of interpersonal drama. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hey, now we've got both "leave it to Beavah" and da Andy Griffith show, eh? I have to admit, David CO's illustration with Andy Griffith and Barney Fife I think is spot-on to what we see in Scoutin' and on da forums sometimes. OGE, I was just usin' scouter.com characters for amusement and humor, eh? I don't reckon Lisa'bob is armin' her troop with red jello squirtguns. That's somethin' I saw a patrol at camp doin' once that I thought was really creative and funny. I think they got da idea from a first aid class. There are lots more historical re-enactment crews out there than jblake's, eh? Most of 'em just kept doin' what they were doin'. I doubt jblake suspended all his activities while he was waitin' for folks to clarify either, eh? But choose another example... a legislature's zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment, and a peck on the cheek given by a 6-year-old kindergartener. Was the rational intent of the lawgivers really to expel such a student? Clearly not. So it is ethical and right to ignore the law in that case. Even the courts in adjudicating cases will look to the legislative history to interpret the rational intent of the lawgivers, beyond the simple text of the law, based on this longstandin' western ethical tradition. It is in part what Jesus meant by "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." He was overridin' da human text of the law in favor of the rational intent of God the lawgiver. Another way of thinkin' about it is "one should not employ the law in ways which make da law look ridiculous" and thereby diminish its just purpose for the common welfare. So it would be improper to try to apply da G2SS rule prohibiting ever swimming in water over 12 feet deep to a group snorkeling in the ocean or swimmin' an open-water triathalon or mile swim. That would diminish obedience to da rule for when it is intended - roped swim areas with lots of kids to be watched. So we ignore da rule in the former cases, but still adhere to it as a rule in the latter. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

NCS, that if we know something is happening and we don't do anything to stop it, then we are legally liable even if we had nothing to do with planning or execution. Then you have to do something. This happened to me at summercamp. While I was not the COPE Director that year, I was still certified as such and had some legal liability if anything happened. Yah, that's a really amusin' theory of liability there, eh? An employee assigned to supply is somehow personally liable if he doesn't act contrary to the terms of his employment and interfere in another operation of the employer, just because he was once trained in that area? I think not. More likely, you became personally liable when yeh acted outside the scope of your assigned duties in supply and interfered in another camp operation. It would be completely proper for your employer to fire you. Except for a few circumstances involving public safety officers licensed by da state, there is no legal liability for trained bystanders who choose not to act. Do yeh have a moral obligation to at least raise the question to those who are responsible? Quite possibly. But dat's not the same thing, eh? By and large, my experience has been that if anybody wearin' olive and khaki says somethin' about "liability" they are probably makin' it up to sound more important. Shame really. Because the conversation would be much more respectful, polite, and effective if instead they just talked about what we should be doin' to offer a quality program to kids. Beavah

But I don't think this is an example of a situation like Beavah was discussing originally. BobWhite was da original inspiration. As close as I can tell it's exactly da sort of thing he was talkin' about. Follow da BSA rules no matter what, you agreed to 'em. For that matter, it's the same thing I'm talkin' about too - da BSA rule yields to civil law and civic prudence in this case. It isn't absolute, nor is it unethical to "break" it. (J20, by the way!) Respondin' to OGE who never seems to get me when I bring this stuff up, here's Beavah's partial compendium of rulebreaking. Never break Divine Law. It would be in error, and contrary to both Christian ethics and good citizenship, to ascribe to any human law the characteristics of divine law. Only divine law is sacrosanct. Human law, on the other hand, should be ignored or broken when it is subject to any of the following things (and probably a few more...): Divine Law Enron corporate policy says to create StarWars subcorporations and it's not clearly against civil law, but "Thou shalt not steal" trumps corporate policy even though I agreed to corporate policy Superior Human Law I am ordered to hold this person without charges in a secret prison, and by law and oath I should follow my orders, but the Constitution of the United States grants habeus corpus rights Proper Jurisdiction My employer/pastor/spouse tells me I should make a contribution to a particular political candidate and that I should vote for that candidate. Even though I may owe a moral duty of obedience to my employer/pastor/spouse in other things, I am not bound to obey in this instance because the proper jurisdiction of the lawgiver has been exceeded. Of course, Mrs. Beavah says no matter what I must obey her. Common Welfare The civil law prohibits me from serving blacks in my store. As this is contrary to the just purpose of law to serve the common welfare, I am not bound to obey. Equity The rule says that atheist youth should not be members of the BSA. George's mom died this year of cancer, and he has firmly declared that he is now an atheist and refuses to say the first part of the Scout Oath. I keep him on the troop roster anyway, because even though the membership rule is legitimate and serves the common welfare, applying it in this particular case would be contrary to natural justice. Custom Almost every troop in America violates the no driving on trips at night policy of G2SS, and has been violating that rule consistently and continuously since the rule was first promulgated. Therefore, by general custom the rule has no force. The rational intent of the lawgiver. The G2SS makes it unauthorized to point a firearm at another individual, or for any unit to make use of artillery. Jblake leads a re-enactment Venturing Crew, and they effectively ignore both provisions of G2SS because they believe that the rational intent of the G2SS prohibition is not to prevent them from participating in the principal activity for which they are chartered, but rather to ensure safety. Because their group has ensured safety, they proceed with their events as usual. The degree to which it serves its own just purpose. Barry Runnels has read about and tried to implement the New Scout Patrol and age-based patrols. He has discovered in his unit that it does not accomplish for his boys the goals he and his CO desire for building servant leadership and character. Even if NSP and age-based patrols were rules instead of program guidance, Barry would properly put in place a different patrol structure because the rules were not achieving their just purpose. Service to a more important goal. The purpose of a business is to make money. The rule says that customers should not be offered refunds except in very narrow circumstances. Your biggest customer comes in very upset with a product and demanding a refund outside of those circumstances. Even though it breaks the rule, you give him the refund because retaining the goodwill of the biggest customer better serves the primary goal of making money. Unreasonable vagueness or degree of comprehensibility. The G2SS makes it unauthorized to allow dye firearms to be pointed at another individual. No one anywhere seems to know what a dye firearm is. Lisabob allows her scouts to use squirt guns loaded with red jello (complete with red dye #5...) to blast each other, even though it might be possible that's what G2SS is making unauthorized. Beavah

Yah, jblake has a point, eh, but I reckon yeh did an OK job. "Patrol Collapse" on a particular outin' is an issue for many troops. By and large, da preferred solution of the boys is to consolidate most of the time. One or two guys, especially one or two younger guys, don't really want to camp alone, or do all the work of campin' alone. So unless the adults step in and prohibit such a solution, that's usually what happens. Now, if an adult prohibits or otherwise directs that they must not consolidate, then I reckon we have adult-run, patrol-method campin'. I honestly think that the best methods for preventin' "patrol collapse" on campouts and keep patrol method alive include the following: Use Patrol Competition. On Buffalo's outing, da structure of the outing was centered around individual activity - surfing with adult supervision. If what you're doin' is going out and havin' individual activity, then it's quite natural for each individual to make choices about participation without considering the effect on the group. However, if instead of individual activity the outing was structured as a team activity by patrol, then there's peer pressure and a sense of obligation to the team to show up, so that your team doesn't do poorly, eh? That in turn leads to more patrol spirit, and higher participation, which leads to more patrol spirit, eh? Make Patrols Bigger. Another way to approach things is to make da size of patrols larger. I'm not sure if yeh mentioned patrol size, Buff, but I've noticed that in the modern world of competin' activities and overscheduled youth, Baden-Powell's old 6-8 person patrol often doesn't work. Patrol sizes in da 10-12 range seem to hold up a lot better. If you're averagin' 50-70% participation rates on any given outing, that gets yeh BP's ideal field patrol size of 6-8 when you're campin'. And if a few more lads get sick or get homeworked to death, yeh still have a viable patrol of 4 for independent hikin'. Make Assistant PL a real job. And make it known that either da PL or Assistant should be on every outing. BSA suggests firin' PL's who don't do their duty, but I'm not real fond of that newfangled notion, eh? I do think there's room for SM conferences and mentoring for lads who haven't yet figured out leadership is a commitment to others, though. If they scheduled it, and their guys are there, they need to be there barrin' true disaster. Perhaps next time they need a BOR, schedule it and have only one committee member show up. Use it to talk about how it feels when leaders don't follow through. One last thing - never do for a boy what he can do for himself is a good rule of thumb, for sure. But when you're just startin' out or rebuilding a troop, in the beginnin' the lads don't have much experience and really aren't able to do that much for themselves. Yeh have to ask yourself "Have I trained him in this particular thing?" "Have I coached him in it and watched him do it under my supervision at least once?" If not, yeh need to do that, eh? At least if there's no older scout available yet. We give boys freedom to grow, but we don't abandon boys to flail around. And even if a lad is ready to be left to his own devices on a task, yeh still have to find some time for evaluation and feedback at the end. Your use of Roses & Thorns was good that way, eh? Overall, I think you're doin' good. Da next few years should be fun for you and the boys. Keep it fun, eh! Beavah

Yah, OGE, it's one of those things, eh? Most states still have laws on da books banning abortion. They haven't taken da action to repeal the laws (takes effort, might not be politic). The laws just aren't enforceable. Some laws just wear out because everyone ignores 'em too, eh? Like old laws that make it illegal for a wife to cuss at her husband and whatnot. Cops and prosecutors are part of da community too, eh? They aren't goin' to enforce laws that a vast majority feel are silly or that will earn 'em a spot on da evening news for being a goof. Beavah

Yah, a big shout-out there to BobWhite for findin' still more cases and permutations and exceptions, eh? It's a great demonstration of how nutty it is to try to make hard-and-fast rules on this stuff. I was hypothesizin' usin' age of consent as a rough proxy for community mores in a given state. How communities view things in different parts of da country is different, eh? Call it "personal ethics" or local community values or whatever, it affects institutional risk exposure. * Yep, a 17-year-old who is in college would not be allowed to tent with a 21 year-old who is in college in the Boy Scouting program. Or with his 18-year-old college roommate, which is a stitch. * Yep, two persons over the age of 21 can tent together in Venturing, but I didn't reckon that was worth reportin' on. I was naturally referrin' to over-21 and under-21 college students. * Yah, age of consent varies a bit by state. Generally it's about age 16, can be as low as 14. Puttin' a 17-year-old in a tent with an 11-year-old is permissible in Boy Scouting. Might be just fine, eh? But da differences in age and power are of the sort that IMO our institutional exposure to risk is higher. Been plenty enough cases of molestation in camps of that nature to make the point. * There's nuthin' wrong with BobWhite allowin' his 14-year-old daughter to date a college student, eh? Up to BobWhite. In terms of institutional risk management, though, IMO da risks are higher in such a case. Most ordinary folks' personal ethics would frown on it with their daughters, eh? And that matters. Again, there's a presumed difference in power, which is one of da reasons there is an age of consent, eh? * Yep, I have no problem with two college students dating. I don't think that poses real institutional risk, until yeh point out some prodigy who is off in college at age 12 or somesuch, eh?? This stuff can drive anyone nuts if yeh try to codify it into hard-and-fast nationwide rules. As we can all see, followin' da rules can land you in trouble sometimes or be silly in others. Good luck with breakin' down the "Palace Guard" ElyriaLeader. Beavah

David CO, did yeh buy a house from GoldWinger?

Yah gotta love da audacity. Nationalize all the risk. Reward all the CEOs. Run up the national debt. It's an emergency, so now we should surrender the power of the purse of Congress to the Secretary of da Treasury for two years, with no judicial review and no congressional oversight. Yeh have to admit, they may be dumb, but they have balls. I've always believed that G.W. and his neocon goofs were just incompetent. What's hard to fathom is anybody being this incompetent. I saw this month da Army deploying the 3rd infantry's first combat brigade to Northern Command for civil unrest trainin'. That would be da first time ever an active combat unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command, eh? With trainin' for mob control? http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/ Why exactly are we assignin' an active brigade to train for a mission that would be illegal under Posse Commitatus? Just what kind of civil unrest do we think we need to be prepared for? Oh, wait, I suspect it's because we've completely federalized da National Guard, so they're not available for a domestic emergency. Everything's always an emergency. Everything's always imminent danger of catastrophe. Gives new meaning to Warren Buffet's quip back in 2005 that those mortage-swap derivatives are "financial weapons of mass destruction," eh? Beavah

Yah, I sort of like Merlyn's contribution, eh? Thanks, Merlyn. BobWhite, I can't even begin to follow your logic anymore. You said: I find keeping your word to be a single ethical choice whether it is about my Duty to God or my Duty to others which seems to be da basis of the ethics you are proposin' we exemplify for kids. Most Christian churches would consider your viewpoint heretical, a form of personal anarchism. Judaism and Christianity at least would put following your Duty to God ahead of followin' your word or duty to others, includin' da laws of the state. Unless of course keepin' your word is da same as keepin' God's word, because you are God. Dat's the same thing BSA means by duty to Higher Power bein' the best form of citizenship, eh? That natural law as discerned by informed and rational personal conscience must be pursued in spite of da dictates of human law. Like many of da other Scouters here are tryin' to tell you. Only thing that changes when we move to a kids' program from da laws of the Nation are that da rules are much less important and therefore much less binding, eh? They yield to a broader range of higher priorities. Ever watch kids playin' ball who aren't in a league? When Billy's little brother comes up to bat, he gets tossed easy pitches and gets to swing until he makes contact. Bein' kind and servin' the goals of havin' fun trumps da formal rules of a kids' game, but not of Major League Baseball. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, kahits, here's some thoughts from da archives: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=152302#id_152333 http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=152463#id_152463 http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=143584#id_143731 http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=173695#id_173708 http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=178645#id_178662 Big decision for yeh on how you move forward and see your program grow. BobWhite's right, eh? Yeh need two patrols here at least. Makes for better results and good patrol competition, eh? I think you're goin' to be usin' all four of your older boys as full-time guides for da young ones, eh? I'd psych 'em up for that task. For me, it just seems awkward to have two older lads doin' TG work and then your son and another lad campin' by themselves or whatnot. Especially since the older lads are only 2nd Class and so not really quite up to what da ideal TG should be. I'd be inclined to attach two older guys to each patrol as PL/APL and let 'em have at it as leaders. Da four of 'em are your PLC. That gets yeh two balanced patrols with more experienced leaders to compete with each other. Yeh really don't need an SPL or troop-level positions with only two patrols. Beavah

Yah, BobWhite... Do yeh think that your duty to God and your duty to keep your word will never be in conflict? I find that breathtakingly presumptuous. It implies that you giving your word is the same as God giving His word - that you are, in your own eyes, God. Beavah

Yah, I agree with all that, AlFansome. All things in rational moderation. In one council I worked with, there was a grade 7-12 Catholic school. For various reasons includin' citizenship and environmental awareness and community service, they wanted to run an outdoors program, but they were trippin' over various administrative and liability concerns. So they chartered a troop and an Explorer Post, and signed kids up into that. We provided camp facilities, outdoor program trainin', insurance cover and materials. But they pretty much ran as a school outdoor club, eh? No uniforms, no advancement beyond a small group, an odd version of patrol method. Great outdoors program, great citizenship and community service, great character buildin' and values. Two hundred or more kids, eh? Made the DE's year when they signed up. IH and COR were active, brought in a few big FOS donors, let the council and other units use school facilities for free. That's Scouting, eh? A CO gets a lot of latitude in running their program. Now, just a unit leader actin' solo? Not as much. Depends on whether what a unit leader does serves da values of the CO, eh? And how successful they are. I reckon we can all point to some big, successful units out there who really don't use da program all that well just because some things don't fit with da unit leader's vision. Does that bother da BSA? Are we likely to meddle by criticizin' the SM or havin' a tete-a-tete with da COR? Not likely! But a leader who's really gone renegade, a unit that's strugglin'? Sure, we're there to help. As a commish, I make it a point if I'm visitin' a new unit not to give a single critique or piece of advice until I've been around a while - long enough to see all the good things the unit has goin'. Those take a while to see, while we all notice da things that are different or may need work right away. Best to work off of the good things, then help 'em chip at da rest. And to get anywhere at all, I've got to be there long enough to put in some sweat equity, eh? Thing is, when yeh do that yeh often discover that some of those bad or different things really aren't bad. They support some of the good things in ways yeh didn't notice at first. And other things that yeh thought weren't that bad are really the places yeh need to start. Yeh also learn that some of those folks yeh initially found off-putting are really the unit's hardest workers, and real gems. Training is a great place to start, eh? Once we're done with trainin' we can start learnin'. Only after we've logged some miles do we start to move past "beginner." I reckon after that we need to log a bunch more miles before we should be givin' advice. Scouter760 sounds like he's recently crossed over from bein' a CubMaster, and should put in a few miles to understand how his new troop works, learn how the pieces fit, and most important, discover all the good things it's doin' for kids. Build a little wisdom and experience, eh? Not too long... not so long that he becomes an "old timer" himself and loses enthusiasm or freshness or his initial ideas. But long enough to make it to advanced beginner or intermediate, and earn da respect of the kids and adults in his unit through da courtesy and kindness of his approach, and the sweat of his brow. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, no question this is a complete hash, eh? In da real world in which we live, a lad of ordinary intellect becomes a legal adult at age 18. For some things, like legal consent for sexual intercourse and in some states even for marriage, youth under the age of 18 are treated as adults. Within da BSA there is a notion of "program adult" and "program youth" for various programs. Those definitions in no way alter the definition of legal adulthood. Within da BSA there is also a notion of "registration status" which may or may not correspond to program status. Then yeh introduce YP guidelines, which use one word - "youth" - in a all those different ways. Legal minors, consenting minors, program youth vs. adults, etc. Sprinkle on a wee bit of molestation and litigation paranoia and we have a recipe that guarantees 95% of our trainers give bad advice. In my personal opinion, in reference to da real world (as opposed to the world of Scouting definitions and rules): * There is no issue, worry, or fear with havin' a high school youth of 18 tenting with a high school youth of 17 of the same gender. Or another high school youth above da age of consent. These kids are sharin' a locker room and takin' showers together after football practice, eh? However, programmatically this is not allowed in Boy Scouting but is allowed in Venturing. * There is some sense of creepiness in a high school kid of 18 tenting with an adult of 40. Too much power differential. However this is allowed in Boy Scouting but not in Venturing. * There is no real issue in an over-21 adult who is in college tenting with an over the age of consent adult or minor who is also in college. However, this is allowed in Boy Scouting but not allowed in Venturing. * Some degree of caution should be exercised in having an above-the-age-of-consent high schooler tenting with a middle school student. However, this is allowed in Boy Scouting. * A considerable degree of caution should be exercised in having a college student tenting with a below-the-age-of-consent high school student. However, this is allowed in Venturing. * An above-the-age-of-consent college student should not be dating a below-the-age-of-consent minor. However, this is allowed in Venturing. * There is no real problem with an over-21 college student dating an under-21 college student. However, this is not allowed in Venturing. * If there is a larger group of people sharing the tent, then none of this really matters. Put 20 kids in a big tepee and you'd better have adult supervision with them, not claim that YP doesn't allow it. However, YP doesn't allow it in some cases . I think folks should be more thoughtful about these "real world" considerations and use common sense for your community, rather than relyin' on da letter of BSA YP. There's just no good way to write a simple, effective, and intelligible set of YP guidelines that apply across states and programs and individual unit conditions, which is why da BSA ones get into trouble or get people confused. In fact, I expect someone will now jump in to tell me I'm confused about one of da ones I posted, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Responded to Scouter760 off-list so as not to hijack da current thread on ethics] Yah, and packsaddle, we have to stop agreein' like this. It's startin' to creep me out, even if Mrs. Beavah likes you. So, if the CO thinks 21 merit badges is too many, then its ok to make Eagle at 18 merit badges with the Troop faking the blue cards? OGE, I don't know how to make this any clearer. No one is claimin' that it's OK to break any rule. No one is claimin' it's OK to do "whatever you want." Da example you just gave is a "straw man". It tries to misrepresent the position being discussed by claimin' it refers to any rule, then pickin' a rule nobody has suggested it applies to - and more importantly one that would not seem to serve any worthy goal - and knocking down the straw man. Washington, Jesus, Gandhi, etc. - they didn't break any rules or have zeal for breaking all rules as BobWhite suggests, eh? They simply ignored or "broke" rules which did not accomplish da rule's intended goals or which failed to serve higher principles. BobWhite's contention, shared by others, is that contrary to the examples set by these men and women, all societal laws and organizational rules must be followed at all times, and it is unethical (and poor citizenship) to do otherwise. I'm curious how folks who believe that reconcile their position with the DRP, which holds a primary duty to a Higher Power to be the best form of citizenship. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Or, the voters could decide to focus on the candidates' actual positions on the issues. Yah, clearly crazy talk, NJ. We're stuck on houses. For my part, I'm watching very carefully da candidates' approaches to the president's Bailoutus Maxo Maximus proposal (aka "The Resolution Authorizing the Use of Financial Force"). Policy statements might give a sense, but then George W.'s policy statements were "fiscal responsibility" and "absolutely no nation-building" and da like, eh? Actions and votes speak louder than policy statements, I reckon. So far I've been reasonably happy with da Democratic congress's efforts to slow down and try to fix this latest piece of "railroaded legislation." Beavah