Beavah

Yah, I think "In God we Trust" is a statement about belief, one that's held in common by many religions. It is not a religious message in the sense that it is not denominational. More to the point, it's a "no big deal" thing, eh? It isn't oppressive, it doesn't change anyone's behavior, and in fact nobody ever really looks at it, eh? Pretendin' it amounts to religious persecution is just silly. I've got it, let's just put a Goddess stone next to the God stone. After all, she was the one who really birthed the universe.... I agree. In fact, in the context of that sort of display, it seems quite appropriate. If a Wiccan scout put up a planet walk and included just a Goddess stone of the same sort of poetic, tactful type, I would not be offended, feel that I was oppressed, or insist that the stone be removed along with the gol-darn moon-worshiping Truffula Trees. Any more than I object to the pagan/Masonic symbols on the dollar bill, or the use of Latin in what should be an English speaking country . I think those that truly care about freedom from oppression are best to direct their energies toward real oppression in the world. There's plenty of it. I also don't think that whole branches of human thought should be banned from public lands, in an effort to sanitize that view from public discourse in future generations by turning it into a private, "taboo" topic. That's book-burning - forcibly removing a set of ideas from public access and view. Now, if yeh make government a lot smaller, so that area of funding and public view amounts to only 5% and not 45% or 85%, then it matters less, eh? Beavah

Just depends, eh? I usually advise two-man tents over bigger. Kids go to sleep faster that way, and the tents are too small to "hang out in" rather than get up and about. Also easier and lighter for backpackin'. After that, depends on kids' skills and where you live. I know of one troop that just goes the lightweight tarp route. That can be great except where there's lots of bugs. Temperature shouldn't matter, because tents don't really add much insulation (and when you try to use 'em that way, all you do is trap moisture and make things worse). More important is bein' tough enough for kid use. Extra-strong zippers, solid attachment points and strong stitching. Relative ease of setup is important, since kids will try to "force" things that don't fit, with the usual consequences. And never, ever buy a tent with a fly that you have to seam-seal yourself these days. Look for da factory-done seam tape! Last one is that troops that use tents a lot sometimes make out better when they pay a bit more for a tent from a manufacturer that offers a "lifetime warranty." B

Sorry, religious rights are too important to allow 98% dictate to the 2% what they ought to believe, even if you think the 2% are being uppity. Yah, I'm sure "In God We Trust" on the dollar bills in your pocket is "dictating what you ought to believe." That's a hoot. But it does a real disservice to the many people around the world who are truly being oppressed for their beliefs. Most of 'em religious. Religious rights are too important to allow .5% to manipulate the system to exclude one whole branch of human thought from all public places. B

How willing are most boys to "grab the bull by the horns"? Not very. That's a scary place to be, eh? Takes a lot of confidence and experience, and some encouragement by wise, old adults who express their trust and faith in the lad. Can the boys really run the show? Yep. Seen it happen many times. Sometimes I think when the lads are ready, yeh have to shoot the adults. Once as a UC on a troop outing, I poisoned the SM and ASM. With their reluctant permission, of course! I took 'em out of the action and made them dependent on the boys, rather than vice-versa. Kids stepped up to fill the vacuum. It was an eye-opener for the leaders, and the boys' "best outing ever!" But I did it knowin' the level of skill and confidence of those boys, eh? And it worked because the SM and ASM had been active in buildin' that. More importantly, how many boys truly realize that they can? None, until we let 'em try! None, unless we build their skills and confidence to proficiency, not just a quick signoff! Overall, I agree with Eagledad. It's somethin' that a good troop is always workin' toward, and never quite getting to. Sometimes you gain ground, and then yeh just up the challenge and do more high adventure to keep 'em stretching. Then they all graduate and yeh have to scale back down a bit to where the next lad and the next group are at. Beavah

what's worse is the number of boys that are only in scouts because their parents have tied getting their drivers license to getting their eagle Yah, wanted to spin this one off, eh? How many of you are seein' this, or similar sorts of things? How are you addressing it, if at all? B

Well no, not when you phrase it like that. Apparently, you're one of those types who think statements that don't include your god are somehow promoting atheism. That's ridiculous. Reverse it, eh? How would you feel about this... Only books which connect theology to history/science/music, etc. are permitted in school. Only displays which make a connection to divinity are allowed on public property. Phrases and statements from any atheist or secular perspective (even generic, God-free viewpoints on tangential topics) were not permitted. How would you feel? Excluded? Wouldn't you consider excluding references and expressions of your views to be "establishment" of the other viewpoint? Ethics at its root requires the ability to feel empathy for the other guy. If you don't believe in God, then the omission of God from everything doesn't seem at all unnatural to you. I understand that. But if yeh do believe in God, then the omission of God from every display, discussion, and text feels an awful lot like exclusion, eh? "You can have God, but only in private." "Religion is a private matter." No it's NOT! Some types of prayer are private, but religion is something done in public with other people. To understand, you must be able to empathize, to put yourself in our shoes, as fellow citizens. And to us, the censoring of religious perspectives is artificial. History has been strongly guided by the moral and religious ideas of various groups. Science, right up to Einstein's notions that the universe should be ordered, beautiful, and simple has been guided by religious notions. All of Western Music has as its root da chromatic scale chosen by Benedictine monks, and a heck of a lot of its history and even current practice is in music for worship. Art... literature.... all similarly intertwined. I'd argue yeh can't understand current events without a deep understanding of religion. But you would create what to us would be a sterilized version of all these things, and insist that be all that's allowed on public grounds. You'd cut our ideas off from public funding so that your ideas have access to nearly double the funding sources of ours, though you amount to only 2% of the population. You'd not allow our ideas in public schools, which educate 85% of the children. You'd say, "Well, go to your own school if you want that." And then you'd campaign incessantly for more public school funding (exclusively!) to try to price our schools out of the market, so that the tax burden leaves families with less money for private schools, and so public schools can offer double the wages and benefits and taxpayer-bonded facility expansions, leaving private schools and teachers impoverished (or available only to the wealthy). If that isn't usin' the government to promote one viewpoint over another, I'm not sure what is. And then you'd wrap yourself in da flag and quote the Constitution like all good despots do, eh? All that's not meant to be an argument, eh? It's an invitation for yeh to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to see a diverse perspective from their point of view. If the situation were reversed, and we integrated religious understandings into all subject areas but did not allow an areligious perspective, how would you feel? If we said "if you want atheism, go to an atheist school." But we'll tax you so that the non-atheist schools have the best facilities, and best teachers, and it's hard for all but wealthy atheists to afford an atheist school. Museums, parks, all displays with reference to God, but not one to a God-free understanding, let alone God as Myth. If yeh really believe in equal treatment, then yeh have to welcome diversity into your public spaces, while also bein' mindful of courtesy and civility. And diversity includes that 98% of the population that might enjoy a small rock that says "The Heavens Proclaim the Glory of God," and civility suggests that's a "rated G", innocuous thing not worth raisin' a fuss over. Either that, or we try to sterilize everything, like SS suggests . Down with Truffula Trees! No tree-hugging view allowed on public property! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Not when you try to use the government to promote your religious views. Yah, Merlyn, I think it all just comes down to this, eh? If you're willin' to label me and all other Religionists as bad-idea folks tryin' to use government to promote our views, and at the same time you think your views (knowledge without reference to God) are just fine for government to promote while excluding ours, then there's nuthin' left to say, eh? Yeh want to put our books in a private closet or dungeon, we want 'em on the public shelf next to yours. If that's where you're at, then we just have to oppose you vigorously. We have the majority, can determine elections, can force the appointment of judges, can remove tax dollars from public entities and in the end can prevail. Sound familiar? So while yeh seem to delight in the tactics, it just doesn't seem like an intelligent strategy for you. The thing is, we're hugely reluctant to engage in that kinda thing because it's so... unChristian. Most of us don't care for the uncivil, polarizing dialog that promotes, or that's necessary for us to use to engage in the fight. 'Tis true that some of us have become more militant, but still the majority hold back or engage only reluctantly. That's because we really don't care in the least about religious establishment, and tend to be polite even when we're talkin' about basic fairness. Fact is, it's hard to find an American denomination out there that doesn't formally teach religious pluralism. I'm in one of those. I wouldn't bridle at either "Gods are myths" or "Homosexuality is sinful." But I do have a notion of tact and courtesy, and would refrain from either in many places. Yah, yah, I know, you're a black-and-white legal thinker, us-or-them, with no notion of judgment or shades of grey. Those of us that work with kids don't have that luxury . Kids require constant nuanced judgment. They learn that what's OK depends a bit on where they are and what the subject is. A statement that's OK among friends on the playground might be a bit "edgy" at Aunt Mildred's house and downright inappropriate in church. Learnin' that isn't censorship. It's learnin' propriety. To get away from thinkin' I'm talkin' in black-and-white, yeh might think about it in terms of movie ratings. A generic statement like "The Heavens Proclaim the Glory of God" is pretty G-rated. You might quibble and say PG, but it's in that ballpark, eh? For the vast majority of citizens this statement is innocuous. Other statements may be more R-rated. Just fine in some venues, but not in others, as a matter of social mores. Only the ignorant or obnoxious want to categorize everything as either "OK" or banned, with nuthin' in between. Anyway, my last attempt on da matter. But congratulations, yeh might get me to vote Republican again next go-round, despite this administration's bumbling. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yeh know, Merlyn, it really does get tiresome the way everything for you descends into a semantic argument with personal overtones. If yeh treat evmori with a bit of respect and take a moment to understand what he's sayin', he's making an interesting argument. Christianity is not a religion. He is quite correct in that, eh? It's a generic term that applies to a bunch of very different religions that don't agree with each other, or even like each other! Just like "bird," the meaning of the word is abstract, and we're not even sure about things at the edges, like da old thread whether Mormons were Christian . So there's no "establishment" issue if you're just talkin' about Christianity. In fact, I rather suspect that was what da Framers intended, eh? That there be no Church of America as a specific state denomination of Christendom, the way there had been a Church of England which variously persecuted Puritans and Catholics and Scotch Presbyterians and other Christians. That doesn't risk losing First Amendment protection for religions - Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, etc. Nor any of the other privileges you mention. Those First Amendment protections apply to religions (aka denominations), not more general categories of thought or belief. Seventh Day Adventists are a religion. Christianity is not. Yah, the approach is interestin' because it implies that expressions which are generically Christian rather than denominationally Christian ("In God We Trust", "One Nation, under God", "The Heavens proclaim the glory of God", etc.) should not be treated as Establishment Clause issues. Nor should expressions which are generically pagan, if there is such a thing ("We give thanks for the Blessings of Mother Earth"?). Like Scouts Own services, such relatively generic inclusive statements can comfort and inspire large numbers of citizens of different beliefs, and perhaps be respectfully tolerated by the rest with gentility and understanding. It also provides a rationale (beyond my thoughts on common sense citizenship) for saying "no" to a specific expression of a particular denomination like "God hates fags", while allowing more generic expressions. Now, there's a part of me bettin' that rather than think a bit on Ed's idea or mine, you'll find a sentence or two to take out of context and attack. Or perhaps set up another extreme straw man so yeh can jump in and accuse us of censorship or somesuch. Prove me wrong Beavah

When I was a kid, we made things happen. We didn't wait around for the parents to tell us what to do. If anything, they had to hold us back. Ah, da rose-colored glasses of age, eh? I can still remember walkin' to school 8 miles, uphill in both directions! Congrats go to your parents and teachers, though. They did it right... providin' enough support and ideas and resources for you to do things that you could claim and call your own. That's what we're about, too. Providin' enough support and ideas and resources for kids to do things that they can claim as their own . Continuin' my questions, Gern. TLT ("Troop Leader Training") is just da new name for JLT. Yeh say you do JLT twice a year. What's it look like? One day? Indoors? With those dumb videos from da old JLT coursepack? What do you do for ongoing/OTJ learning for your youth leaders? My intention is to have us folks here be helpful friends to you and GW, eh? To give yeh some new enthusiasm and ideas to try. If what you're doin' now ain't workin', change it! If yeh read into Eagledad's posts or mine or Lisabob's, yeh learn that everybody tries and fails a lot. Usually for years! But they keep lookin' for ideas and tryin' new things, always keepin' the goals in sight. We're all happy to help yeh brainstorm if you're interested. Or if yeh just want a sympathetic ear to gripe to, just tell me to shut up, eh? Beavah

Yah, Merlyn, I know yeh like to play da edges of every argument, eh? Again, that's legal thinkin', rather than usin' practical judgment. Nuthin' to say that yeh can't say "no" to a Fred Phelps addition to a street sign and "yes" to a poetic addition to a planet walk. Because, yeh see, that's about how the vast majority of our fellow citizens would decide, eh? And even in law, there is a "reasonable man." Much like da standards for pornography and such; for some topics which require common sense judgment, yeh go with the norms for the community. Fred Phelps is anathema even in most Baptist circles, let alone among da rest of us Christian types. Feel free to criticize him all yeh like. Da thing is, yeh look a lot like him to us, just on the other extreme. Yah, sure, you're smarter than picketing the funeral of a 6-year-old LDS kid. But it does seem like yeh wish our ideas to just go away, and not "infect" your public space.... and will use "tactics" to try to achieve that, eh? (from lawsuits to efforts to defund us to bannin' our notions from "public" places to blamin' the organization for every bad act of a pedophile) Plus yellin' at us a lot, of course . Somewhere between those two extremes lies rational civility, where a tasteful stone with a poetic reference to God can be welcomed and tolerated as an expression of a branch of human thought meaningful to some of our fellow citizens. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Convince me that the fact that a gull is a bird is just an interpretation, or that Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 is just an interpretation. Naming something is a core act of interpretation. By creating the term "bird" we say "this concept of 'birdness' exists" and some things have it and some things don't. That is an interpretation of the raw observation of nature, where all that really exists is our observation of the gull. The made-up term "bird" divides critters into divisions of "birdness." It's even a fuzzy one at the edges... do featherless but homeothermic flying dino-precursors to modern birds have "birdness"? How about platypuses? Pearl Harbor Day is a better example, though it's a bit recent. We have indirect evidence (written accounts, still a few surviving eyewitnesses, etc.) and some limited direct evidence (remains and video from the bombing) that something happened on that day. For other "historical events" the evidence, both direct and indirect, becomes more sketchy, eh? In fact, which evidence was kept and recorded, and which evidence was destroyed and forgotten is itself a type of human interpretation of what is valuable and what isn't. So we have to interpret the evidence. For Pearl Harbor, there's some question of whether some members of the government knew about the attack earlier, etc.... stuff that's no longer clear from the evidence. More important, though, is that including Pearl Harbor, or the invention of the steam engine, or the role of Thomas Paine in the Revolution in an educational exhibit is an act of interpretation. Da creator of an interpretive exhibit chooses what to include, and thereby offers an interpretation of what was meaningful or important or just plain interesting. That's how history is "written" - by selection and interpretation of data. Dat's how all human knowledge works, eh? We choose what data to keep or to pay attention to. We choose what is worthwhile or interesting to incorporate into our understandin'. All human knowledge is a selection and interpretation of our experiences and observations. Yah, and that's why efforts to suppress religious viewpoints are so pernicious, eh? It's an interpretation that such viewpoints are valueless and should not be selected for inclusion in the bank of human knowledge we pass along to our kids in the public realm. That is "book-burning." Beavah

So what IS "the best"? The best is behavin' like civil human beings. Like what we teach the kids. Some things are just too small to be worried about, even if they're "wrong" according to some document somewhere. We don't really care that Willy Coronado's WOSM patch is too low on his uniform, or that he's wearin' grey loops with a SM position patch. Some things we might find personally annoying, but we allow them and keep our mouths shut because it's meaningful and important for other people. and on and on. Not everything has to become an adversarial, technical argument. And if we turn everything into an adversarial, technical argument, we use up the good will and tolerance that keeps society together. Win the battle and be left holdin' nuthin' but ash. ------ Sorry, Calico, what you're describin' ain't possible. History, science, literature, all human knowledge are viewpoints, not "facts." Ideas. Ethics, aesthetics, theology are also viewpoints. Important ones. They often have as much or more impact on science and history and sociology than vice versa. Yeh wouldn't want public information displays to be about science, written by non-scientists expressin' their opinion, eh? Might get some really odd science that way. Most importantly, kids or the public who only got that view of science would become biased or impoverished. Similarly, why would anyone want displays about religion, written in a way no religionist would express things? That doesn't lead to education or understanding; it leads to bias and impoverished understanding. In da end, you've banned one whole major branch of human thought from public lands. The folks who are "experts" in that field cannot contribute their own writings, and in some cases even experts in other fields can't be allowed to put forth their opinion. Religion must be closeted. That is book burning, my friend, just a high-tech version of it. Or at least, it's a good way to convince a lot of citizens to vote against acquisition and funding for public lands and endeavors where their viewpoints are excluded. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Our troop does cool stuff and the boys seem to enjoy it. The coolest stuff is adult organized. Its not what I would like to see, but if we left it up to the youth, they simply wouldn't put it together. Trust me, we tried. We've mentored, we've guided, cajoled, coached, taught. But it never gets done, the older scouts just don't get it or don't care. How many missed deadlines, lost weekends, bad trips until you take the reines back. Yah, Gern, when yeh say you've "mentored, guided, cajoled, coached, taught", can I ask what sort of things you've done and how much time you've spent on 'em? So, do you do TLT? And how much time is spent on that? Do you do ongoing patrol leader training? And what does that look like? Are you runnin' mixed-age or single-age patrols? Is the SPL expected to organize everything, or do the PL's and APL's have a major role so that they're learnin' along the way to becoming SPL? All kinds of things in troop culture are interrelated in odd ways, as EagleDad describes. What yeh describe is "delegating down" to kids who aren't quite ready. A bit like tellin' a beginner swimmer to swim across the lake, then throwin' up your hands in frustration when yeh have to go rescue him. Often it happens even though you gave long and detailed instructions to him about swimmin' across the lake and even worked out a written plan for doin' it. That delegatin' down problem can be because of ages & stages, or from a bit too much teaching at the kids, rather than working with the kids, or not quite realizing how much effort it really takes to build skills and confidence before lettin' a lad "solo". Mostly, though, it's just because the lad hasn't had enough practice or the right kind of practice. A bit like an expert swimmer tellin' a boy to swim across the lake, when what's really needed is a lot of time splashin' around and swimmin' in the shallow water. That can be borin' for an expert swimmer, for sure, but it's the way all of us learned to swim. I'm with EagleDad & Lisabob as usual. It is possible. I know some scouts who on their own time organize ski trips and rock climbin' trips and service efforts and such, all because of the culture they picked up in their troops. GW has a point, though, that in this day of "organized" activities, lads start out in scoutin' bein' more immature in that way than may have been the case in the past. So we've got our work cut out for us, eh? Don't give up, don't blame the kids. Best to look at what we're doin' and change it if it ain't working the way we want it to. Beavah

I see a spectrum of ideas that differ in degrees of confidence. Those that have withstood tests most successfully have the greatest confidence. We might categorize them as 'laws'. Nah, I don't buy it, eh? 'Cell Theory' is the foundation of biology. So "Cell Theory" is the Foundation of Biology? Then shouldn't it be a law, not a theory? Seems like it's more qualified than somethin' like Newton's Laws or the components of the Ideal Gas Law, all of which are known to be wrong! epalmer's definitions from wiki were different, but every bit as silly, eh? I think Merlyn's got the right of it. The term "Law" gets used for strong relationships discovered during the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century when that language was in vogue ("natural laws"). It's an historical accident of terminology arisin' from da epistemology of the time. Da effort to try to make a distinction between "law" and "theory" these days arises from misguided elementary and middle school teachers. Now there I go agreein' with Merlyn. End of the world must be the day after tomorrow. Would you please explain how the GPS is related to Einstein's gravitational theory? I'm da wrong guy to be askin' that, I think. I'm just a hobbyist astronomer who likes helpin' with astronomy MB at camp. My understandin' is that there are two effects that need to be compensated for in GPS. One is that the satellites are movin', and movin' clocks run slower when viewed from a stationary clock. That's special relativity. Second is that clocks that are deeper in a gravity well will run slower when viewed by a clock farther away from a gravitational source. Dat's why black holes redshift light, eh? So an earth-based clock will run slower than a satellite-based clock. That's general relativity/gravitation. The two effects partially cancel, but for the altitude and speed GPS satellites work at, the gravitational effect is stronger. Satellite clocks run faster than ground-based clocks, because the ground-based clock is stuck closer to the earth's gravitation. Now you'd think the effect would be small, and it is... but even a small effect counts when you're talkin' about da level of precision involved in GPS. It's about 5 orders of magnitude greater than da slew error of the atomic clocks, and at least several orders of magnitude greater than some of the other error components. Makes a big difference. B

Yah, hmmmm.... I've seen versions of this situation more than a few times, eh? Not my personal choice for an ideal program, but it's comfortable for the older parents and kids. At the same time, many of us here would agree with things like not usin' a one-day badge mill program, and that's certainly SM's choice. 30 boys in the troop is really quite something, and suggests they are at least runnin' on some positive past momentum even if things aren't ideal now. It also raises the possibility that the thing that has changed and caused the loss of 15 boys is not the troop, but the adult conflict which went on this year. You takin' over abruptly would cause a lot of changes, perhaps many of 'em positive. But that would be too much for the older boys, who would all come to hate you and quit. Read da CC & SM's actions as defendin' their own children, and the 45-scout program they built. In these situations, a patient man who builds relationships with the SM and younger lads can slowly effect a long-term change. It might go faster than that since if the SM's not on campouts, whatever adults are leadin' the campouts can set the expectations and tone. No fair blamin' the SM for campsite anarchy if he ain't there . That takes some creativity, to introduce more fun and skills here and there, and pull boys in. A lot more work than complainin'. But if you're lookin' for a shorter-term improvement/shift to your way of thinkin', that ain't gonna happen. Which brings us back to 1) My son is doing fine and likes the troop. He stays in, and I apologize, stay away and stay quiet, or help out in small ways that bring fun to campouts, and build positive relationships for da future. 2) My son doesn't like the troop either (or I push him to that view by my attitude), so we leave in favor of a new troop. Both options are fine, eh? My guess is the same as Lisabobwhite's, though. Given the history and where you're at, it's probably time to look elsewhere. Beavah

Beavah, I hope you're proud of yourself! Hee hee :) Indeed I am. But that explanation, packsaddle, had to be one of da most circuitous and overly nuanced academic dances I've read in a bit . I think yeh should give it another go, or poor Merlyn is goin' to be left all alone with his notion that a theory and a law are functionally the same thing, or that it ain't possible to falsify a (scientific) theory. Einstein's 'gravitational theory'. I'm fairly certain that the 'theory' hasn't been put to very much practical use outside of the fields of astronomy or astrophysics. Well, there's always GPS. That seems kinda practical. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Beavah

Yah, Merlyn, that's a legal argument, eh? Da problem with legal arguments is that they're adversarial, disputatious, and technical. Not da best for engenderin' a civil society. Perhaps good tactics, but bad strategy for the atheist crowd. If yeh tick off da majority for long enough, the laws change. Interestin' guys get elected, courts get stacked, Constitutional respect gets eroded. Heck, even whole planets can disappear. Here in workin' with kids, I'm more interested in the ethical argument, or the ethical position on the matter, eh? Get too much legal falderal at the office. What do you feel about a society that funds and establishes informational displays on public lands, but excludes one sort of information entirely? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

*to my knowledge* i have to turn in the eagle application (along with my eagle project workbook?) BEFORE i turn 18. and i am allowed to have the bor AFTER the 18th birthday. do i assume correctly? Hey, James, congrats on gettin' your project and merit badges done, eh? It's a bit hard to give yeh specific advice online, because da process is different between councils and districts. If yeh can't meet with your SM and your troop Advancement Chair doesn't know, call your BSA council office and ask for da number of your District Advancement Chair. Before you turn 18, you have to have finished everything. No more work on MBs or PORs or labor of any kind on your project. EBOR and paperwork can happen within 90 days of your 18th birthday without any big deal. Yeh might find some folks don't know that or don't like that, though! It's good practice to try to do da BOR's before a lad's birthday - just in case somethin' turns up, he'd have time to fix it before he turned 18 and could have another BOR. So be prepared to explain that it's OK, and you're doin' it after because da Christmas holidays got in the way. Things to put on your to-do list (maybe): * Finish your project writeup and get the approval signatures from your SM/advisor and the representative of the organization you did the work for in your Eagle Project Workbook. Try to get da signatures before the 5th, just to document that your project work was done by your 18th birthday. * Do your last SM conference and get your SM's signature on your application. * Get your Committee Chair's approval signature on your application [in districts where da EBOR is held in the troop, the CC may sign after your BOR]. * Submit your Eagle Application to the council registrar to check your MBs/ranks - council registrar signs and returns to you [many districts ask yeh to do this before an EBOR. * Ask for letters from your references to be mailed to da Eagle BOR chair [many districts ask for letters, but some don't. If they don't ask for letters, the council or DAC may hold on to your Eagle Application so they can call your references]. * Write up your personal statement and your resume of leadership positions and awards. * Contact your SM or AC or CC or DAC to have 'em schedule an Eagle BOR [who you contact just depends on your area, eh? Some districts also do some form of separate final project review, too, before da EBOR] * Get your uniform up to snuff if you've been lazy about sewing . * If it's been a while, look back over da Scout Oath and Law and make sure you've got it well memorized and can talk about what it means to you. * Go to your EBOR with copies of your project report, and other documents for people to read [or send 'em in advance if they ask for that]. Bring your Project Workbook and Eagle Application. * Be calm. Be confident. Most of us don't bite, though a few dull old goats may growl a bit. * After your BOR, da adults will sign your application and usually take care of the paperwork from there without your help. Remember to ask 'em for an Adult Application to be ASM, though! and finally * Be sure to come back to Scouter.Com and let us know when we can celebrate! Remember, this is just an old internet guy's version. Your local process can be a bit different, eh? And some other folks may add, subtract, or call me a kook because their council/district is different than what I said. Yeh can use my list as a guide, but talk to someone there who knows, just to be sure. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah, the "public censorship of ideas" includes cases where only some people are allowed to present their ideas. Yah, exactly! Some folks are allowed to present their ideas on science/astronomy, which is one branch of natural philosophy. But other branches of philosophy are to be excluded, along with any references to common ideas or connections between them and natural science philosophy. Bet ya if you were honest you'd admit you'd have no problem with da Kepler quote, eh? I bet you'd also be queasy about da Plato quote. Which is exactly the point. Christians like Kepler and Newton are allowed to "speak" only if their speech is consistent with secular philosophy. A secular philosopher like Plato is only allowed to "speak" if his philosophy doesn't sound consistent with religious philosophy. It ain't quite "burn the books." It's "keep all da opinions we disagree with locked in a private closet." I still want all da trees removed. No animist worship spaces and objects on public property, no matter how nice da Truffulas look. Plus, with a few industrious furry critters, we can dam da streams while we're at it . Oh, yah... and since some guy named B-P Kudu has started doin' sermons on how birds lead kids to their Creator, better arm da Beavers with shotguns. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I can't get that Hamster Dance out of my head now thanks to John-in-KC, and then local1400 starts bringin' up Mulberry Bushes... http://youtube.com/watch?v=e9egHKNz2m4 Very disturbin'. Beavah

Sure you can "falsify" that theory. Just you can prove that God doesn't exist. However, I don't believe that a theory has to be able to be proven false to be a theory. A theory is simply an organized set of ideas about a subject. Once proven, it becomes a law. Newtons Laws of Motion started out as theory. Yah, I figured all da science types would want some extra space in a new thread so as to educate GW and da rest of us on what is really meant by "falsifiability" and whether Newton's "Laws" are a theory or not Have at it! Beavah

Arguably, it has no legitimate place in an astronomy exhibit - unless of course your objective is to promote your own religious POV (ie., the J-C-I God as the creator of those planets). Oh, pishtosh. I utterly reject this silly notion of public censorship of ideas. It is but one step removed from those who use the government to burn books because they don't like the ideas presented in da books. "You can have your books and your quotes, but keep 'em on private property, and out of the public consciousness." Balderdash. ----- Newton's opinions on the laws of motion are fit and proper to be quoted on solar system rocks, I'm sure. So why not another Isaac Newton quote: This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. - Sir Isaac Newton Or is one of Newton's opinions or writings OK, and another to be censored? ----- How about that secular/pagan philosopher Plato: Astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another. - Plato Does Plato get censored because he sounds Christian, or is he accepted because as a government we don't censor pagans? ----- Would yeh have the same objection to a Kepler quote? The diversity of the phenomena of nature is so great, and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich, precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh nourishment. - Johannes Kepler Is philosophy and poetry like that OK, or must we limit our public discourse to science? ----- What if a scientist brings up the Almighty? Must we censor Einstein's God does not play dice with the universe? even though he's really making a kind of scientific argument? But if we don't censor that, can we censor his commentary Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein ----- or how about Galileo: The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go. - Galileo Galilei Is that subject to our rock path censors, or is it OK because he's commenting on the limits of biblical literalism, and anything that limits or downplays the scope of religion gets past the censors? Just askin' Beavah

I consider clean and neat to be stain free and ironed. Yah, well, da old Beavah's memory ain't perfect. The quote is "neat and uncluttered" not "clean and neat" (though a Scout is Clean as a matter of Law, eh? ). Members wear only the insignia that show their present status in the movement. Members should make every effort to keep their uniforms neat and uncluttered. Let's look at the guys who wear pins on their collars, pins on their epaulettes, temporary patches dangling from both pockets and multiple QU patches on their right arm. Yah, sure, them too . Though if yeh look carefully, each of those things is addressed in other places in da Insignia Guide, eh? While da quote above applies to legitimate insignia worn in their proper place. Insignia guide is just a guide, eh? A program support material. Lots of folks adjust da guidelines a bit for great reasons that make sense for da kids. And lots adjust the guidelines for other reasons. Not a big deal, really, to choose to wear more knots than da National Commissioner and BSA President. Just somethin' to be thoughtful about. Beavah

When I went through Commissioner Basic Training this past year, they made a good point about the wearing of knots. They first asked if anybody was in the military and then asked if they wore all of their ribbons on their uniforms. They said that we as scouters should wear all of our knots with pride. We earned them so we should wear them. But we ain't da military, eh? The example set by our National Commissioner is to wear a small set of 5 knots, correspondin' to his current status/service in the program, and keepin' the uniform clean and neat. Just like da Insignia Guide says, eh? Our past National Commissioner and current BSA President typically wore only 3 knots. Scouters can choose to do what they want, eh? There's no Uniform Police, and they should follow da lead of their CO in terms of "ethic" for wearin' awards and finery and such. Some units place more of an emphasis on such things, and that's OK. But it does seem just a touch out of sync when local folk of limited service are wearin' twice the number of knots as volunteers of national prominence. Beavah

Yah, what ScoutNut said! It always seems to me that learnin' first aid is like learnin' cooking. Yeh got to have someone show you, and coach you a bit. Then you've got to practice, and figure out all da different ways to burn something. Kids (hopefully) get practice with cookin' every outing. I figure the best is to do the same for First Aid. A couple of scenarios per patrol per trip. Kinda like "Dinner and a Movie" except "Dinner and a Disaster." Yeh can do this with a big deck of cards that yeh just keep addin' new scenarios to. Oldest boys have to manage the scene and do triage - they look things over and then delegate treatment to an appropriate lad. Thing is, you'd never really delegate to someone who doesn't know what they're doing, so don't allow it here. If it's a simple cut, it can be delegated to a Tenderfoot. He leads, someone not yet Tenderfoot may watch and help, eh? Or work under the TF's supervision. That way lads who already "have" the signoff keep refining their skills. After each scenario, debrief and give an evaluation. If they really blew it, run the same thing again quickly from the beginning so that they finish on "getting it right" rather than on "gettin' it wrong." Yeh can do it with or without moulage in most cases. With moulage is always more fun, but takes more time. One big advantage to this approach is that the younger lads get to see "harder" first aid and begin to figure it out before it gets taught. So a 2nd Class Scout gets to watch a First Aid MB scout assisted by a 1st Class scout perform CPR, while da 2nd Class lad helps out by treatin' for shock and hypothermia. Older boys learn how to triage and manage scene safety and "bigger picture", and everyone learns how to split up roles and deal with the critical support functions that are also part of a real life first aid problem (those also serve who just boil water for hot drinks for da rescuers ). Of course, this presupposes mixed-age patrols, where the younger lads are learnin' by watchin' the older lads. In same-age groups, the tendency is to get more class-like (have the TG teach a session on first aid for snakebite, etc.). One thing to beware of is there's a tendency for adults to write bigger, badder scenarios all the time. Yeh gotta resist the temptation to do a MCI with 5 victims requirin' immediate chest tubes and central lines . Best to keep 'em fairly simple so that success is likely and the scenario doesn't take 3 hours. Yeh want kids to "win" 85% of the time, and be close the remainin' 15%. Save da Kobayashi Marus for Venturing. Now, it might be tough to get this goin' if none of the lads has good First Aid skills to start. My solution to that is always to "jump start" the PL's through TLT. But yeh can also stay with simple scenarios to begin. Beavah