Beavah

If yeh have 10,000 scouters, then 10 of 'em will be molesters, and 9 of da ten would be "caught" by a YP violation. Of da other 9,990 scouters, 10% of 'em will also be "caught" by a YP violation (probably more if we take a very pedantic and literal view of what constitutes a violation). So da probability that someone violatin' da YP guidelines is actually a danger to kids is 9/999 or less than 1%. How does that compare to what yeh guessed up above? If you're like most people, yeh guessed way high. That's a common error in human perception, which leads to many bad judgments and policy decisions. Da reality in this case is that for every reportable YP violation, you'll being crying "Wolf!" 110 times and IDing a bad guy once. You'll be dead wrong about somethin' being a "grooming situation" over 99% of da time, and defaming a good volunteer in da process. Right now our social service agencies are taxed to the limit across da nation. What do yeh suppose would happen if we mandated reporting of "suspicion" on that basis? Do yeh think that social services could increase their number of investigations a hundredfold? Within da BSA, do yeh suppose that an SE or Chartered Org. is likely to take meaningful action on a report if they get 110 cries of "Wolf!" on average before they might get to anything meriting actual review? How many of da 110 good volunteers do yeh suppose will stay in Scouting after someone has cried "Wolf!" on them? Of course, if yeh reduce da number of good volunteers, there will be a higher percentage of wolves at the same time that da authorities are takin' such cries less seriously. This is da real challenge of perception when dealin' with mandatory reporting by non-professionals and others. When da safety of kids depends on havin' limited resources directed toward da real risks, and on havin' lots of good people around so the kids can't easily be isolated, yeh have to be very thoughtful about da unintended consequences of an approach that isn't mindful of da difference between perception and genuine risk. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so let me set up some background here. Da released ineligible volunteer files for a 20-30 year period number roughly a thousand per decade. Now some are false positives, many more real positives were probably never reported, and many of da real positives actually never abused scouts but were flagged for abuse that occurred outside of scoutin'. With da total number of adult volunteers and a loose guess at adult turnover for da period, we can guess da rate of bad guys in Scoutin' as being about 1 in a thousand. Now, let's say that at some point, a genuine molester will be caught in a YP violation within or related to Scouting 90% of the time. Yep, molesters do these things, and alert folks will notice. At the same time, occasionally ordinary decent scouters make judgment calls or forget or just get put in a funny position by circumstances so that 10% of 'em have violated YP guidelines just in da course of life. Now, if you see someone who violates YP guidelines, what's the chance that the fellow is actually someone who would take advantage of kids? I'll wait.... Make your best guess...

CHILD ABUSE HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE POSITION YOUR TAKING. Absolutely. Yah, this is what is called a "claim." Makin' your claim by shoutin' louder in all caps and bold does not make your claim stronger. In order to make your claim stronger or more convincing, yeh need somethin' called "evidence" and "reasoning." Now, I reckon that if we really knew "absolutely" what causes child abuse to happen, then that would be a genuine gift to society, eh? So I'm willin' to listen. What is your evidence that child abuse happens because people are understandin' and kind to each other, and try to be helpful to kids and families even if it means that they drive a lad home when mom asks 'em to? As I said, I am certain that I have seen far more genuine cases of abuse than you have just by virtue of my profession, and am more aware of da law and da literature than you are. That means I know things like an SE isn't goin' to interfere in da custodial decisions of mom and dad outside of scoutin' activities. But every now and again someone comes up with a brilliant idea, supported by clear and convincing evidence and careful reasoning. So I'm all ears! (note to OGE: Yah, yeh know I'm an old fashioned fellow and still drive a stick shift. For some reason lots of da moms and quite a few of the dads around here can't drive manuals. Otherwise, I'd agree with yeh!) Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... I always thought I was furry, rather than scary. So would yeh report Uncle Joe to da Scout Executive for bein' one-on-one, drivin' his godson to the meeting when mom and dad couldn't? Would yeh report Eagle92's fellow for bringin' the lad to a meeting when dad couldn't, even though he lives with the boy and probably regularly babysits one-on-one? Do yeh honestly think da SE is goin' to have any say in such things, which are fundamentally custodial choices of da parents? Yeh seem to believe that it's policy that keeps people safe, and that's just false, eh? I'd say it's dangerously naive, in fact. That's from somebody who has dealt with many more cases of child abuse than you have, whose experience in da area is both deeper and broader. I get that yeh tend to get in a lather with anybody who exercises judgment in applyin' policy in a way different than how you want to read it, whether it's kids in cars or givin' advancement to lads. I get that, and I'm OK with it. I think that's a stage of personal and moral development that lots of folks go through. I'm also OK that yeh would perhaps not welcome me as a leader. Different folks like or need different personalities to work with, and different COs have different goals. There are many units which I support that I wouldn't be a good fit for as a unit volunteer. On da flip side, sometimes I think that I would perhaps be a touch reluctant to trust you with da welfare of children. Because in my book, it's wisdom and sound judgment that matter most in workin' with kids, and sometimes yeh seem reluctant or unable to demonstrate such personal judgment and responsibility. Then I shake my head and say "Nah, he's just comin' across that way because of da awkward, overly energetic and black-and white dialog that internet forums tend to create." That to my mind is da more sound explanation, because almost every scouter I've known in real life has been a remarkably good fellow at heart. So let's agree that everyone here cares deeply about kids and is offerin' the best advice they can from their own experience and perspectives, eh? I understand where you're comin' from, and would agree that folks should be prudent and thoughtful about such things. Do yeh think perhaps that yeh can recognize that other folks here have wisdom and experience that can be taken into account without goin' so far as accusin' 'em of endangering children? In the end, though, if a mom and her lad came out and worked da whole day as popcorn kernel on behalf of the pack, and she had so much junk of the pack's in her car because of her kindness and commitment, and she asked me after the event to take her lad home on the way with her following me, I absolutely would do it. Because I gave da world my Oath, eh? On my honor, I will do my best... Beavah

Ya know some examples just get too weird and creepy. Yah, hmmmm.... I must have missed somethin'. How is it weird and creepy that a scouter is rentin' an apartment or such from another scouter? I think that would be da sort of thing that would make for a perfect renter / landlord, eh? Folks who share values and interests, and have lived with each other in tents . It would also be an act of kindness. One is gettin' a place to live, the other is gettin' help with his mortgage. Seems Thrifty, not creepy. I think I'd want to ask for clarification on how to handle such a situation. Yah, I know that these days we sort of treat young people like they're incapable, and that has consequences in terms of their behavior and confidence. I don't know how to say this. You're an adult. There's nobody to "ask for clarification" from anymore, eh? Not mom or dad, not some other Authority. You're expected to make your own decisions. Beavah

Yah, hmmmmm.... Well, da real-world answer to gsdad's question if it is allowed for him to give the boy a ride is "Yes." There is no law or social custom against it in da U.S. In fact, the social norms of kindness and consideration in da U.S. would make it expected that he lend a hand in that way. So I suppose da question is whether it's valid to interpret BSA guidance in a way that demands we do somethin' so clearly contrary to common sense and good neighborly values. That's a personal decision that to me is obvious, but then I'm an old-fashioned Christian sort of fellow. One of da tragedies of modern America is how many lads live in single-parent homes, and how many of those are strugglin' financially and personally. It's rough. Those lads aren't goin' to be able to access scouting unless our scouter adults lend a hand here and there. So each of us has to decide whether our Oath to help other people at all times, and be loyal, helpful, courteous, kind, and brave is what we value in a particular case, or whether adherence to generic Policy as a form of Obedience is what we value for a particular case. There are reasons for da generic policy, and folks should be thoughtful about that. Nobody here and certainly nobody at da council office or in Irving can make that judgment for another person. Happily, I reckon most scouters put da Oath first, and as a result a lot of lads who really need scouting and positive adult influences in their life get that. It is one of Scouting's greatest strengths. So even during a scout event, I'd expect scouters to be thoughtful and caring. Now, for every troop I've known, da fact of da matter is that gettin' to a scout meeting is not part of the scout event. It's up to the parents of the lad. Most troops don't collect driver's license and insurance information for a tour plan, don't coordinate da carpool as a troop function, or any of that, eh? The event is listed as bein' at the meeting place, and driving and driving rules begin there. Some boys ride their bikes or walk to meetings (Oh my GOSH! No buddy system! AIEEEEEE!!!) Some lads get sent with Grandpa or Uncle Joe, who might be registered leaders. Yah, it's truly "disgusting" that a grandfather drive his grandson to a scout meeting, one-on-one. In some cases, "Uncle Joe" isn't even related to the lad, he's dad's best friend from work and da lad's godfather. The Horrors! In other cases, it's Mrs. Jones, who is drivin' the carpool for the soccer / scouting run this week, even though First Class Scout Jones is at confirmation class, she's fulfilling her duty to the other families. And yah, sure, sometimes it's Mr. Assistant Scoutmaster who lives nearby and takes kids to the meetin' with da parents' OK. Yeh know what, ohmygosh, I reckon a bunch of lads could come to da troop meeting on ATVs direct from da LaserTag arena, with Billy's older brother being the only adult around! It's not up to us to tell parents what to do, or to tell scouters what to do with their own time. All we can suggest is that they be alert and thoughtful. Maybe consider leavin' da ATV at home and just doin' lasertag next time. So fred8033 is right in that if yeh are in such a position as an adult, yeh should of course be thoughtful about it, eh? There are considerations to be balanced. But da reality is Scouting would be a much smaller, poorer organization if most of our adults start tryin' to apply "policy" outside of its scope instead of just bein' sensible and kind about carin' for kids and families. Beavah

Is it ok for a troop leader to take several boys on a hike during a campout without a second leader? No one-on-one contact, short hike on well-established trails/roads, not more than 10 minutes from the main group at anytime, visible for most of the hike. What say we? Yah, hmmm... Well, I'd say somethin' like "get a grip". Or perhaps, "use clutch, engage brain". Two deep is required for trips and outings, and yeh had two adults on the outing. It's not required for every moment of da outing. No one-on-one is fine for such a hike. Beavah

Yah, we've been hearin' a lot of that from various folks around da country. No surprise, really. Da curriculum that they worked out with National is OK, but ARC doesn't have da instructors or longer-term experience in deliverin' WFA to be able to pull it off as well. Pay da extra bucks for a real WFA course from one of da experienced providers like SOLO, WMI, WMA, WMTC, etc. Beavah

Yah, gsdad, RichardB gave yeh da technical requirements. Those aren't really all that practical for your use case, though. So I reckon da way yeh need to think about this is that gettin' to the meeting or meet-up point is not officially part of the scouting event. Neither da BSA nor the unit need to be involved in da carpool arrangements that parents make. So if the kernel asks yeh to take her son home, that's a private arrangement and just fine, in da same way that the neighborhood carpool is, eh? Yeh see parents drive da carpool even if their own kid is sick all the time We'd lose a quarter of the kids in scouting if people didn't do exactly what yeh describe in terms of picking up lads who couldn't make it because a single parent or family can't provide transportation themselves. Beavah

Yah, well, all that is pretty consistent, eh? Not sure why anyone is surprised. One of da big things that EBORs (and final SM Conferences) talk about is da Oath and Law. The lad was honest and said he didn't believe in a duty to God nor in keepin' himself morally straight. Good for him for bein' trustworthy. Choices have consequences, and da consequence of those choices is that yeh aren't eligible for da Eagle Scout award. That shouldn't be a surprise to any youth who pays da least bit of attention as a citizen these days, eh? We've been in da headlines on the matter for his entire time as a Boy Scout. So good marks for Trustworthy, but bad marks for a couple other points, especially bein' mentally awake. Of course, given da media splash, it seems likely this is just another part of da current PR campaign, and the lad is in fact a willing participant in that effort. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Seems like da poor fellow has some untrained ASMs that aren't all that helpful, eh? On da merit badge thing you blew it, jaffolder. It's not your job to help your son get MB signoffs. It's not your role to have grandpa take videos of him and try to push da SM into approving the badge on that basis. It's your son's job to sit down with a merit badge counselor, engage in a mentoring relationship with that person, and meet da requirements to that MB counselor's satisfaction. When your son takes his driving test, da state examiner doesn't care that yeh have a video of your son driving around your farm, he doesn't care that dad wants to sign him off on his driver's license. It's up to your son to demonstrate his skills to the satisfaction of da examiner. As an ASM, yeh know that, or yeh should have had training so that yeh know that. You should apologize to the SM and stop makin' the man's job harder. ASMs are there to help and support the SM and the program for all the boys, eh? Not just your own. An ASM who is throwin' sand in the gears just frustratin'. One of da things that is sort of true about Scoutmasters in successful troops is that they are a bit "blunt" from an adult perspective. There are a lot of reasons for that, eh? One is that it's hard work and there's not always time to have long, sit-down explanations for 60 different parents every time somethin' comes up. Another is that adolescent boys don't "get" subtle, eh? They need adults who are straight-talking and pretty darn blunt. In fact, they tend to walk all over or just dismiss adults who pussyfoot around. You're right, that isn't always da best way to handle parents, but it's rare yeh can have your cake and eat it, too. Often a good CC takes up da job of gently educatin' parents so as to allow da SM to use his straighttalkin' skills with the kids. Da measure here is "What do the kids think?" Do they think the SM is a jerk who treats 'em like crap? Or do they actually like and respect the guy, and appreciate that he kicks 'em in the butt when they need it? Don't let your ego or personal sensitivities get in da way of what might work just fine for the lads. Yep, I think yeh should find a way to help carry the load and support da SM, or you should get out of da ASM role and consider another place to volunteer. Districts need help, too. Your son should make his own decision, with your unqualified support. Beavah

Yah, what desertrat and Basement said, eh? Lots of good folks eventually hit da point where Scouting is no longer a service, it's an obligation. An imposition. I've got 26 part-time ASMs who will drive, I've been dealin' with Mrs. Jones' complaints, da fact that da equipment guy didn't get the stuff we need again, Mr. Fred's wanting to talk about his son's grades, two Eagle projects and three Scoutmaster conferences this week, but if I personally don't go on da bike thing this weekend it's going to fail because da only other guy to do it is off with da Cub Scouts. Trust me, da man doesn't think he's king of the troop and everybody else has to bow to him. He thinks he's the guy holdin' everything together and dealing with da dozens of things that nobody else sees, or anticipates, or steps up to help with. Odds are he's right. What do yeh do? Well, first yeh realize that unlike other folks, when he was needed to make an outing run he showed up. He didn't wait to be asked, he viewed it as his obligation. Yeh look past da temporary frustration he's feelin' and yeh recognize that love begins by showin' up. Then yeh get a friend or two of his at some other time to have da conversation with him about burnout and needin' to take some time off. That's hard, eh? Yeh need da right folks. Yeh might need to buy he and his wife a plane ticket. And yeh step up yourself. Beavah

Yah, hmmmmm.... So, Mr. Boyce, yeh do realize that what yeh linked to is a blog, not an "op-ed piece", right? When we were younger, yeh had to have a fair bit of money and a number of people in your employ in order to own a press, eh? That capital cost meant yeh wanted to try to recoup your investment by establishin' a trusted relationship with a broad audience of readers and advertisers. It encouraged those with presses to be responsible, and reinforced da notion that something that was "in print" was actually true or at least worth readin'. Nowadays, with internet blogs, individuals who are just plain nutters can set up an electronic press for virtually no cost, so yeh get things like "Americans for Truth about Homosexuality" (really just one guy named Peter LaBarbara who has a computer), or da "Catholic League" (really just one guy named Donahue who has a computer). If yeh can start a "press" for a few thousand bucks that can reach nation-wide yeh are sure to find some like-minded folks who are gullible, eh? Folks who don't realize that a blog is not da same things as an old-style printed paper op-ed piece. Usually older folks who grew up with da notion that if it was in print, it was true or at least worth readin', because da reputation and financial wellbeing of da owner of da press was important back then, and they haven't realized things have changed. Personally, I think it's shameful for such people to prey on da weaknesses and fears of folks in that way, but these people are just nutters. Shame doesn't come into it. I'm opposed to gay marriage and am deeply pro-life, but this nonsense doesn't help da cause at all. It associates good, thoughtful folk with da shameful and da nutty. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... We aren't really tryin' to compare one guy with an attitude at one polling place in Pennsylvania who got hauled off by police within da hour with an organized partisan political effort across multiple targeted "battleground" states to affect every polling place in da state so as to make it more difficult for significant groups of people to vote. Are we? Yah, this is da sort of dishonorable nonsense that makes some of da modern Republicans unsupportable. How much farther out of da way can they go to dig up and spin these ridiculous isolated anecdotes in order to point with alarm? One big black man in Philly? Race-baitin' with a twist on da Black Panthers? Yeh have to be jokin'! Da problem they have is that too small a percentage of da U.S. electorate is that feeble-minded, eh? This is da stuff that is ruinin' da conservative cause in the country. Beavah

Yah, lrsap, this is why we get paid da big bucks, eh? First, I'd suggest your ASM needs a bit of coachin'. The ASM should have backed da APL up earlier and just pulled one of the boys out of da patrol for a sidebar conversation. Remove da problem, and reprimand in private. Aside from that... Getting a patch for First Class is somethin' that doesn't need to be on a timetable. It can happen tomorrow, three months from now, or six months from now. The lad is only 13. What's important is that he be recognized by you, by your ASM, by his PL and APL and da other boys in his patrol as a First Class Scout. Right now, from what yeh say, neither you nor they recognize him as a First Class Scout. None of yeh believe he has, as yet, demonstrated the character and Scout Spirit a First Class scout should have. Your job as a Scoutmaster is to convey that message in a way that the boy is most likely to learn from. How yeh do that just depends on the lad and your relationship with him. There are all kinds of ways. When yeh have an older boy Patrol Leader, as Kudu suggests, a great way is to have the PL and APL participate in that conversation. Each givin' what they are seeing, and you backin' 'em up. Not a Scoutmaster Conference, a conference with his Patrol Leader and APL about Scout Spirit. You're only there to make it clear that demonstratin' Scout Spirit to da satisfaction of the youth and adult leadership is one of the requirements. When yeh have a peer as a PL, it just depends, eh? Some are ready for that sort of thing, others aren't - both in terms of the PL being ready for it and the boy bein' able to hear it from a peer. I think Eagledad is right in that da proper tone is one of disappointment or of just acknowledging that the boy is not yet ready. Advancement in the BSA is aspirational, eh? It's somethin' that yeh get recognized for when yeh reach a certain stage of positive behavior. It loses much of its value if yeh make it into a punishment - somethin' yeh withhold for negative actions. That's an important aspect of da tone of the thing. In that way I agree with fred8033; true punishment for behavior should be kept separate from advancement. Yeh may choose to punish him for his behavior (though I think yeh need to do that closer to the behavior), and in that case advancement should almost always be off the table until that's run its course. Even if yeh don't, though, da tone of the advancement conversation should not be "you've been bad" it should be "you haven't yet shown us that you are as good a person as you can be." So I reckon you've got this. Don't be too circumspect. Young male teens don't "get" subtle. Know that this, right here, doin' the hard stuff, is what really matters in teachin' character. Scout Salute. Beavah

Harry Potter (J.K. Rowling) Bought copies and read 'em to the grandkids just because there was a move to ban 'em in their local school. Bought copies for da school, too.

Yah, so it's just too much fun to spin off a real scoutin' thread from an Issues & Politics post, so I couldn't resist. In da original thread, Peregrinator mentions that he uses a Kindle to read to the boys on campouts at night before bed. Now, he's talkin' cub scouts, and there were several opinions about how it wouldn't work for Boy Scouts. Except I've sat at camps with Scoutmasters who read stories to boys at night. One troop every year at camp their Scoutmaster would come with a different Patrick McManus book, and da lads were simply enthralled. They'd look forward to it each night, they'd beg for more. So I'm curious... do yeh read to your Cub Scouts? What books or stories have yeh tried? Do yeh read to your Boy Scouts ever? What have yeh tried? Beavah

Yah, Sentinel947, I don't reckon a "scientific theory" is ever proven, eh? It's merely decided to be more or less useful, until such a time as it is disproven. Scientific "laws" like da Newton's "Laws" or da Ideal Gas "Law" are really just theories or models. Da only reason they are called "laws" is that they were developed during da period of time when natural philosophy talked a lot about phenomenon in terms of natural law. So pretty much a "scientific law" is just a good theory that was developed between da 17th and late 19th centuries. Before that, it was a "principle" (as in Archimedes' Principle). After that, it was a theory (as in the Theory of Relativity). Da language is just an artifact of da prevailing philosophy of the time, eh? Yah, hey, packsaddle, how'd I do with that, eh? See, old furry critters can learn. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, if yeh don't want people wearin' flip-flops or slippers on airplanes, don't make 'em have to take off their shoes to get on airplanes. One of da hardest things to get across to policymakers is that people aren't computers which will simply change their behavior in accord with a change in da program. They are organisms, selected by millions of years of evolution and God-given free will to respond and adapt to changes in their environment in creative and efficient ways. So if yeh forbid 'em from campin' or eatin' in the park, then perhaps they'll eat on da front steps of businesses near the park and get in everyone's way. Or perhaps they'll go to Paris instead of Rome. Beavah

This is a generational issue. In 20 years people will look back on the fear of homosexuals and the viewing of them as immoral and judge harshly. Yah, nobody is "afraid" of homosexuals, eh? Most of us feel sorry for 'em. It's a hard burden to bear. However, we also feel strongly about personal morality. Lots of people have hard burdens to bear of various sorts. It's hard for married couples to be faithful, particularly if one of 'em is struggling with a debilitating disease. It's hard for an unwed mother to choose hope and love for her unborn child over da fear and disruption to her life of an unexpected pregnancy. An alcoholic bears a hard burden to choose to refrain from drinkin' each day. A businessman who is strugglin' bears hard burdens in tryin' to treat his workers with fairness and loyalty. A married couple strugglin' with financial issues and stress bears a hard burden to stay together, and work at their marriage when it is no longer "fun." Da fact that things are hard, and that some people are asked to bear hard burdens, in no way means that we shouldn't teach young people that there are right ways to bear such burdens, and wrong ones. Married couples should work at their marriage. Mothers should trust and hope, and bring children to term as a gift to the child and the world, rather than end the child's life unborn so that their lifestyle is not inconvenienced. Alcoholics should reach for their friends and the support of their community each day, and each day choose not to reach for a bottle. Businessmen should treat their workers with consideration and loyalty. Suggestin' that alcoholics refrain from drinking is not "fear of alcoholics". It's compassion for alcoholics. Suggestin' to a young couple that a marriage is a lifetime of work, and that stickin' with your partner when it's more labor than love builds a foundation for deeper love is not "fear of divorce". It's da compassionate wisdom of those of us who have been there. Yep, young folks are good people, but they are inexperienced in some things, eh? As they grow older and life teaches 'em more, most start to see that da simplistic ways of lookin' at things that they had in their youth aren't always as righteous as they seemed at the time. Some things have longer-term consequences for individuals and societies that aren't as readily perceived in youth. That's just da normal progress of understandin' as people grow. Now, at da same time, I reckon some of da confusion in the young is our fault, eh? Lots of us old folks tend to treat young people like they're little kids and just try to tell 'em "No! Because I said so!" or "No! Because the Bible said so!". We teach morality or a relationship with God as an act of arbitrary prohibition, rather than as an invitation to bein' a better person and experiencin' more beauty in the world. That's our failing, eh? One for which I expect we will be judged quite harshly. I apologize for that. Just because we're not always da brightest doesn't mean that young people shouldn't have da intellectual vigor to get beyond such silly notions as "fear of homosexuals", though. Yeh should realize that you're bein' manipulated by other old folks with other agendas, eh? Who benefits da most by diminishing da value of religious notions in society do yeh suppose? Who gains? Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... I reckon there are opportunities here, eh? Set up a popcorn stand. Have an additional donation box for people who want to express their support da BSA's position on Timeless Values. Have a second donation box for people opposed to da BSA's position, who want to express their displeasure and just give to the local scout program and its kids. To really juice returns, set up an electronic scoreboard under each, with $ amount or number of donations. Beavah

>>So we behave honorably, so that da norm and example we set for everybody is to behave honorably. Because patriotism matters before party. If you're a real conservative, that is. >Conservative concern for meeting your "real conservative" criteria matches the Scotsman's concern over the no true Scotsman fallacy. Yah, and that's da problem, eh? Modern conservatives no longer seem to care about honor, and patriotism before party. They care about winning, however they can. Don't strike a grand Simpson-Bowles compromised over da deficit, play chicken with the debt ceiling so that da markets and businesses can't invest in growth in a stable environment. Why help the economy when the other party is in power? That's not conservative principles, eh? As OGE points out, da voter stuff used to be the purview of ugly Democrat machine politics. Gerrymandering districts all over da place used to be the stuff of Democrats as well; now da worst gerrymandered nonsense is comin' out of states where da Republicans have control. That's not conservative. It never has been. Conservatives believe in honor and patriotism, of country before party, of fairness ahead of political gain. We are ashamed by folks who pretend to be conservative who behave otherwise. Beavah

so we leave valuables unlocked if we haven't proved that anyone's interested in stealing them? Of course we do. This shows how da Republicans have moved away from bein' the party of businesspeople as well, eh? Security has costs, in terms of time, money, maintenance, lost opportunity, friction, and other things. Yeh don't spend money on stuff yeh don't need. If your neighbors are all friends, then there's no reason to spend thousands of dollars on a fence. But da real issue is that we don't want voting in this country to be "locked" by anybody, even da party we agree with at the moment. Because our enemies or da party we disagree with someday might have da key to da lock instead of us. So we behave honorably, so that da norm and example we set for everybody is to behave honorably. Because patriotism matters before party. If you're a real conservative, that is. Beavah

Yah, when yeh have a situation where there hasn't been any proven rash of voter fraud, and then yeh have one group that lost because of da high turnout of voters in da last presidential election, and then that group is tryin' to put in all kinds of new obstacles to votin' across da several states.... I reckon it's hard not to be cynical about that a bit, eh? Especially when a few party operatives at various events say that's exactly what they're tryin' to do. There's a reason why almost all of these are gettin' struck down right and left by the courts. As Americans, all of us - Democrat, Republican, Independent - should be against anything that tries to cheat or manipulate da polls. We should be leery of electronic balloting without "hard" backups, we should oppose tricks to try to exclude voters (and perhaps efforts to "round up" uninformed folks who wouldn't vote without bein' rounded up). Open access to da ballot box and integrity in da process should be a matter of honor for everybody. Beavah

But this country has demonstrated empirically that we are willing to go to war for a reason that can be summarized with a single word: oil. It's that simple. Nah, it's not that simple at all, eh? No oil in Korea. No oil in Vietnam. None in da Dominican Republic, Grenada, or Panama. No oil in Bosnia or Somalia. None in Afghanistan. Lots of oil in Venezuela under a hostile regime, but no war there. Would yeh like to try again on that thesis?