Beavah

Beavah you forget New Hampsire now allows same-sex marriages. Nah, I didn't forget. That was the point, and yeh apparently missed it completely. The states listed all had civil unions which essentially or completely accorded gay couples the same legal rights as marriage, but that wasn't enough. They insisted on the "marriage" word. The goal was for the state to establish a position contrary to the religious and historical definition. It wasn't about rights. Merlyn points out da issue of access to federal rights, but the state law changing the word does not in any way affect access to federal privileges of marriage, so that's a red herring. Da issue at the state level was solely co-opting the religious word. We have a question on whether same sex marriage has ever existed in the past that hasn't really been answered - the answer is yes - same sex marriage was legal in ancient Rome and ancient Greece as well as in parts of ancient China. In addition, in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, the Christian Church (and back then, there really was only one Christian Church to speak of) had not one but two liturgical ceremonies for uniting same sex couples - one that applied to males or females and a later one that applied only to males. Yah, CalicoPenn, yeh usually do a better job on your research, eh? While a few Roman Emperors like Nero set their own law for themselves, ancient Rome in fact did not allow same-sex marriage. The nonsense about Christian ceremonies uniting same-sex couples, though, is hilarious. First, there were of course more than one Christian Church in the centuries yeh mention, because that was after the effective split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions in the Great Schism. Second, this notion can be traced to the book of one Yale scholar, John Boswell, who has been roundly debunked. Boswell took elements from a filial adoption ceremony in a few Eastern Rite churches (adelphopoiesis), and twisted it in interestin' ways to promote his personal agenda as a gay man. Interestingly, some of those ceremonies are still practiced in some Eastern churches, where they signify spiritual blessing of friendships. It's no more an endorsement of homosexuality than the middle eastern practice of male friends holding hands in public is. Now ancient Greece poses some interestin' questions, because legal codes aren't as well preserved, passing as they did through the lens of da Christian eastern empire. It seems clear that the practice of older men "mentoring" young boys was accepted in some circles. I'm not sure that we want to offer Greek pederasty as an example of homosexual 'love' to be emulated, however. I can't speak to provinces in ancient China beyond readin' Wikipedia like you did. They sure didn't last too long, though, eh? So aside from Nero writin' the law for himself, we're hard-pressed to find many, if any, examples. At most, we're talking very few, far-between, short-lived, and generally associated with social and moral decline. Do we really want people telling their co-workers that their co-workers aren't really married because they wed in a different faith? Yep, there it is, eh? The heart of the matter. The liberal folks want to limit the free speech of those who disagree with 'em. The government should decide who is married, and should muzzle a Catholic who refuses to believe in a Druid ceremony, or vice versa. Not a policy argument on whether benefits should be accorded, but people should not be permitted to disagree on the word. Who cares if your co-worker says you're not really married accordin' to his religion? Only somebody who cares about ridin' on the coattails of goodwill and social norms that were established by that religion. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, BDPT00, that was not the example I gave, eh? The example I gave was of a young lad who made First Class in his First Year, and at age 11 or 12 was elected to OA in a fairly young troop. He went on his Ordeal and had a miserable time. Nobody hazed him, nobody bullied him. He received da usual peer pressure to sleep out, even though he had less skills and was less prepared than a typical lad on his Ordeal. He received the usual admonitions on silence and took 'em seriously. And as a result of the normal OA ordeal, he had an experience that he reported very much like OGE's. This is a real case, eh? I'm not makin' it up. It involves a real youth, and a real lodge, and a real pair of very upset parents and a kid lost to scouting. Objectively, from a different perspective, this was just an ordinary Ordeal, led by upstanding lodge members. Yah, they probably missed da signs that this particular lad wasn't as well prepared or emotionally robust as a typical Ordeal member, but it wasn't because they intended bullying or hazing. The kid didn't express his worries durin' the Ordeal because he was told to be silent and took that at face value. My point is if yeh just took that young lad's perspective as the only perspective, we would have dissolved the lodge, eh? I think yeh have to ask yourself, though, why yeh would really believe that fellow scouters like those lodge members or OGE's Scoutmaster or me support hazing and bullying. Do yeh think so little of the scouting movement, or of Loyalty and Kindness, that yeh would immediately assume the worst of fellow scouters because of one upset boy, or because he happens to disagree with yeh in an internet forum? No, of course neither I nor anyone else accepts hazing or bullying. I fear, though, that our approach to authority sometimes teaches such things to kids by our example and action. Often right here, in electronic print. Beavah

Oak Tree, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if whether the opinion of a half dozen people has convinced me that all pranks should be forever banned in every scout unit across the land? The answer is no. The answer is no for the same reason that I don't believe all paint rollers with extension poles should be banned in all scout units across the land, even if one person somewhere once upon a time was somehow seriously injured by a paint roller. No matter how poignant the tale and how raw the emotions after 40 years. If yeh want to convince people, present some real data, not competing anecdotes. Are yeh asking whether I think that some pranks are inappropriate? The answer is Yes, of course. I've already expressed in other threads that by and large I don't care for snipe hunts, though I don't have any problem with the sort jblake describes. Are yeh asking whether I think that when lads do poor pranks that the proper response is to ban all pranks in a unit? The answer is No. I think that's just treatin' a symptom, not the cause. If yeh have older boys in your program who are not naturally watchin' out for the younger fellows, or if yeh have scouts who can't apply the Scout Law to pranks in a way that keeps 'em fun and safe, then the problem is your program, not the prank. Banning pranks will just allow other forms of bullying to continue with more gusto out of sight. To my mind, the urge to just "ban them all" is a symptom of the problem with your program as well, eh? It shows an instinct to respond with authority, rather than with mentoring. That only teaches older boys that they should treat younger boys in the same way, eh? As lesser folks who should be ordered about by those with higher status or age. Your example is speakin' so loud that they can't hear your words. Yeh need to develop a better vision for what the patrol method and adult relationships method and relations between scouts can and should be, so yeh can figure out how to build it positively. Are yeh asking whether I find Alan Funt and the modern Canadian candid camera pranks to be contrary to the Scout Law? The answer is no. And I'll happily stand with the majority of Americans in that regard over da proponents of the people-made-of-glass theory. I find those things delightful and humorous, and wouldn't have a lick of problem with boys in a troop playin' such pranks in the same spirit. Many a lad still tells tales of playin' such pranks on me with delight. Now, let me turn those questions back around on you, eh? Do you really feel it's appropriate to ban all pranks if one somewhere sometime went awry in the mind of one boy? If so, how is that any different from banning paint rollers or canoeing? Are yeh really claiming that all pranks, as packsaddle suggests, are violations of the Scout Law which have no place in Scouting or in a scout's day-to-day life, from Alan Funt on down? Do yeh feel that when boys do somethin' inappropriate in a unit, the proper response is a unit-wide prohibition? So if, as BDPT00 points out, a lad has a bad experience at his OA Ordeal, we should prohibit OA Ordeals? An off-color skit means banning all campfire skits? Did yeh refuse to watch Candid Camera back in the day? Would yeh walk out on the Canadian version I linked to? Tell your parents it was inappropriate for scouts to watch because it glorifies violations of the Scout Law? Or did yeh sit down and say "Wow, some of those were really clever!" and note how they all ended in smiles? Beavah

Whose perspective is the only one that matters? Sorry, missed this BDPT00. Do yeh really think that only one perspective matters? Please don't have more than one kid, then. As a fellow who grew up as an older child, I can't imagine what my life would have been like if Ma and Pa Beavah had believed that my younger siblings' perspective was the only one that mattered.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

And yet I've sat at Eagle Courts of Honor and chattin' with fellows goin' off to college, and they are far more likely to tell da tales of great pranks and fun times then they are to tell the tales of individual canoe trips. So which then is da greater benefit? Just like hittin' the Cubmaster with a banana cream pie can be one of those fun, memorable experiences that change kids perceptions positively, so can the truly amusin' prank. Now OGE, I missed that, eh? Despite your Merlyn "liar, liar, pants on fire" imitation, are yeh now in fact endorsing all kinds of pranks like the ones depicted on that Canadian candid camera show? Even though they involve deception, make people the "victim" of a joke so that others can laugh and all that claptrap? It's OK for scouts to play any of those pranks on each other? Pretendin' to hold a seance and leavin' a kid holdin' a roll of toilet paper on a toilet seat in public and all that? If yeh are, then I take back what I said, because we're not in disagreement. Pranks from snipe hunts to explodin' diet coke bottles can be just fine. But if yeh aren't in fact endorsin' that, then I don't reckon I'm a liar now, am I? It's a simple question, really. Is it OK for kids in camp to emulate Alan Funt? Prime-time kid-friendly TV from the 50s is no longer acceptable? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Catholics are the BORG, eh? Seein' it yet, packsaddle? All wives want to remake their husbands in their own image, of course, so her husband's contrary faith just sticks in moosetracker's craw. Wonder if that same phenomenon works for gay couples? Like, in a gay male marriage, how do yeh tell which person is always right? Beavah

Yah, moosetracker, again this has nuthin' to do with patents. Da issue is trademarks. Very different! If you're goin' to take my tongue in cheek comments literally, at least get da law right. Otherwise I'll feel professionally inadequate. And Orthodox Jews are welcome to the trademarked use of da Hebrew word for marriage, of course, since that's what they use anyway. Yah, ELCA is fringe, Pappadaddy. Five million nominal members means a much smaller number of active members. In a nation of 300 million, maybe 1%. In a world of 6+ billion, a tiny fraction. In both cases, fringe. And shrinking. Takin' the long view, these fringes are strongly selected against. Da nations that NJCubScouter points to as having allowed same sex marriage in the last decade are for the most part in various stages of demographic collapse. Their populations are bein' replaced by immigrants who believe in traditional marriage and have a stronger cultural cohesiveness. That's why as Eagledad points out yeh have to look far and wide historically to find any nation that embraces same-sex unions, and the ones yeh do find yeh discover disappeared relatively quickly. Natural Law wins out in the end, every time. "So what we see is that even in places where gay couples were accorded all of the legal rights of married couples through civil unions..." Which places are these? Name them please. Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, ... that 'sense of legitimacy' is already largely in place, at least among the people who are still going to be alive in 20-30 years. Yeh really believe that young folks keep the same liberal positions that they picked up in college 20-30 years later? Really? And here I thought yeh actually paid attention to data. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, well, this has sort of developed into unusually incoherent babble. No, moosetracker, again yeh haven't read me right, because my position hasn't changed. I believe da only reason the gay community wants to appropriate the word "marriage" is to try to convey a sense of legitimacy to their lifestyle which it does not merit on its own. It's the same reason that companies have trademark protection, eh? So that others who aren't able to generate their own customer satisfaction and recognition by havin' a good product can't deceptively piggy-back off da reputation of an established brand. Patents, of course, are completely unrelated. So what we see is that even in places where gay couples were accorded all of the legal rights of married couples through civil unions, they still want to force the government to call them "married", because that government endorsement of marriage can be used against those who believe in traditional, religious marriage. It has nuthin' to do with rights, and everything to do with stealin' the societal view of marriage. My preference would be that they call gay unions "blingering" or some other word and try to build up acceptance for "blingering" by demonstratin' that it is more effective than marriage at creatin' social and family stability. Of course, that's not as easy, eh? It requires work and commitment. So we want instead to use the government to change the definition of marriage so as to extend pseudo-legitimacy. In a lot of ways it's similar to the groups that can't start their own youth outdoors movement "for all", and want to instead grab the legitimacy "scouting" has built up over the last 100 years, again by usin' government coercion. In this case, to prevent government establishment of a definition of marriage contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of the religions and cultures of the world, I reckon the government should just get out of the business entirely. Remove the incentive for a vocal minority to try to use da government to establish social legitimacy over da objections of the majority. Just say "nope, marriage is a religious thing, the government has no say in it." I believe that in the end returns things to the status quo. Can't stop people from callin' themselves married, but then gay couples could call themselves married now, eh? Nobody would stop 'em. So no change there. What it does do is eliminate what they really want - the endorsement by the state. That leaves the churches as the major social institution on the issue. Aside from the fringe churches, the vast majority of religions aren't goin' to change on their position, so that avenue to borrowin' legitimacy is mostly closed off. Everyone will feel like they "won", but nothing at all will have changed. And if one of the elder churches like da Catholics wants to assert a trademark claim to "marriage" and "matrimony", more power to 'em. Those are, after all, Latin words referin' to makin' a woman a mother which quite probably originated with da Roman Catholics before da Reformation. So da Catholics trademark the term in da U.S. and license it to anybody who they want. No more problem, except for da anti-Catholic folks like moosetracker. This is essentially da Libertarian position that BS-87 espouses and that resonates with true conservatives. Big government provides a dangerous mechanism for one group to manipulate society and try to impose its will on others. Freedom is better served by restricting the scope of government. Let da LGBT community compete in da marketplace of ideas instead of in da courts. I believe history across all world cultures has shown that on that kind of basis they can't compete. Nero aside, of course. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Da problem, moosetracker, is with your ability to read my furry accent. I was statin' exactly the same thing I'm statin' now. Dismantle all of the state's laws and privileges granted to "marriage". Eliminate the whole thing for everybody. No special probate treatment, no special immigration rules, no tax privilege for anyone. Just the right to contract and form partnerships of whatever sort yeh want. The state no longer recognizes marriage in any form, and accords it no privilege or protection under the law. And Merlyn, I don't even care if yeh want to write "Marriage" on the top of your private partnership agreement, as long as the state doesn't recognize the term. Because the state recognizing any union between any two people as "marriage" is a state endorsement of the UUA religion over other religions that only recognize marriage between a man and a woman, or over polygamist Islam recognizing marriage as multi-partner. No state endorsement of any religious perspective, eh? So the state must not endorse anything as being "marriage." Gay couples can call themselves purple or they can call themselves married, but they do not get the imprimatur of the state for their lifestyle choice. If any state subsidy or tax preference is appropriate, it should be accorded based on the legitimate secular interests of the state in stable family environments for raisin' kids. Beavah

#1 This is a common rule that's put in place at some summer camps as well. Nuthin' wrong with it. Particularly if the MBC is workin' with a class or group, it's often necessary to control the class size, and doin' it by some measure of demonstrated rank is a good way to go. First Aid sometimes requires maturity, eh? A few immature lads can really slow down the rest of the group. So First Class also is a filter for Scout Spirit, too. #2 Nuthin' wrong with that. In fact, I reckon the lads will get a lot more out of the badge that way. Exercise is work, and many boys need the "push" of regular check-in to help move 'em along. Also safer for the boys, because the counselor can correct poor form or technique before it leads to stress injuries. Da actual Rules & Regulations of the BSA are what yeh should go by, ScouterCA. They instruct yeh that "All advancement procedures shall be administered under conditions that harmonize with the Aims and purposes of the Boy Scouts of America". In other words, yeh should use your discretion as a MB Counselor to do what yeh think best advances the lads in terms of character, fitness, and citizenship. The Rules & Regulations also specify that education is the basis of the advancement program, and that in Boy Scouting the standard is "proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration." So da proper way to read the requirements is that yeh are to expect the boys to demonstrate proficiency in the skills represented by the requirements, not once-and-done. And the requirements are only the test items, eh? True proficiency requires other things. Knowin' how to splint a broken arm is useless unless yeh can recognize a broken arm. So a good MBC will make the boys demonstrate da requirements in context. Down the road, a lad or his friends may truly need those skills, eh? Don't short change 'em. Beavah

Yah, deja vu for sure. I reckon that's at least the 5th time I've read OGE's "the time I was 11 " story. Yah, it's a very emotion-laden and poignant tale. Yah, most folks make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. In that way it's effective. But it's told from only one perspective, eh? That of a young, emotionally immature 11-year old. I reckon that my regular line of work just makes me immune to emotion-laden tales told from only one perspective to try to get people to side with yeh. It's just a tactic. I can't help but wonder what the other perspectives would say, eh? OGE asks us to believe that the older scouts in his troop were all jerks to be avoided and his leaders were all cads, because that's what he thought when he was 11. Do we reckon that's fair to them? Do we have enough empathy to imagine da perspective of Charlie, the older scout who is sharin' activities that he himself enjoyed as an 11-year-old? Do we have enough wit and wisdom to imagine OGE's Scoutmaster as the good person he no doubt was? OGE asks us then to view the two hours of candid-camera pranks shot all over Canada and dismiss 'em as cruel and unscoutly, even though da vast majority of the viewers and the participants find 'em delightfully funny. Do we reckon that's rational? As I mentioned, I can write an equally poignant story about a boy who felt betrayed and hurt because he got wet while canoeing. Betrayed and hurt enough to quit Scouting. I can write the same deeply emotional tale about many lads experience with summer camp swim checks, feelin' the same hurt and shame and tears wellin' up inside, being confined to the equivalent of the kiddie wading pool in humiliation, swearin' that they'll never again participate in an organization that treats people like this. I can write da same tale of woe from the point of view of a FCFY lad at his OA Hazing Ritual, I mean Ordeal. Scared and afraid, unsure of himself, but no one would talk to him, he couldn't ask questions, he'd never done a "survival" type campout, he wasn't accidentally left out, he was forced to stay out by da rules and peer pressure, got his bag wet, got cold. Swore he'd never again trust anyone in the OA and never returned. We can find and write one-perspective emotional tales seen through the eyes of children that would suggest we should ban the OA, forbid water activities, abolish every sport, jail every parent, fire every teacher. Count me a skeptic. I think the jokes that ol' Alan Funt played were funny. I find da Canadian show witty and creative. I think if yeh have an issue with kids gettin' spooked while canoeing in your troop that rather than ban canoein', yeh work to be more thoughtful about preparation and support. I think if yeh have an issue with poor pranks in your troop that rather than ban pranks yeh use the opportunity to teach better judgment on how to do 'em well, or yeh build better Scout Spirit among your older boys so that pranks are fun. Beavah

Yah, glad the Canadians have more of a sense of humor than we do, eh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl_B_Qdx55o Mrs. Beavah, bein' a chemist, got me with this one once: By contrast, I reckon yeh all would have banned Alan Funt in the name of the Scout Law. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I don't think Beavah sees it that way. He has stated before that Gays can have civil unions as long as they get 0 rights that are afforded a married couple with that union. That's interestin'. I wonder where I said that, since it's never been my position. By and large civil unions accord folks all the same rights as married couples under state law except the word "married". Da issue is that some folks aren't content with only being accorded civil rights, they want to claim da religious title of marriage. So to avoid that issue I'm suggestin' that the state should just get out of the business, eh? Yeh get married in church, and that has no legal effect. Yeh can form any kind of civil partnership agreement yeh want, and that has no religious effect. Partnership dissolution is governed by the terms of the partnership; custody and support are governed exclusively by the best interest of the child. Yep, that would allow a church out there to "marry" gay folks, but it would accord them no civil benefits or rights. Other churches could reject such marriages as invalid, just like some reject each other's baptisms or whatnot as invalid. Similarly, a church marrying two heterosexual folks would also accord them no civil benefits or rights. By eliminatin' state interference in marriage (includin' such things as no-fault divorce), it would allow traditionally-minded religious folks to contract more traditional marriage partnerships where their beliefs are reflected in the civil partnership arrangement. Now, keep in mind, in such a scheme I don't think there's a reason to preference two-person unions, eh? So Islamic and FLDS and other groups can go the polygamy route if they choose to form partnerships of that sort. Historically I reckon most would agree that that has led to the subjugation of women, but why should we be judgmental? Objectin' to the subjugation of women is such a Christian thing, it doesn't belong in civic life. The only real state interest is in providin' a stable environment for the raising of children, because raising children in a stable home environment has clear long-term benefits for the state. So a state subsidy of a stable and supportive family partnership contract would not be inappropriate. Somethin' like a partnership that doesn't allow for dissolution until all children reach age 21 or greater, and that provides both male and female influences and role models in the home environment. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah, what makes you think that gay marriage is going to make a "furball" out of these various areas of the law? I was advocatin' that the state should get out of the marriage business, eh? Repeal all the laws that refer to "marriage". Allow partnership agreements of any form. It's what we've got anyway with all the pre-nup stuff. Leave marriage to the churches. Avoids the notion of the state endorsing a particular religion's views of marriage over another's. If the state endorses the UUA version of marriage between two committed partners over the Baptist view of marriage between a man and a woman, isn't that establishment of religion? Gettin' out of the marriage business entirely would have broad impacts in those areas of law, I reckon. That might be healthy, though. Beavah

Give it a week or two for the Catholics to come up with a new commercial on it.. It will be titled "Burn baby Burn".. And will show a bunch of religious officials throwing Obama into the fire pit.. Moosetracker, in dozens of posts now across multiple threads you've gone out of your way to single out Catholics, the pope, etc. for your particular opprobrium. A relatively ordinary issue ad by an organization that is not directly affiliated with da Catholic Church leads yeh to conclude that Catholic bishops want to burn a black president while chantin' "Burn baby burn"? Even as a non-Catholic who finds their theology a bit stuffy and some of their popular practices fringin' on idolatry, I find your constant and mostly shallow criticisms do yeh no credit. Give it a rest already. Beavah

Hi fred8033, What you're describin' is the norm for Scoutin' in most of the world, not just the UK. To my knowledge the U.S. is the only scouting that is broken up into separate units in the way we are. There are a number of Group activities throughout the year, and the Rovers often function as leaders/assistant leaders for the younger scouts in particular. Then there are also individual level events for Ventures, or scouts, or mini-Scouts or whatnot. U.S. scouting is far more school-like / school based, eh? Separate divisions that map onto the elementary / middle school split and the high school split, age-based/grade level program at least through elementary school and for many troops all the way through into high school. Gotta switch buildings and switch units when yeh move from elementary to middle school. To my mind it's never been very natural. Beavah

Yah, we seem to have had a rash of Zombie Threads risin' from the dead of late! Welcome to da forums, EagleScout13! Thanks for chimin' in and bringin' this historical document back out of the closet. It's always fun to see 'em. If yeh look at the top of pages you'll see a "Today's Active Topics" link, which will show yeh some of the current discussions if yeh want to jump in on those. But feel free to pull out old gems, too! Glad yeh could join us. Beavah

I was not emotionally fragile The evidence of carryin' this and a few other things around for so long and with such intensity suggests otherwise. Can't see that your father's military service has anything to do with it. I like jblake's troop's Snipe Hunt. I've seen all kinds of fun ways to share pranks. If yeh don't have the sort of camaraderie and natural watchin' out for the younger fellows to be able to pull it off in your troop, then yeh shouldn't do it. But like jblake suggests, if that's the case yeh should also fix the Scout Law dynamic in your troop, because that lack of camaraderie and natural watchin' out for the younger fellows is still goin' to be there hurting other aspects of your program even if yeh ban pranks. Beavah

Yah, let's all be sure to point with alarm at the whacky individual citizens on the other side (with the implication that they are representative of mainstream views on the other side). Moosetracker points to one side (with her continuous anti-Catholic bigotry), SeattlePioneer points to another with his set of brown-shirt rioters. Enough already! Obama's personal position probably lost him a few million votes from independents and gained him at least as many millions of dollars from energized supporters. It was rolled out professionally by a media team, carefully letting white-working class-Catholic Joe Biden take point to set up the interview. It was an election year tactic. Here I agree with BS-87. Marriage recognized by the government is at its heart a government endorsement/appropriation/subsidy of a Judeo/Christian religious practice. The easiest way out here is to simply stop the government from being involved. Let the Churches trademark the term "marriage" and just get on with it. Besides, the furball it would make of family and probate and tax law would be a windfall for attorneys for a decade or more, eh? There might even be real employment available for ambulance chasers. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

There it is. Right there. But when it does happen, the right tends to use a lot of firearms and explosives to make its point. Do you really want to start that kind of political warfare? That is the reason I am no longer a Republican or a modern conservative. I find such threats of civil war and terrorist violence over ordinary policy disagreements or losing an election to be disgusting, vile, and absolutely, utterly, and unequivocally unconscionable. They do not belong in American political discourse, and those who pretend to be conservative Americans who would even begin to think along those lines should step away from public life in shame and humiliation. It is the attitude, approach, and tactics of the vile factions in Al Queda and Hezbollah. It is the attitude, approach, and tactics of the likes of McVeigh and Nichols here at home. It is completely without honor. There's a reason for Godwin's Law, eh? It's a check on discourse so that yeh don't make a complete fool of yourself. That yeh don't turn a question over ordinary public policy into a reason to start usin' explosives on government buildings because yeh see Nazis in the woodwork. But yep, to answer your question, I haven't a lick of fear over such threats. If yeh go that route this traditional conservative will reluctantly and with sadness join the rest of America in seeing the lot of yeh arrested, fairly tried, convicted, and hung. Beavah

Yep, that's me and most scouters, eh? Regularly emotionally abusing children so as to turn things ugly and laugh at 'em. I'm sure that's how everybody who wears the uniform gets their jollies on the weekend. Gimme a break. Is it really OK to accuse other scouters of such things just because they happen to disagree with yeh? OGE, I get that yeh had a bad experience when you were 11. Carryin' that type of anger and emotion for decades is not normal or healthy. I strongly recommend yeh seek out a qualified professional counselor. Your life and your scoutin' experience will likely benefit considerably. Sometimes decent kids and leaders just misjudge stuff, eh? I know the family of one former scout who felt the same way you did over his canoe flippin' on a river trip when he and his partner paddled it into a tree. Betrayed. It was supposed to be fun but it wasn't. Scared. Thought he was goin' to drown (objectively there was no risk, but young fellows don't yet have any objective sense). People laughing (it was funny). His attitude reinforced by mom. Quit scouting as a result, still hates boats. That doesn't mean that canoein' should be banned. It might mean that the troop in question misjudged one boy's emotional preparedness despite their best intentions. I know of boys who quit scoutin' over camp swim checks. They said this was goin' to be fun. It's cold and scary. Feel pressured by circumstances and peers. Freak out. Think people are laughing. Consigned to second-class citizen status at the waterfront wading pool. Lack of success leads to homesickness. etc. etc. We can say more objectively that canoein' and swim checks are OK or even a good thing for most boys. We can say that in a few cases, yeh have to be more alert to unintended consequences and that sometimes well-intentioned folks will judge that wrong. We can say that done poorly, swimming or canoeing can indeed be dangerous. We can say the same things about camp pranks. What we shouldn't say is that our fellow scouters intentions in any of those cases aren't honorable. Beavah

Yah, poorly written bylaws are a stock and staple of the BSA. Properly speakin', there is no reason that a district committee should necessarily take minutes in the legal sense of minutes (recording official decisions of a civil or corporate governing body). Lots of times folks use the term "minutes" to refer to somethin' more like a running record of the meeting that is used for communications purposes. Sure, the district committee should do something that communicates its work to others - web site summary, recorded list of task assignments, etc. The format of that is up to them and what they feel is most useful. Don't be expectin' your SE to come and take minutes at every district committee meeting, though! B

Kids are only emotionally fragile if all the adults in their life treat 'em like they're made of glass. There are lots of ways to do pranks right, to make 'em fun experiences and learn all about the Oath and Law and each other. There are a few ways to do 'em wrong, too. But as jblake points out, that's true of everything, eh? I've seen kids in tears from swim checks, medical check-in, low ropes courses, bein' made to take their hat off at dinner, you name it. For some lads, having their PL prepare a meal that's any different from their favorite meal at home seems to be enough to get 'em to re-think the whole scouting thing. That doesn't mean it's 'hazing' or at all inappropriate. Beavah

If every campout, every month is standing on your feet for 48+ hours, living with minimal gear out of a pack, eating small amounts of freeze dried food out of a foil pouch I reckon if any campout involves eatin' small amounts of freeze dried food out of a foil pouch, yeh probably just don't know what you're doin'. I think one thing people neglect when considerin' the question is the opportunity cost, eh? Trailers and heavy gear are expensive. They cost a large amount to acquire, and a fair amount to maintain. They also have other costs in time spent - not just in setup/teardown/equipment managing, but also in things like the need to learn different gear and different packing when yeh do opt to do other types of trips. That makes doin' other types of trips harder and less frequent. My experience is that most troops don't have the financial or temporal resources to be able to avoid real impacts on the quality of their outdoor program from investing in the heavy trailer gear. The opportunity costs are just too high, eh? They close out other options. Generally speakin', the youth if left to their own devices will go lighter, so I also think the trailer thing is a cause/result chicken/egg with a tad more adult-run approach. What it pretty much comes down to, though, is the willingness and ability of adult leaders to approach things in a more adventurous manner. If yeh primarily have older adults who fit the topic of da other thread on (not so) Physically Strong, then odds are yeh are more likely to do the trailer thing. If yeh have younger, more adventurous leaders odds are yeh move more toward Mountaineer's troop. Beavah

Wow. Violation of Godwin's law on the very first post. That has to be a record. A bit like takin' careful aim at your own foot and pullin' the trigger to start an argument. SeattlePioneer loses. I think if you're a student of history, yeh know that generally speakin' those who do not have access to the mechanisms of power will hit a boiling point that typically results in riots, and occasionally in revolutions. It is da natural reaction when those in power don't live up to their Christian duties of justice and compassion. And it's not altogether irrational, eh? Looting is very inefficient, but it is nonetheless a mildly effective means of wealth redistribution. It is, after all, not very likely that the average day laborer is goin' to have the background of Ron Paul's enthusiastic college-educated internet generation to be able to manipulate da arcane rules of state political parties. I doubt most folks on these forums could manage it. That having been said, I reckon it's probably not reasonable to lump the May Day folks in with the Occupy Movement, as they're comin' from two very different communities. The occupy folks are a different crowd. No different than lumping all the Tea Party folks in with some of its more stupid and racist members. It's also not completely reasonable to compare the tactics of the two, since from the beginnin' the Tea Party movement was organized and financed by fairly savvy media and political folks. Now, all qualifiers and careful statements of fairness aside, I think we can all agree that such mindless violence is not somethin' we should tolerate. It merits both an appropriate police response and a careful look at what we can do to assist our fellow Americans who feel driven to such desperation. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)