Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Yeh just gotta grimace at laws with overbroad language. That havin' been said, without wadin' through their regulations I can't imagine that anyone would interpret this as applyin' to scout unit trips, especially from out of state. Any other Michigan folks out there? They aren't really tryin' to apply their Day Care law to unit scout trips and visiting school groups are they? That would be hysterical. Maybe they're just findin' a new way to make money in taxes/fees. Another question would be whether da state park is askin' yeh for a day care license to obtain a campin' permit. They'd have to be aware of da law if it's really that broad. So I reckon if they tell yeh it's fine to be campin' and issue yeh a permit without demanding a license yeh should be OK. Beavah

I know this isn't a literature thread...but regardless of the author's intent, kids can and have run amok ala Lord of the Flies. Horse hockey. Not without adults instigatin' it or feedin' it somehow. Now many a unit committee - those look like Lord of the Flies. My son just had a birthday party and we played laser tag at the place. Basically it was his patrol and cousins with the SPL for good measure. the SPL wanted to do a patrol vs patrol match.......well, ya know the rules about that....So how do you explain Nationals guidelines with out becoming NO MEN and perceived as the roadblock. Nuthin' at all wrong with the lads playin' patrol vs. patrol at someone's private birthday party, BasementDweller. Not a single rule against it. I tried for a bit as a commish to explain National's guidelines. I believe too much in honesty and integrity to be able to pull it off. I think we have that obligation to each other, eh? It's not a safety issue. It's not a PR or perception issue for at least 95% of our market. It's just old folks like me who dislike and distrust young people doin' new things. Like da towns who ban skateboarders but not cyclists or da skiers who hate snowboarders. Yeh hear arguments, but they're all nonsense. So I think yeh just say it's nuts and it's foolish and then yeh get on with things. But there's no doubt that if Scoutin' was left to the scouts, those prohibitions would vanish overnight. By contrast, da kids seem OK with da prohibition on exploring abandoned mines. Beavah

Yah, moosetracker, yeh got it. There was a fair bit of BSA bashing in their stuff, and in particular other religion bashing. Teach the kids the BSA is wrong, and it's wrong because it's controlled by these other religious bigot groups. Not in so many words, it was always "polite", but da message was clear. Had they not gone that way they probably wouldn't have gotten everybody's dander up. UUA folks are good people, and they tend to be a happy home for a lot of folks with mixed marriages and such. Generally fine scouting supporters too, which is what made da dust-up such a silly thing on both sides. At some point, though, I reckon it's folks rights not to want to associate, and particularly to try to create da best environment they can for their kids. That's why for many, local option ain't an option. Leastways, not unless yeh want to avoid summer camp, and camporees, and NYLT, and OA, and Philmont, and Jambo, and Bechtel, and Seabase, and.... Personally, IMHO, da UUA made a strategic blunder, eh? They'd have been far more effective in their mission had they remained loyal opposition on da inside and engaged in dialog. Wouldn't have mattered a lick to their kids, because any lad who is pursuin' the award is also in their (quite well done) youth program and can figure da score. People in da end change their mind not because of da arguments of opponents but because of da hearts of friends. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, "Lord of da Flies" references to kids always confuse me. Lord of da Flies was an allegory written by an adult about adult society. Anyone who knows kids knows they don't think or act like that, eh? Adults do. Generally speakin', boys are stricter than adults in terms of expectations and behavior. I'm always amused when I ask lads at EBORs about their best and worst MBs. Universally the "best" badge was the one where an adult really challenged the lad and made the badge actually mean something. Da worst badge universally is a summer camp badge that was a "blow off". One of these days I should videotape EBORs and send excerpts to da "don't add to requirements" blatherers. For da boys, advancement means challenge and ability, not signoffs and bookwork. Met a new scout last week who was carrying around a well-worn book he'd gotten for Christmas or a birthday or some such and had clearly spent many many hours pouring over. It was about a thousand pages in small type, with detailed information and photos and diagrams about just about every outdoor adventure pursuit yeh can imagine. Like a BSA field book on steroids. No smarmy feel-good adult blather, just adventure, challenge, and honor. Left to the boys, I reckon our handbook would look somethin' like that. Da uniform? That's an easy one. No badges, dongles, woggles or beads past cub scouts. Da original uniform was an adventure uniform of an army scout. Left to their own devices, the lads would have camo BDUs or North Face style outdoor adventure wear. And they'd be proud to wear either outside of scout events. Sometimes I wish we adults would listen better, because da program would be stronger. But there's still plenty of room for us, eh? Boys like every human wouldn't challenge themselves anywhere near as much if we weren't there to push, cajole, challenge and praise. While they have an innate sense of justice, balancing that with compassion takes some good role models of servant leadership. And as we all know, gettin' things planned and organized is also somethin' boys learn through example and instruction. . We adults do have things to contribute, as much as we also have things where we listen. Beavah

If all boys are in full uniflrom, how does one know which is rich or poor Pretty easy to tell who has da rumpled, slightly mis-fit, hand-me-down uniform vs. who has the most recent, straight from da shop, fully mom-measured-and-sewed rich kids uniform around these parts. B

Nah, yeh didn't get it, BA. If 98% of engineers tell yeh the bridge is unsafe and then a political party takin' lots of bridge builder donations says they're lying, which do yeh suppose is more likely? That the engineers are all really supporters of the other party who secretly stopped being good engineers and started lying about engineering just to "get" the other party, or that they just stopped supportin' the odd party that was anti-engineering? And if they really thought the bridges were unsafe, don't yeh think that some of 'em would also appear in the media and talk about nightmare scenarios of bridge collapse? Only politicians really believe that they and their political party are so important that people change their professional beliefs just to be in their party or to try to oppose their party. Because that's the sort of thing they do. Just look at Mitt Romney. Historically, da Republicans always used to be bigger supporters of science and high quality education. While Republicans would vote research funds, Dems would vote social programs and try to cut research funds. So it's truly remarkable that there's been such a shift recently to the Republicans becoming anti- science. In da face of that, it's not surprising that some scientists feel ethically obligated to oppose what they see as a radically anti-science agenda. Just normal, eh? The way you and I would feel obligated to oppose a radically anti-gun agenda. Not because we're democrats or republicans, but because we're gun owners. So da tragedy of the story is that the party has changed and become anti-science, not that the scientists have all suddenly given up science in order to oppose da Republicans. Just like in order to evaluate da 2008 credit market collapse yeh have to actually understand how some things work rather than quote wikis and bloggers, I figure in order to evaluate climate change yeh actually have to understand da science rather than quote wikis and bloggers. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, maybe I'm weird (well, I know I am ), but when a scout tells me he doesn't believe in God, I'm usually delighted. A statement like that means he's actually thinking and searching, eh? He's moved past just parroting his parents or social group. Thinking and searching is necessary in order to come to personally embrace God, to accept Him as Lord. All I usually do is ask the lad what he means by "God" when he says he doesn't believe. And then I discover I usually agree with him, eh? I don't believe in that "god" either. And encourage him to go out and finding something really worthy of believing in. As a man of faith, I don't think I have to try to convince the lad or change his mind or come up with good arguments. All I have to do is encourage his quest. I believe God knows and loves each boy deeply enough that if the lad truly seeks, that will be enough for him to truly Find. Beavah

Hear, hear!

So again, rather than just quote mindless political bloggers, explain where the money came from. These were private dollars from da capital markets that financed the sub-prime loans, eh? And only a small fraction were FHA. Who loaned the money to all these folks? Da small banks didn't have the money themselves to make those loans. Who is more stupid, the homebuyer who risks a downpayment or da lender who risks da remaining principal on a bad loan? Why did they do it? But yeh can't, because yeh won't find that in a Wikipedia article, eh? Da mistake you're makin' about scientists and such is that they think like you do in terms of democrat/republican. Most folks in their profession just think like a professional. Even in their hobby. When I'm a scouter, I think like a scouter, eh? I don't worry at all about liberal/conservative/democrat/republican. Just what makes sense scouting-wise. Yah, sure, some politico is goin' to look at scouting and say it's those darn anti-gay conservatives or those darn liberal LNT tree hugger types. But really, it's just scouting. Science is just science, da way medicine is just medicine or scouting is just scouting. If you're a strong believer in scouting, you're goin' to tend to align yourself with da politicians and parties that support scouting. If you're a scientist, you're goin' to tend to align yourself with da politicians and parties that support science in the same way. Most people don't change their beliefs or how they work to fit their political party, they change their political party to match their work and beliefs. Only a politico changes his/her work or beliefs to match a party, because politics is their profession or hobby. So if there really is a trend that scientists are becoming more democrats ( which never used to be the case), then all that really says is how much da current republicans have become da anti-science party. B

Yah, da only cavalier attitude I've noticed is da few folks who seem willing to throw around serious allegations like "emotional abuse" without stoppin' to think. Most folks, includin' myself, have been in Scoutfish's camp. We feel that the intent of the leader and the general group dynamic and norms matter, in addition to how a person takes any particular activity. A lad can be upset and tearful because he's been deliberately targeted for meanness, or because he hasn't figured out da social dynamic yet and is uncomfortable, or because the leader(s) misjudge his preparedness/willingness/personality, or because he just has some growing up to do. But none of that amounts to hazing or abuse. And just because I'm not willing to jump on the bandwagon of extreme and hurtful rhetoric doesn't mean that I don't care about kids. It just means I also care about adults and other good folks, eh? Can yeh imagine what it does to the life of a scouter to be unjustly accused of "emotionally abusing" a boy? How utterly devastating that can be to him/her, his spouse, his family, his livelihood and reputation? Now, what some folks are pointing out is that a scouter who uses extreme and hurtful rhetoric like "abuse" might be being deliberately hurtful, or might not understand da real definitions or be using 'em in a different way, or might come from a group with a social dynamic that uses a lot of extreme rhetoric socially and not realize how others might take an allegation of abuse, or might be projecting some of his/her own issues onto the lads (that was Mrs. Beavah's reaction), or might be accurately describing real abuse. If we truly believe that da truth always lies with how the "victim" perceives it, then those adults who have used such rhetoric and hurt a fellow scouter should pay damages and be removed from scouting. Same if we believe that the perceptions of a youth "victim" are what counts. But I reckon most of the time the reality is less extreme, and things are better approached by maintaining a balanced perspective, and assumin' the best of people rather than the worst. And part of that means avoiding unnecessary extreme rhetoric that implies genuine criminality since that just gums up the works. Far better to say "Yah, George, can we think through this singing thing? It doesn't seem like it's workin' the way we want" than to say "George, you're hazing and abusing defenseless children!". We are called to both Justice and Compassion, eh? And even as compassion requires us to care for a lad whose feelings are hurt, justice requires us not to treat that as the sole factor in our decision making. Beavah

Ah, da brilliant and well informed Wikipedia quote! . As always, real understanding about any issue, whether it's economics or climate science takes some time and effort. Googling is nice and all, and readin' political bloggers that agree with our own views is entertaining in a sorta mindless way. But knowledge requires work. And if yeh don't do the work, then you're just a patsy for whatever group is able to play off your laziness, eh? So now here's somethin' to think about. Where did the money come from to finance all those sub-prime loans? I mean, nobody in their right mind would loan their own money to these deadbeats, right? As for da other thing, there's no question that there's a science lobby, if yeh will. Scientists like every citizen are goin' to lobby for their viewpoint. That's natural and is their right, and it's naturally goin' to be da administrative types who aren't actually doing any science (like those yeh quote) who are involved in that. That's not a democrat/republican thing. I'm a pilot and there's a general aviation lobby. Both support both liberal democrats and conservative republicans - because it supports folks who agree with aviation issues. Even da NRA funds democrats that share their views. Lobbys are just lobbys. They try to spread a viewpoint. It shouldn't surprise yeh that scientists try to spread theirs. Same as doctors and businessmen. Da question yeh have to ask yourself is if 98% of da engineers in da country were lobbying because they thought da bridges that were being built were unsafe, would yeh really want your children driving on 'em? If 98% of da doctors and nurses were tryin' to convince everybody that somethin' is medically dangerous would yeh blow 'em off and have your children do that thing, just because yeh didn't like da politics of the AMA representative expressed on one talk show? Beavah

Yah, hmmm. Dear me. Well, I'm always up for learnin' somethin'. Can yeh explain to me exactly how the democrats have been "waging war on the working class?". For decades yeh say? I disagree with much if not most of da Democratic Party platform, but in fairness I can't see that they've been waging war on anybody. For da most part, they haven't even been particularly competent, eh? B

. The credit problems is due to the democrats Yah, hmmm... There's just no way to say this gently. Vol_scouter, yeh seem like a decent, intelligent chap, and I agree with some of your other statements above. But this is just foolish. Can yeh explain to us what a tranched collateralized debt obligation security is, how it's created, and how it works? And then describe da groups who first tried to push banks and others into issuing credit default swaps on CDOs? However competent yeh may be in your chosen profession, yeh just don't understand what you're talkin' about here. Da credit market crash in 2008 had very little to do with fair lending / housing efforts, and nuthin' to do with democrats or republicans. Anyone who is tellin' yeh that is either ignorant or they are just plain lying to you for their own personal or political ends. Da causes were quite simple and ordinary, eh? Overly creative greed, managerial and regulatory incompetence (especially by da comptroller of the currency), fueled by poorly thought out deregulation pushed by Phil Graham and supported by Clinton. Da normal stuff that causes bubbles, eh? Plain old greed and incompetence. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

So, clear cut logging was corporate conspiracy. I'm not surprised that would be your explanation Nah, just plain, old fashioned economics and market forces. Yeh know. Capitalism. Just go look at those companies and pull their corporate statements. Then look at da rise and fall in NW timber jobs. There was no conspiracy. Everything was out in da open, voted at shareholders meetings. If a company had a large asset base or was well managed and had a strong cash position but undervalued stock price, those daring devils of da junk bond era would borrow a bunch of money at high interest, offer a premium on da stock, and take over the company. Then they'd split da cash, milk or liquidate the assets, pay off da bonds and walk away with a hefty profit. Typically, to find a good company to raid yeh had to look in "boring" sectors like timber because that's where stocks were undervalued. Yeh might be too young to remember da era, but I'm not. At the time, it was the "in" high profit financial roulette scheme, like subprime mortgage derivatives were a couple decades later. Da spotted owl thing (and all da mudslides) were indirect results, because da irresponsible, unsustainable land use ticked off the tree huggers. But that never had a substantive effect. It was just economically an artificial and unsustainable boom. B

Yah, I reckon it once again is one of those things, eh? I've seen Asperghers Syndrome lads who did just fine with da singing thing. When it's a standard procedure that they have watched and seen and become accustomed to, it made some otherwise shy lads feel like one of the guys. They sang, others joined in or laughed with 'em and cheered. Worked fine. All things in balance. B

Good grief. No. But as we saw in da other thread, be a bit mindful of lads afraid to swim, overweight boys with body image fears, and especially young lads who might not know or be comfortable with folks yet, and respond poorly to peer pressure to participate. Selling mediocre overprice popcorn in goofy clothes, now that's humiliating. B

Yah, science doesn't have politics, but politics uses science. Or ignores it if that's easier. Those of yeh who are ignorin' in da south, keep enjoyin' those droughts. Us northern states with water are startin' to work on our border security. SeattlePioneer, da references were to da president last week overriding the unanimous EPA recommendation on smog pollutants. Not about coal docks or whatnot. Yeh did get the logging situation in da NW wrong, though. What actually happened was most of da good, responsible logging companies got hit with hostile takeovers in the 1980s junk bond craze. They had lots of hard assets and good cash flow, so corporate raiders took out high-interest bonds and raided the companies. Then, to pay off the bonds, they went hog wild with vast, non-sustainable clear cutting. That created an artificial boom/bubble in logging jobs, which was inevitably followed by a bust. Da spotted owl thing was a sideshow. What hit the logging industry was plain, old fashioned, corrupt, irresponsible business practice supported by poor financial regulation. Yeh work for a poorly managed company, you're goin' to lose your job. BA, it doesn't matter what da causes of asthma are, eh? Da pollution hurts those people who have it. As a business, yeh don't get to have other people cover the real costs of your manufacturing, which includes the kids who are made miserable and the families who have to pay for medications and ER visits from your pollution. And yeh have to remember, for most stuff a part per billion in da air becomes a part per million in the water becomes a part per ten thousand in da fish served on your table becomes a part per thousand in your child ... Or becomes a fisherman's loss of livelihood. It's a real, simple conservative principle, eh? Yeh don't get anything for free. Yeh have to pay da full cost for things, not try to foist a big part of da cost on your neighbors or on a public bailout. Yeh price that right, and da market will take care of things without anywhere near as much regulation. But as long as companies can cheat, yeh need regulators/cops. Beavah

In this case, the behavior would be considered abusive by just about every HR department and company out there. Nonsense. Da fellow could easily be Steve Jobs. The behavior description is typical of a disgruntled employee griping about a demanding or less-than-perfect manager. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I just have to say I've seen far more lads "traumatized", upset, and tearful over swim checks than I have ever seen from singing a teacup song. Doesn't matter that the staff or scouters were doing their best. Sometimes they miss the signals. I can see where a scouter who doesn't have the sort of troop culture or personal relationship with lads or the right silly personality can't make da singing thing work. That sort of scouter shouldn't do it. Just like swim checks, though, I think it's a step too far to go from "seen it fail" to "it must fail for everyone". As Calico describes, many good staff and scouters who are alert and have the time can set the right mood and troop culture and personal relationship to make swim checks work for even scared, non-swimmer boys. the Scoutmaster took that older Scouts buddy tag, and using his knife, cut it in half and gave it to the Waterfront Director and told him this Scout was not allowed to use the waterfront. This is a good example? I wouldn't handle this that way. I think the Scoutmaster humiliated the older boy and was a lousy example of how to handle a conflict by resorting to raw authority. Calico likes it and thinks it's appropriate, and it seems to have worked out. So should I storm and fume about "abuse" and all the rest? Or should I accept that the SM is a good fellow and even though I disagree with his approach, he might be able to pull of somethin' that I can't or wouldn't? I went through something similar (though not a snipe hunt). It was some stupid "initiation" the leaders and 16 year old SPL thought up. Yah, hmmm... now your homework is to sit down and write the same story from da perspective of the leaders and the SPL. Yeh have to assume, in writin' it, that they're ordinary, decent, but fallible folks. After you've done that... after you've considered all their good intentions, an ordinary lack of attention or proper caution that we've each committed at some point or another, how bad they felt afterward, how much they wished they could have gotten through to yeh when yeh clammed up ... then and only then can yeh judge. Yep, adults will make mistakes. Dad will encourage yeh to climb a tree, and then yeh fall and break your leg. Hurt, angry, humiliated, he said I could do it and I couldn't, never trust dad again, yada yada. Does that make dad an abuser? Does that make tree-climbing verboten for all boys everywhere? Or does that just mean that dad was doin' his best, and it didn't work out the way he expected or hoped this time? Beavah

Yah, like I said back before da election, Obama is just a moderate Republican. Even a bit right of that sometimes. He could have run with Gerald Ford back in the day, and I reckon he'd be right of Eisenhower. Both of them had a bit more backbone, though. I'm with Calico. I think businesses have to pay the real cost of manufacturing, and not rely on a public bailout when their business process pollutes the air, water, or ground for others. I know lots more scouts with asthma-related disorders in da cities than there ever were when I was younger, and the cost to them and their families just in medications is significant. Not to mention it hurts their access to scouting and other fun activities sometimes. More to the point, though, other businesses and taxpayers have to pay the cost of those medications through their health programs, so all this kind of bailout does is harm the business economy overall. It costs jobs in the long run. Being conservative means being anti-pollution, protecting the responsible business environment, and ensurin' our scouts and grandkids grow up healthy with clean air and water. Not public bailouts for polluters. Beavah

Yah, I recall there's lots of good psychology about da "victim attitude" thing, eh? Size, weight, and all da rest seem not to be the primary factors so much as a willingness to see oneself as the victim, or to overreact in a negative sort of way that inspires more bullying. Lots of martial arts programs for kids around here work as much on that attitude as they actually do on skills. He plays mind games with people that belittle and disrespect the other person to make his point. Guess what, it's abusive behavior. No, it's not. No matter how many times yeh repeat it, yeh can't justify elevating boorish behavior to "abuse". What you are describin' is just boorish behavior. The fellow is a cad. OK, fine. But he is not "abusing" anyone. There is a difference. Yes, "singing as punishment" is not a huge issue. It's small. I would never suggest revoking unit charters or banning people from scouting because of it. But that's exactly what you're suggesting, eh? Because we don't tolerate any emotional abuse in Scouting, nor should we. When you say to others that an adult "emotionally abused" a Scout, that's a YP issue. It requires an investigation. It requires notifying the child protection authorities. It requires suspension or dismissal from Scouting. So if that's not what you really mean, don't use those words. What should be evident from all da traffic here is that some adults are able to pull off this singing thing just fine in their units, and some cannot. If yeh cannot pull it off, yeh shouldn't do it. No different than if yeh don't have the skills to lead a rock climbing trip, eh? Just because yeh don't have the skills to make it work in your unit, though, it's best not to assume that all da other scouters in the world don't have the skills to take their boys rock climbing. Or singing. And if they do take 'em out to the cliffs while you do not, it's unfair to assume that they must be abusing or recklessly endangering their charges. They're probably just be learning and having fun. So I think before yeh level da full broadside at a fellow scouter or a scout based on one side of da story, it's best to sit down and write up the "incident" pretending to be that scout or scouter, and writing from their perspective. See them as fellow human beings too, not as "abusers". We owe all people that, but most especially we owe each other that. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Because it would be a "fair tax" meaning everyone would have to pay it equally Yah, that's the point I reckon . What yeh want to do is not have da government determine how to respond, eh? Just to accelerate da pressure to respond a bit ahead of what supply issues are goin' to do to oil prices anyways. It might mean smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. It might be more telecommuting or public/shared transportation development. It might be bicycles. It might be some enterprising young engineer comes up with a funny new engine that runs on grass clippings from your lawn. It might be an aggressive shift in housing away from sprawling suburbs and into higher density housing with shorter commute times. It might be a lot of pluggable hybrids and natural gas conversions. Yeh let the market determine what the best response is, because it's going to do that far better than a bureaucrat or a politician tryin' to buy favors. One way or another, people and da market will figure out how to make things work in their life, even though they might have to do things differently. And yeh should take a look at Simpson-Bowles to see what kind of a positive impact on da deficit even a simple 15 cent a gallon tax has. Heck, gas prices seem to fluctuate that much each week. Beavah

Wrong. There was no mention of scouting or the BSA in the newspaper article. Merlyn is quite right, and I apologize. Us old fellows and our memories! Dale was at a conference about young homosexuals and was interviewed about the needs for teen gay males to have older mentors. Yeh can see where this would still trigger brand image control when published with a photograph in a statewide newspaper. The dismissal happened in 1990 which was before New Jersey had a non-discrimination law that included sexual orientation, so at the time the BSA took action they very clearly had every right to do so. Dale sued 2 years later, shortly after NJ had amended its non-discrimination statute. My memory of his comments came from interviews at that time, not da 1990 article. Mea culpa. Beavah

The only thing different about OA ceremonies is that they're more or less restricted, and they involve American Indian symbology. And they echo da Masonic thing, and they echo a pseudo-native spiritualism. Both of which might be objectionable to some folks, eh? Masonic stuff used to earn yeh an excommunication from da Catholic church. I think it's similar to the "non-denominational" services. For some, usually whose beliefs and traditions are closer to whatever form the service takes, these are just fine. For others, they're a go-along-to-get-along thing. For still others, they're mildly objectionable, a bit like feeding kids nothing but cotton candy instead of a real meal, and for yet another group they're morally unsound and anathema. I'm in da cotton candy camp for both. I think they're cheatin' kids out of the real meal and substituting some bizarre man-made fluff. Stuff that's only tolerable in small doses at a carnival. Beavah

I know one troop that charges "gear retrieval and storage fees" for lost personal gear. Scout required to pay cash out of his own pocket $1 per item per week. PLs tend to cover for their guys and just return stuff until they get sick and tired of picking up after someone and start usin' the system. Stuff not claimed after a month or two is auctioned off to the highest bidder at a meeting.