Beavah

Nestorianism? Surely if yeh were goin' to go back that far yeh need to start with Arianism. The disputes among da early church fathers were no different in character than the disputes among supporters of different scientific theories over the years. They debated points, they met and argued at conferences/councils, a consensus of da large majority was formed over a period of time and the community generally dismissed or drove out those whose theories were less convincing/had less evidence. Some continued as small groups of dissenters/eccentrics. None of these were questions of morality, eh? They were questions of religious theory and doctrine. Nestorianism was based on da theology of Theotokos, what it means to call Mary "the mother of God". Now to my mind at least, that's not a concept of morality, as in how to make choices about right and wrong in one's life, eh? It's a question about very particular religious theory. Like some esoteric detail of String Theory for Physicists. Same with Gnosticism and all da rest. If yeh read the disputes over definitions and theories that have survived, they look an awful lot like disputes over esoteric elements of Constitutional Law or science. They're in some ways more polite than da average disputes between various schools of economics . Da issue with King Henry VIII had little to do with morality. It had to do with da fact that his wife, Catherine of Aragon, was the daughter of the King of Spain, and Spain was both the reigning power in Europe of the day and a lot closer to Rome. But are yeh arguin' that it's morally OK for a husband to divorce his wife by startin' his own religion and loppin' off her head? Beavah

Beavah, if what you say is true about the image and brand, then Trevorum's prediction has greater validity. Yes and no. Just depends what da BSA sees as its membership and market, eh? Right now, its membership (as in voting membership, the Chartered Organizations) consists of a very large majority that support da current approach. In fact, the short-sighted efforts to pull schools and other organizations out has shifted things strongly in favor of the current approach. I think Trevorum is makin' an assumption that in da long run people are goin' to change on this issue. I'm just not seein' the same data he is. While young folks are always a bit more open-minded and liberal than older folks, it does not follow that they stay liberal as they get older, eh? In fact, they don't. So just because polls show more young people are accepting of a gay lifestyle doesn't mean that they will always be as they become more mature. And there's also a strong trend of young people of faith becomin' somewhat more traditional in their faith than young people of recent generations, eh? Plus, to be quite frank, the religious faithful value life and tend to have more kids. Easy abortion and delayed family and homosexuality tend to select against the beliefs of those who practice them. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah - That "local option" point of view does not apply in this case. Irving has gone to court to defend its position, making it clear that the ban on gays is a NATIONAL POLICY, not one that local units have an option on. Nah, you're not understandin' things, shortridge. The BSA went to court to defend its right to remove Mr. Dale, who had in a feature article of a major regional newspaper talked about being actively gay, working with young people exploring their sexuality, and being an assistant scoutmaster working with young boys in da context of the same article. A court case is a dispute about a particular matter, eh? That is its nature. In our adversarial system, in such a dispute yeh make your best argument. Like most, you're startin' from a false assumption, that the BSA acts primarily through establishing "national policy". All in caps, even. Instead, I'm tellin' yeh that the proper way to think of it is that the BSA provides program and support for paying customers/partners, and acts to protect its interests and brand image. Yeh have to stop thinking of it like it's a government body, and start thinkin' of it like it's a corporation. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, shortridge, science is just a branch of human knowledge. It has its rules for how to discuss and validate that knowledge, but most historians of science that I've read wouldn't call it anywhere near as trite and cut-and-dried as you suggest, eh? Da vast majority of scientific phenomenon cannot be easily confined to a simplistic laboratory experiment. Instead, like climate change, they are addressed by assumptions based on underlying principles and models and approximations. No different for any branch of human knowledge, eh? Each has its rules for how to discuss and validate that knowledge, and usually it's pretty complimicated, combining evidence with reasoning with social position with funding availability. Some "scientific" ideas fail da test of time, like phlogiston theory. Some theological ideas fail da test of time, like the acceptability of slavery. In both cases, because evidence is accumulated that overwhelms the theory. Some scientific ideas are fringe and never really gain any real acceptance, and some religious ideas are fringe and never gain any real acceptance. Experts who make in-depth study of the field are treated with respect and deference in both cases, and attract followers/graduate students. But not every idea an expert has meets da test of time. There really are very few differences, eh? Probably da biggest is that in its purest form, science limits itself to simplistic things, while religion tends to take on da deepest, hardest questions. Da thing we all have to be careful of is what moosetracker suggests, eh? Religion/theology are human knowledge, eh? Just as science is human knowledge. Religion is not the same thing as God, just as science is not the same thing as the universe. Neither is perfect. But both are valuable. A priest or rabbi or imam can still be as dumb as a load of bricks about a whole range of issues. Just as a scientist can be as dumb as a load of bricks about a whole range of issues, eh? Just look at da daffy physicists and mathematicians that got into da finance industry. The question is, would yeh turn to a scientist on a question of science, or would yeh assume yeh knew as much as anybody who'd spent their lifetime studying the discipline and go it on your own? And then the question is, would yeh turn to a religious minister on a question of religion/God, or would yeh assume yeh knew as much as anybody who'd spent their lifetime studying the discipline and go it on your own? If da answer to each question is different, then I think yeh have to face da fact that you have a bias one way or the other. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, just as well NJCubScouter, because BS-87's interpretation of the "Law of Nations" is naught but revisionist garbage. Seriously, mate, yeh gotta stop buyin' into one echo chamber's message whole-hog. It just makes yeh look daft. Now someone please tell me who da blazes Gary Johnson is! I haven't even heard that name yet! Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... I think most of this strum and drang is a product of the fact that da average volunteer just doesn't understand the real relationship of the BSA to the units. Everyone keeps thinkin' of the BSA as a central, controlling organization that dictates "policy" down the chain on everything from who can be a leader to what color socks yeh can wear on a campout in May. That's just not the way things are set up, eh? The BSA is a program materials provider that gets hired by various community organizations who want to provide that program to kids in their organization or community. The BSA does not set or dictate policy to 'em. They don't want that responsibility or liability. So almost everything is local option, eh? And by and large da BSA respects and supports the mission of the Chartered Organizations and doesn't interfere. A CO can pay for a Boy Scout charter and follow da program to a "T", or it can pay for a charter and never use uniforming or advancement at all, and just make use of council facilities and insurance for its youth outdoor program. Either is just fine. Da only thing where the BSA does have an interest itself is in protecting its "brand" and reputation. So yeh shouldn't totally cheat on da advancement program, yeh shouldn't use the uniform to misrepresent the BSA or endorse a product, etc. Those aren't CO program issues, they're BSA public image issues. And that's where da other stuff comes in too, eh? Is the BSA goin' to take action when an ASM declares in a major newspaper that he's gay and works with teenage boys in a scout troop? Yes, because that affects their brand image and reputation, for good or ill. Are they goin' to go out of their way to deal with a kid who at a First Class BOR claims to be an atheist? Of course not, they're goin' to leave that to the local folks and the Chartered Organization to deal with. At da edges, there's goin' to be some give-and-take, where da BSA balances its service commitment and respect for da CO with its need to protect its brand, image, and intellectual property. That's it. So like everything, yeh can't view da BSA as some big, hyper-centralized, standardized, policy-making body. Yeh have to understand it for what it is. A business that markets a product, supports community organizations, and has an interest in protecting its brand. Beavah

Ideas of what is moral and what is not between the Christian faiths is probably the most common reason for the split in religion into all it's various branches. Nonsense. Yeh need to go back and look at da history. At least if yeh believe in that sort of expertise . Da first Christian Schism between the Greek Church and the Roman Church was based on a picky theological dispute over whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, or just from da Father. And on the date of Easter. Which of course is silly, it was really a political dispute between Rome and Constantinople. Either way, it had nuthin' to do with "what is moral and what is not". That tradition continued through most Christian history. Splits come because of very human and political failings, not really issues of morality. In da Reformation, questions of salvation and then predestination, or whether the King can authorize his own divorce. It's almost never about morality. It's about people and politics. Christianity as a whole is in resounding agreement about morality, an agreement it by and large shares with traditional Judaism and much of Islam. Only in harder "edge cases" do we really have any disputes, and in most of those it's really confusion that comes from non-religious cultural contamination, whether that be southern slavery & prejudice or western promiscuity or da democratic notion that every individual's voice should be equal regardless of whether they know anything. Beavah

Despite strong growth in the first half of 2011 and traction in North America with a number of orders for very large commercial rooftops, Solyndra could not achieve full-scale operations rapidly enough to compete in the near term with the resources of larger foreign manufacturers. This competitive challenge was exacerbated by a global oversupply of solar panels and a severe compression of prices that in part resulted from uncertainty in governmental incentive programs in Europe and the decline in credit markets that finance solar systems. We are incredibly proud of our employees, and we would like to thank our investors, channel partners, customers and suppliers, for the years of support that allowed us to bring our innovative technology to market. Distributed rooftop solar power makes sense, and our customers clearly recognize the advantages of Solyndra systems, said Solyndras president and CEO, Brian Harrison. Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion. Raising incremental capital in this environment was not possible. This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate. Yah, this is often da problem with government tinkering in da markets, eh? The instability it causes makes it hard for firms to make strategic plans or recruit capital. Yeh find good businessmen spendin' all their time either lobbying or fed-watching rather than just lookin' at the market, even if it's well-intentioned. And of course, there are all kinds of ways with government programs where well-intentioned gets overlapped with "self-interest". Da better way to do things when there's truly a national interest at stake, like not allowing the U.S. to fall completely behind da rest of the world on energy development and technology, is for congress to take action to tax things which there is a national interest to discourage. That helps to stabilize markets, because it makes 'em predictable in a way that allows a business to plan strategically and raise capital. And it avoids da risk of the government tryin' to pick winners and losers, or cronies, to award. So yeh tax pollution, or carbon-based/non-renewable energy, or oil, if those are things yeh want to discourage. Da problem is that congress shows no leadership and indeed steadfastly refuses to do its job. So da Executive tries to do what it can through work-arounds like the CAFE standards for cars or low-interest loan guarantees, even though these are terrible approaches. Nothing would be better for national security and for our domestic auto manufacturers than a consistent, hefty, and increasing tax on gasoline. Yeh could abolish over-regulation like CAFE. Yeh could abolish loan guarantees to pet companies like this one. Manufacturers would have a clear picture of da market with which they could plan and raise capital. Da revenues would drastically reduce our debt. Da pressure on oil prices would demolish our enemies. The private research investment would re-establish our technological lead. But that takes action by Congress, eh? And while da pseudo-conservatives in Congress claim to want all those things, what they really are is just anti-tax. So as a result, we get overregulation and market interference and manufacturing paralysis and losin' our technological edge to foreign competitors and well-financed enemies killin' our soldiers and a large debt. Beavah

f I can be a friend of a black man, a Polish person, a Jewish person and a Muslim.. But I do not join their community and do not become black, Polish, Jewish or Muslim.. Does this make me prejudice? Nah. Nor does it make yeh not prejudiced either. What does as an outside observer smack of bias is when yeh work with doctors on a diagnosis for your son, but yeh refuse to work with other folks with expertise in a different area. In da one case, yeh bring ideas and additional information back to share, in the other, yeh dismiss any need to consider their expertise at all. There are, after all, a bunch of different competing theories of gravity, eh? Like all human knowledge, physics isn't cut-and-dried "fact". We humans are too frail and limited to fully comprehend any of da real mysteries of the universe. There are, for almost any event in history, more than a few competing interpretations or beliefs. Neither of those things mean that experts in physics shouldn't be respected and trusted for their expertise, or experts in history. Why should it be any different for experts in religion and theology, eh? Unless yeh happen to have a bias against that field, of course. Wars have been fought in da name of nations far, far, far more often than in da name of religion, eh? Does that prevent yeh from being patriotic? From supporting a duty to country? From choosing to be loyal to one nation that yeh feel is at least somewhat worthy of your loyalty, because bein' part of a community is a worthy thing? Why should it be any different for religion, unless yeh happen to have a bias against one and not the other? I can't guess why 9/11 caused yeh to lose your faith, eh. But perhaps, just maybe, yeh used a single piece of evidence, and a smidge of your own bias on da issue, to come to da wrong conclusion. Beavah

Our Troop recently did a "reboot" to mixed age Patrols. So far so good. The old SM appointed the new PL's (with an eye for temperament toward working with the personalities in question --and they look like good picks). Now they are proposing APL elections, the elected APL works for 6 months and moves up to PL and a new APL is elected. What do you think? Yah, this question came up in da parent thread, and I didn't want it to hijack Twocubdad's discussion. It also might be a good question to ask everyone how they approached PL / APL or SPL/ASPL selection in their troop, depending on whether their patrols were age-based or vertical. Let's all share some thoughts on what we've seen work or not. As to this question, I'm all for helpin' the kids think through things and letting 'em experiment with structure. I think yeh only have real youth leadership when da youth are allowed to decide not only what they do, but how they do it. So if this is comin' from da kids, I'd give it a whirl. That having been said, I think when yeh have mixed-age patrols, there tends to be one or two obvious older-scout leaders, and in fact that's sorta da strength of the system. The older boys in the upper ranks have the skills to plan outings and to lead younger boys, and the younger boys naturally look up to 'em. And older boys respond to that, eh? They live up to it. So if yeh put in place a system that forces a high rate of turnover, yeh are likely to disrupt that healthy dynamic. What you're proposing is that boys grow into leadership positions on a regular 6-month schedule, and I just don't believe that's true. Boys don't do anything on a schedule. So I prefer the lads to do somethin' that feels more natural and fits where each patrol and each boy are at. Often, too, a lad needs 6 months just to get knocked about a bit and grow into a position before he's ready to really make it hum, and lettin' him have da opportunity to make it hum seems an apt reward for the 6 months of learning. Where this can make a bit more sense is in ASPL/SPL succession, and I've seen that work just fine. I think in healthy, youth-run troops the boys tend to work somethin' like that out on their own often enough, so even if yeh don't make it formal, the ASPL often is "next in line" for the SPL job. But not always, eh? Some ASPL boys tend to be good staff folks who don't really want to be line officers, and that's OK too. So I guess yeh lose that possibility in da automatic system - the possibility that a shy-but-organized lad might make a great and supportive ASPL, but not want or be da right sort of successful personality for the SPL role. What other sorts of selection methods have folks tried/seen/comments about? Beavah

Seems the youngest and most immature of the new ASPLs is trying to create his own political machine in his patrol by engineering the PL election. Yah, hmmm... I'm comin' back around to Eagledad's post, eh? Yeh need to take a look at what about your unit culture is allowin' boys to view leadership positions as a political game rather than a tough responsibility and honor. There are a lot of ways to do that, and they depend a lot on the lads involved. You've heard many of 'em here, eh? Give 'em rope, let 'em succeed or fail and be forthright in your critique and debriefs. Move away from elections until your boys become mature enough to handle 'em. Take 'em all on a challenging high adventure trip where they really have to work together hard in order to succeed, and it ain't just a plop-camp party. I would suggest, though, that da last thing is somethin' to think about. When yeh have kids gaming elections, it's often a sign that the program challenges and expectations aren't high enough, so the kids are findin' new challenges. When da program challenges for a patrol are enough to require everyone in da patrol to really work to make da patrol succeed, then the leaders become obvious and yeh tend to get more a consensus or arranged succession on PL, or a friendly election where whoever wins appoints the other as APL. Same with da SPL in bigger troops. I confess, though, I'm a bit more fond of the PLC selecting the SPL, since they're the ones who actually see other boys' skills at coordinatin' and planning between da patrols. In a patrol-method troop at least, the rank-and-file patrol members won't usually see most of what da job of an SPL is, so it's a lot harder for 'em to make an informed decision. Beavah

Forgetting things and singing for them, while that may have been the norm back in the day, heck I remember singing for stuff, it is now considered hazing by BSA Yah, I must have missed da memo. I confess I really dislike ever-expanding definitions, eh? Things can be a poor choice without becoming an issue of criminality. Hazing has a legal definition in many states. It is a criminal act. So I think we have to be awfully careful about accusing any youth or adults of "hazing" unless we actually mean to accuse them of committing a serious misdemeanor or felony. Makin' a lad sing for somethin' we may argue is inappropriate or embarrassing or a poor choice, but it does not meet any formal or even reasonable definition of hazing. In fact, it's hard to imagine anything in scoutin' that does, except perhaps for OA ordeals. Now I confess I come at this from a particular perspective, eh? Accusin' an adult of a crime against children is one of those things that can get yeh in a world of hot water yourself, and people have a right to zealously guard their reputations against such damages. I'm curious, though. Do yeh find this sort of expansive definition becomin' common in your area? Do yeh feel we scouters have a duty under the Oath and Law to stop or correct others who mistakenly apply such a loaded term to fellow volunteers? Beavah

My wife says it's the "beat me up at recess look" or prissy. (She's a country girl. I'm a city boy. She's always telling our youngest to untuck his t-shirts. LOL. Yah, I gotta say I agree with Mrs. fred8033. T-shirts haven't been worn tucked in since da 1950s. I think there is a real courtesy issue here, though. Now maybe it's just because I'm a council fellow, so I tend to view things a bit from that side of the world. Da role of a district or council volunteer is to support the unit volunteers and chartered organizations in THEIR program. That's our only reason for being, and it demands a deep and abidin' respect for and courtesy toward the unit volunteers who give so much of their time to the boys. So if you're a council scouter who is helpin' out as a jamboree contingent adult, yeh have to view your role as helpin' da unit leaders provide a program and service which they can't do themselves. And that means yeh respect da boys and their unit norms as much as yeh can. All da fun is in workin' with great kids from different troops and helpin' 'em build friendships and connections with each other that strengthen scouting in all their programs. Yeh support youth leadership in da jambo patrol, and involve 'em in decisions. If yeh let the lads set expectations for each other, they do a far better job than some adult fashionista. Yeh certainly don't make T-shirt tucking a hill to die on, and yeh dispense with the treat-em-like-little-kids stuff. These are the senior scouts of your council's programs, and should be treated as such. Unlike what clothes yeh wear, that is a real issue of courtesy. Folks who don't get that have no business being council volunteers for a jambo contingent. Now, from da youth side of course, being obedient means knowin' when to follow, eh? And sometimes, that means havin' the maturity to recognize when an adult leader is in over his/her head and is makin' arbitrary rules because they don't know how to really lead in a new and challenging situation. That's a lot to ask of a young fellow, but being supportive and understandin' is sometimes more a matter of Kindness than Obedience, eh? Beavah

Physicians deal in facts, items that are testable and verifiable. The clergy deals with faith. Big difference. Balderdash. Physicians deal with complex diagnoses and competing claims and such all the time. While there might be an underlying fact about the cause of some symptoms, that doesn't mean that is at all clear. And often enough, there aren't even any recognized underlying "facts" to many syndromes. For all but the simplest of things, the only difference between a "fact" and "faith" is how much someone believes it. When doctors are wrong, the only folks that are likely to bring 'em around are the medical community. The other experts in the area who are workin' and carin' for people and doing research. That, and just observin' for themselves that something doesn't work. When ministers are wrong, the only folks that are likely to call 'em on it are their religious community. The other experts in the area who are workin' and carin' for people and doing research. That, and just observin' for themselves that something doesn't work or doesn't comport with the bible or other traditions of their faith. All human knowledge is the same, eh? Doesn't matter if it's science or theology or psychology or economics. Yeh have a community of people who specialize in the area and who know a lot about it, and those who don't. Yeh have norms within the discipline or the community that help teach new folks and balance out individual zeal or misinformation, and yeh have the few inspired geniuses and the bigger group of nutjobs and wackos who operate outside da norms. Yeh have people who are very good at what they do, and those who aren't as good. As it happens, your priest friend is a part of very disciplined profession as these things go. Yeh gotta give it to da Catholics for that. Da question yeh have to ask yourself is what about your own bias causes you to privilege one group over another? To make broad, sweeping claims about the limits and restrictions of one branch of knowledge while buying others without the same level of scrutiny? For physicians, yeh recognize that an individual doc may be wrong, but you'd still turn to other doctors for additional opinions. But not for ministers. And I bet yeh privilege other disciplines too, eh? Things like economics and psychology, even though they are much younger and less-developed fields than, say, Christian theology. And they have their "camps" and fundamental disagreements in much da way Christians do. But I'd bet you'd value a psychologist over a priest in their respective fields. That says a lot about you, eh? Not very much about da disciplines. Confrontin' our own prejudices is hard. But it begins by lookin' very carefully at what things we accept as "fact" without question. Because that's where our faith really is. Beavah

But, as stated, being a preist does not make him any more right with interpretation of confusing issues then you or I. He has just taken more time to study and think & interpret.. But, being human can still get it wrong. Yah, hmmmm.... So moosetracker what do you think about... "Being a doctor does not make him any more right with interpretation of confusing medical issues than you or I. He has just taken more time to study and think and interpret. But, being human, he can still get it wrong." Do you agree with that statement? I think we can all agree with being human we still get things wrong. Except perhaps Mrs. Beavah, she's always right . But I'm not sure it follows that people who have spent years studying and practicing in a discipline of any kind are therefore no better at that discipline than anybody else. Yah, yah, we see that in politics sometimes. "My opinion is worth as much as those scientists.". "I know more than those Nobel Prize winning economists." But is that the position that you really want to take? Beavah

Yah, Fred8033, I don't know if there's somethin' particular that prompted the need get that off your chest, eh? . But I agree with yeh. My personal definition of "a scout is obedient" is something like "a scout knows when to follow as well as when to lead. Being a good follower means recognizing that sometimes yeh cheerfully support a wrong decision, because that's better for the group than gripin' and moanin' about it. It means taking on tasks you'd prefer not to because that's what the group needs. It's a choice of honor and care for others, eh? That doesn't mean yeh always follow. There are times when following does more harm for the group then good. There are times to lead, too, even if it's lead the revolution. A PL merits the obedience of his patrol by being the cool guy who demonstrates honor and commitment and care for his guys, so they learn to reciprocate and support him in turn. Same with a Scoutmaster or adult. Beavah

Yah, penst8, there's good advice all around here. When a council puts together a jamboree contingent, they're constructin' one or more new "troops" out of random people. Random adults, random scouts. So the experience can be a bit hit or miss dependin' on the kids and adults. Yeh can have some troops who send kids who are really too young/immature/rapid-advanced who are just a drag on the contingent, and yeh can have some district curmudgeons as adult leaders who can be poor leaders for the kids. Typically councils also milk jambo for revenue in one way or another. Most often, they actually buy new gear to outfit the jambo "troop" - new matching tents, cook gear, etc. That adds up. That gear in the end goes to the council camp or to a Scoutreach unit or somesuch. Then they also build in a pretty healthy contingency amount just to protect themselves against kids who drop, etc. And, too, there's a tendency to pay for logistics support and touring rather than do it the more typical lower-cost troop way. That's because yeh have to make allowances for not knowin' the boys and havin' a bit group. Jambo can be a great experience, but da costs are pretty high for what really is a big ol' car-camping party. I've always told folks that given a choice between goin' to Jambo and goin' to 2-3 troop high adventure treks, there's no question. Take the high adventure treks. Beavah

Yah, the thing about elections is that we always think that boys know all about elections and leadership stuff without ever having been taught, eh? But yeh can no more throw a group of lads into an election without slowly building up experience and givin' support than you can throw a group of boys onto a whitewater river without first building up experience and givin' support. And da problem with "sink or swim" on elections is how much damage it can do a troop. Yeh have to be very, very cautious about learning by trial and error with that. How many kids dropped from the program is learning by trial and error worth? How likely is a strongly negative parent reaction which sets back youth leadership in your program by several years? Particularly if yeh have a young troop in a "rebuilding" mode, yeh have to spend a great deal of effort teaching how to run for office honorably and vote responsibly. And just like da whitewater paddling yeh start with the basics in more controlled flat-water environments and work your way up. Sounds like yeh might not have done that, in which case yeh now have a hard problem of disentangling the mess. There's merit to an SPL wanting guys that he trusts and knows will listen to him, eh? In a troop with age-based patrols, I reckon he'd naturally tend to select guys from his patrol and cut out the older fellows. So I think your real problem happened earlier on. The key to makin' youth leadership work well is to set things up so the boys are likely to succeed. Let me ask a question: Do you think this boy who is SPL is the best boy in the troop (or at least one of the top 3) for the job? If not, then yeh have to take a step back and look at why your election process broke down. This boy was allowed to manipulate it because the boys voting took it as more of a game to be manipulated? Lots of young fellows voted for the funniest kid because they didn't really know any of the older boys running so as to be able to judge 'em on their skills? In that case, at least before the next go, you have to step back and fix that. Maybe SPL needs to be voted by just the PLC for a while, or appointed. If this boy really is the top leader in the troop, or one of the top 2-3, then I think yeh work with him on his appointments collaboratively. The other top leader in the troop yeh can always just make JASM. Yeh don't "veto". A good SM never vetoes. A need to veto means that yeh failed badly at instruction along the way. Yeh sit with the lad and you help him understand his strengths and weaknesses, and then help him to see he needs an ASPL who complements him; who will follow his lead when he's strong and support him in areas he's not as good at. Yeh start talkin' about the strengths and weaknesses of the other boys between the two of you, and what each position needs in order to work well. Maybe yeh discover he has thought it out, and there's enough there to go with even if it's not the way you would have done it, but just the act of sittin' down and working through it lends an air of seriousness and thoughtfulness so that later on if things aren't workin' out for a position he has some notions of how to deal with it. You've established a partnership where he can turn to you for ideas, where you can count on him being serious about some stuff, and where yeh trust each other. Beavah

Yah, good on your crew, Horizon! I've only seen it in da field a few times. It's my go-to for an absurdly complex field dish. B

Yah, hmmm.... Usually hearin' and listening to lots of "inner voices" is somethin' that yeh should seek treatment for, moosetracker. There are medications for that. The problem with your notion of just-follow-your-inner-voice is that da religious racist and the atheist communist despot are followin' their inner voices, eh? All yeh have to do is listen to anything Quadaffi says to know he at least thinks he's following his inner voice. We humans are so very good at foolin' ourselves. That's why we form communities of belief, eh? To check and inform our inner voices. Yah, yah, sometimes God inspires individuals, but lots of times they claim that when it's not the case. A community of faith provides a check against that. Your friends and your neighbors, your priests and your bishops, your bible and your biblical tradition all act to ground, guide, inform, and inspire your conscience. No different than school, eh? Your "inner voice" can tell yeh that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. But then you're part of a community where "priests"... I mean knowledgeable teachers... explain that no, gravity is a funny thing, and all objects fall at the same rate, subject perhaps to different air drag. They might refer yeh to authoritative textbooks when a phenomenon is too hard to demonstrate in a classroom. Yah, yah, some teachers might even get things wrong from time to time. But does that mean that living in a community that values learning is bad because it rejects and tries to inform your inner physics voice? Or perhaps, is it preferable for a good citizen to be a part of such a community, because despite da risk of having an occasional bad teacher, the benefits are still better overall than goin' it alone? Your very language about "helping people" and "right and wrong" is religious language, eh? Shouldn't it be informed by the religious communit(ies) that developed those very ideas? Nobody is sayin' any individual person is "better" than anyone else. There are indeed wonderful people in both groups, just as there are wonderful people who have never gotten an education. But don't yeh think it would be better if every citizen went to school, and learned to better inform their "inner voice"? Includin' those of us who show a relatively unfortunate bias against religion and its adherents. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

My question to the collective group is what are your favorite recipes that you would serve cold *or* would feed an entire patrol cooked solely on gas stoves? Serve cold? Egads! Of course yeh can feed an entire patrol on food cooked solely on gas stoves. In fact, yeh can do anything yeh want on da little MSR backpacker stoves if yeh prefer. Beef Wellington, pizza, chili and field-baked corn bread, crab cakes, stir fries, pastas, lasagnas, quiches and curries. Whatever is your pleasure. Beavah

Yah, it's those silly papists, eh? Honestly, there's often nuthin' quite so bad as the squabbles between two different shoots from da same branch of protestantism. I was out campin' recently at a rural state park in a state a bit south of ours, and chattin' with da evening ranger at the gate while waitin' for part of a lost convoy. He and your neighbor would have gotten along just fine, I reckon. Yeh don't see that sorta thing much up our way, so I was really quite taken aback. I was a good ol' uniformed white feller, though, so he figured I must agree. Sigh. Sometimes it's hard to sow seeds when da soil is so dry and rocky. B

Yah, I figure it's another part of da unpublished memo, eh? I reckon "morally straight" also encompasses polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and such. It is funny to me to learn that Merlyn really is a religious missionary, eh? He's not content to let a conservative church set its own standards for membership, as they by all accounts did in this case. He wants to go after 'em and convert them, too. "It's never going to go away!" and all that. People have to believe what I believe or I will pester and harass 'em until they do. Moosetracker, I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of religious folks for whom religion has become an idol, eh? Yeh can tell 'em because they're focused more on their religion or what's written in the Good Book and they don't talk very much about God or what God expects of them, not others. Yeh can turn even Christianity into naught more than a Golden Calf, eh? But then, yeh know, I've always been amazed at how liberal-minded folks are willing to make broad-brush statements condemning religion and da religious, and talkin' about how religion has caused wars and all kinds of other bad things. But they would never, ever, make the same claims about other groups - that blacks have done thus and so, that Jews have done thus and so, that Arabs are all this that or the other, that communism or capitalism or monarchy or democracy have done all these bad things. I often wonder why that is? People are people, eh? They often fail to live up to their own standards and values. Da question is what those standards and values should be that they strive for. And I reckon some religions at least have done OK on that score. The notion that we should take care of the poor among us is fundamentally a religious one, eh? It was never proposed by any state or monarch.

Ah, that's OK, Merlyn. Lawyer jokes are never goin' away either, eh? . This bothers me even less. It just isn't an issue for day to day year to year scouting. Moosetracker, not sure where to start, eh? Nope, right now the majority doesn't feel that bankers gambling with other people's money is the "right" thing. But a sizable minority does. Enough to prevent legislation that would prohibit da practice. Not all pedophiles believe they are "attacking" kids, eh? They believe younger kids are able to give consent and it's a caring, mentoring relationship. After all, age of consent in a lot of countries is lower than it is in da US. Fringe Mormon groups believe polygamy is not just OK it's obligatory, despite what that does to women or the societal cost if it were widely adopted. But that's consensual and long term between adults, eh? Groups of people can believe the darndest things, even with full-throated conviction and change-society zeal. Occasionally they're right. More often, they're just nuts. Even when they might be right they can get a bit carried away, eh? Like anti war protesters wagin' domestic war. A drug user one might argue is only hurting himself. And to some extent that's true. But in another way, drug use has large societal costs. An adult who uses profanity is somethin' we tolerate in da general public (though a friend or relative might preach a little to 'em), but not something most of us would allow in a youth leader, even if we believe in free speech. As Eagledad says, one can be kind and caring and courteous to a lesbian couple without agreeing with their choices or believing they should be youth leaders in a church program. And yeh can still welcome their kid, even if he thinks he might be gay. That's one of da things religion teaches. Religion also freed the slaves in the U.S., and belief in deity provided the justification to overthrow civil tyranny, for all are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. For most of da history of the west religion provided the only meaningful check on unrestrained civil government power, which is why monarchies and communist dictatorships so often sought to repress it as the first step to maintaining control. Religion has inspired more art and music, founded more schools and hospitals, done more work on behalf of the poor than any state. Even now, OGE's Catholic church by itself is solely responsible for more than a third of the AIDS care in Africa. Added to da rest of us, it's clear that religion, not secular government, consistently is the caregiver for the most poor and needy. To be the best kind of citizen, yeh have to owe allegiance to somethin' bigger than yourself. Otherwise what's good for you is good for da country, and we see too much of that. To be the best kind of citizen yeh have to owe allegiance to somethin' bigger than your country. Otherwise da pride of nationalism or simple obedience to unjust law can lead yeh astray. To be the best kind of citizen, yeh have to owe allegiance first to somethin' so big that you are willing to sacrifice for it, daily and even ultimately, and it has to be more than da preservation of your tribe or your genetic material. Only God is worthy of all that, eh? Yep, religious folk are sinners, too. Often da worst of sinners. All God provides is a challenge to each of us, a call to be answered or ignored or rejected. But that's no small thing. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... How often do yeh backpack downstream of industrial or agricultural waste? I confess after tryin' a bunch of filters I gave up on 'em. Slow, heavy, clog easily, expensive, and most are really easy for boys to cross-contaminate. So I just use iodine or a steri-pen. Battery life on a steripen adventurer is about 40 liters or so with rechargeables. Might be more on the classic. The first one I had was bulletproof, the second one is a bit touchy but not a big deal. If yeh use iodine and don't like da iodine taste just follow it up with a bit of vitamin-C and all the iodine will come out of solution. Or use aquamira. For cloudy water, just filter through a bandana or necker. Of course I'm an old salt, eh? In areas that I am familiar with or in other areas where it's fairly obvious, I just drink da water. Most is just fine. In many decades in all kinds of areas from mountain to coast and across 5 continents I've almost never had a problem with that simple setup, with kids or adults. Only issue I've ever run into is that pothole water in da SW deserts tends to be high in magnesium salts, eh? Think milk of magnesia. . No filter is goin' to help yeh with that, though. Restaurants... Now that's another story entirely. Those places are dangerous. Beavah