Beavah

Can you show me where we fought any harder or were more determined to defeat our enemy when we learned of the NVA torturing our soldiers and airmen? I reckon da effect was blunted by the coverage of our own atrocities, eh? Regardless of whether yeh think all of that coverage was fair or not (and I do not), yeh have to admit that even the perception that we were engaged in such activities caused us to lose the war in Vietnam. It undermined support at home and abroad, and undermined unit cohesion in-theater. The effect was so profound that we're still living with some of da consequences of it more than 40 years later. So why would we ever return to a strategy that caused us to lose a war? That undermined our nation? Especially when it's so much easier to behave with honor and in accord with the law. Beavah

There are no rules in War So how do yeh reconcile that with "a Scout is Reverent?". Your professed faith seems to believe with infallible authority that there are in fact rules in war. Of course, U.S.Law agrees. We have been involved in a War on Drugs now for many years longer than our War on Terrorism. Those who sell drugs are a shadowy lot, much like da terrorists, and they have killed or injured far more Americans than any group of terrorists. The War on Drugs much like da War on Terrorism is an undeclared conflict. Governments love undeclared, never-ending wars and states of emergency. Just look at Mubarak and the current butcher in Syria. So in keepin' with da wonderful examples we're following, can da DEA torture a scout suspected of buying a joint from a dealer after school for information? Can da secret police spirit away the neighbor of a suspected terrorist and torture his 6 year old daughter? Can we imprison advocates of legalized marijuana for sedition in wartime? Yeh hear that kind of rhetoric often enough. Nice country we're building. Unfortunately, yeh have a problem, eh? Because yeh just pulled me and most other Americans into the war on the other side. That's da problem with being unethical, eh? Yeh alienate even your friends. Beavah

Yah, Portiero, I hear yeh. I think that a less active unit can make it challenging for a lad. Of course the hope is that he'll then get on the PLC and push to be more active! Keep in mind, though, that the requirement is just to be a BSA event, not a unit event. So a boy who goes as a provisional scout or a guest of another unit can still log the time. I think encouraging troops to collaborate like that is somethin' we should do more of, eh? Adults have limited vacation time, but a boy who can attend Troop 36's high adventure week followed by Troop 74's can get double the fun, and the adults don't get as burned out. Beavah

I'm still trying to figure out why it was ok to drop the bombs on Japan, and it is bad to waterboard terrorists. Because the Japanese cities weren't surrendered captives. Even in World War II it would have been dishonorable, unethical, and illegal to torture prisoners. In fact after the war we tried, imprisoned, and in some cases executed people who had done exactly that. At the same time, we released enemy pilots and rocket scientists who firebombed London. Even welcomed them as citizens and gave them jobs. If we are at "war" against an enemy in uniform, then torturing captives only leads to stiffened resolve, better recruiting, less willingness to surrender, and the torture of our own men and women in retaliation. If we are at "war" against an unconventional enemy, then torturing captives only leads to stiffened resolve, better recruiting, less willingness to surrender, the torture of innocent parties by mistake, less willingness on the part of local population to cooperate in giving us vital intelligence, and the loss of allies and respect in the eyes of the world. In all cases, it does serious harm to the long term mental health and unit discipline of our own men and women. There is a reason it is illegal, eh? And it's not just because it's cowardly, dishonorable and immoral. It's also counterproductive. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... I think what da article is saying is that the name "Rainbow Council" is a turn-off to the modern youth demographic in that area and their families. Da reason the name is no longer attractive to boys who might consider joining is left as an exercise for the reader. Beavah

Yah, I find dat da forums is best when I have a flask handy, eh? OGE's gnu typwriten acent is even harder to reed then myne. B

I've certainly seen several. I think da protocol these days is the same as with congressional letters, eh? Email is best. If yeh send a regular post letter to the White House, it gets delayed by months to be screened for biological and chemical contamination and then to get directed to the proper folks to handle such things. Can't find the best link at the moment, but yeh might try usin' the contact for the Office of Public Engagement: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ope/contact There is also a FAX number for the Greetings Office for requests: 202-456-2461 Beavah

Hiya, bsa504mom, welcome! I reckon by now that the adult leaders and other youth in the troop would know all about the lad's leadership ability just from his other activities and his service in a position of responsibility. The things I would look at in a project writeup are whether the project got done to the organization's satisfaction and who the workers on the project were. If mom and dad had outsized contributions to the project effort, then perhaps some harder questioning needs to take place at the board of review. Otherwise, you tell by how he presents the project and the level of knowledge and confidence he shows in that process. A lad who has truly led a project on his own can talk in intimate detail about all parts of it, once he gets over his nerves and any shyness with the group. He'll talk about this thing that worked and that thing that didn't and how he had to do somethin' different here and had to tell Fred not to carry the glass jars on his head and whatnot. Look for those things, eh? How he responded to challenges, difficulties, changes. It becomes pretty obvious in the report and conversation. Beavah

Yah, Porteiro, welcome to da forums! Your scout shop is correct, the old National Camping Award has been discontinued. It's been replaced by the BSA National Outdoor Challenge, which sorta ties in with the new Journey to Excellence program. See http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/Adults/Awards.aspx Also, the boys can individually earn the new National Outdoor Badges: http://usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/outdoor-badges.asp And they can earn the new National Medal for Outdoor Achievement: http://usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/outdoor-medal.asp Hope that helps yeh! Beavah and a good ol' Beavah, too!

Yah, I reckon the original poster got the answer he needed a while back, eh? Those that want to continue da never ending thread where Merlyn explains what the BSA really means to all of us BSA folks should take it over to Issues & Politics. Or just read one of the two dozen identical threads in the archives, eh? Beavah

Yah, welcome to scouting and to the forums, sparrows! By all means stick around or at least drop by occasionally and tell us about your son's scouting adventures. Most scout units are very secular or ecumenical in their approach to things, so I think you should have no trouble finding him a scout pack (for elementary school) or troop (for middle/high school) that is a lot of fun for him and the family. The only restriction is that you personally can't become a registered, card-carrying member of the Boy Scouts, but you can still participate in outings and fund raisers and parent meetings and all the rest. Beavah

No one is to come to, and certainly not drive to/from, any scouting activity after consuming an alcoholic beverage. How would yeh even know? I know plenty of workin' folks who might have a beer or two at lunch or after work on a Friday, eh? I can see where they might then go home to pick up their kid to drive for the weekend scout campout. It's legal, it's not against da rules, and I don't think we're ready to do blood-alcohol checks on every parent driving on an outing. Is it what I prefer, or do I do it? Nah. But I'm not sure it's worthwhile to get into what some parent drank for lunch unless there's an obvious issue. If the camp has rules requiring the staff to be onsite at all times, or has rules specifying what staffers can, and can not, do on their off hours, these should be followed. Yah, hmmmm.... How many of us think it's OK for our employer to tell us what to do on our off-hours? Why would that be OK to do to adult camp staff? Heck, in some jurisdictions that sort of "lifestyle" discrimination by employers is illegal. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Location: Inside a high-walled compound in a posh suburban military district outside Tehran] Ayatollah Fahd-al-Islami: "Ah, marvelous! What wonderful ideas I get from this Scouter.Com! Call for Farooq!" Farooq: "Yes, Ayatollah?" Ayatollah: "Farooq, I have a job for you to do, that will strike a great blow for Allah and for all of Islam against the Great Satan. I want you to go pretend to plant a bomb in Dallas." Farooq: "Pretend to plant a bomb? I don't understand, master." Ayaltollah: "Yes, pretend. Bombs are expensive, and we don't know how to make them yet anyways. But we'll give you some nuclear material we bought from corrupt Russian infidels to spread around and set off the American detectors." Farooq: "Master, you know I am willing to die for the cause and for all those virgins you have promised, but how will a pretend bomb strike a blow against America?" Ayatollah: "Farooq, you must trust in da wisdom of your elders, eh? We cannot defeat the American military. Our objective is to bankrupt them, economically and especially morally. If you spread fake bombs and material about, eventually you will set off a detector and get caught. At that point, you will spit in their face and curse them before Allah and tell them they will go up in burning fire from hell. Can you do that, Farooq?" Farooq: "With pleasure, Master! But won't they torture me? I have been fighting the infidels ever since they tortured my brother in Abu Ghraib." Ayatollah: "Yes, they will torture you, and you will be brave. You will tell them that there are two bombs in Dallas, and you will resist. You are strong in faith, and they are weak. And then after a bit, you will confess that the couriers who placed the bomb are disaffected high school girls from Austin who are democrats." Farooq: "But I don't know any girls from Austin." Ayatollah: "It matters not, Farooq. Abdul will give you some common American names to mention, like "Sarah" and "Amy". Faced with the possibility of losing Dallas, and filled with the cowardice and fear that all Americans have in the face of even a few deaths, they will arrest and torture each others' children just because they are so weak. Farooq: "Are you sure, Ayatollah? That seems like remarkable stupidity even for Americans." Ayatollah: "Yes, Farooq, I am sure. And even better, when the bomb doesn't go off, one of the torturers will take credit for saving Dallas, because Americans love nothing better than taking credit for things they had nothing to do with. This will make it OK for them to continue torturing their own children, especially if they are from the other political party." Farooq: "But only the most wretched and despicable cowards would torture their own children!" Ayatollah: "Yes, but we know that is what Americans are. Cowards who live without honor or faith. For your brief sacrifice Farooq, you will start a bloodletting among the Americans that will demonstrate their moral bankruptcy to the world. With your one act of bravery you will damage thousands of Americans, and undermine their alliances with every other country who will look upon them with contempt." Farooq: "Allah akhbar! I am ready and willing to give my life to strike such a devastating blow to the Great Satan!" Ayatollah: "Then go with God's blessing, Farooq."

Yah, hmmmmm... Me thinks you're perhaps definining "social contract" a bit narrowly there, eh? Or maybe just treatin' it as a bit too much of a holy grail/panacea. I'm generally in favor of local autonomy and states rights. I think local folks should determine education and local taxes and ordinances and all that. I do however think that it's pretty clear that breaks down when it comes to economics, which is why da federal government was formed in the first place. Trade barriers between states, transportation friction between states, multiple currencies between states and the like stifle economic growth and development. Look at Europe. Da same is also true of laws that affect trade, transportation, and economics. Having different rules for airplanes when they cross from Massachusetts to Connecticut doesn't make a lot of sense. Similarly, limiting the fundamental rights of a citizen if he happens to travel from Wisconsin to Minnesota would be a problem. Look at da mess in Japan with half the country on a completely different power grid, so that when a disaster hits, yeh can't transfer power to where it's needed. So I think if yeh value economic health and job growth and such, there are huge advantages to common standards and infrastructure in communications, transportation, and trade. And that includes standards which make it possible for the labor force to be mobile, eh? When midwestern manufacturing dries up, yeh want people to be able to move to Texas without too much friction, because that's healthier economically for everyone. I think there's some healthy room to debate where the edges are in modern world. Personally, I think the big federal entitlement programs were ill-conceived and are doomed. But they do have the advantage that they are portable. State pension funds, or local ones, by contrast, are not portable. So they hold people in place even when economic opportunity suggests they should move to find a better position in a different state. I think da federal welfare programs are a complete waste, and better handled locally without the federal overhead and over-regulation. At the same time, I think federal disaster relief & recovery is sometimes called for, because local folks hit by a major hurricane or an army of tornadoes or a 500 year flood can be overwhelmed. But then, when yeh look at da dying midwestern manufacturing economy of the past couple of years, yeh realize that in some cases the needs that generate welfare can become a disaster which overwhelms the locals just as surely as a hurricane. So perhaps a federal "back up" role is called for there as well. After all, those midwesterners have paid for a lot of hurricane disaster relief over da years. So where we draw the edges in da modern, interconnected world should be the subject of a mature, adult conversation among citizens. Unfortunately it's become more of a two-year-old shouting match. I think yeh want to keep da federal government limited to the economic and infrastructure role, and to some level of disaster relief, be it invasion by tornadoes or Canadians. But then what do yeh do about the cheaters? What do yeh do with the state that doesn't put any money into its own disaster preparedness and instead relies on federal relief? What do you do with the state that doesn't make a real investment in educatin' its kids, and instead relies on a low tax rate to attract well-educated folks from other jurisdictions to maintain its economy? What do yeh do with a state that attracts a lot of senior citizens because of its climate, and therefore has disproportionately high medical costs? If Medicare went away, after all, it would be a good investment for us northern states to pay to put put retirees on buses to Florida. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Hiya sgk8102, welcome to da forums, eh! I think different communities have different norms about this stuff, and we Americans tend to be an abstemious and puritanical lot when it comes to alcohol. Or at least some segment of our population does. This one is a unit issue. Yeh have to go with the rules of the Chartered Organization since they're on the hook. The fellows didn't break the law, nor did they violate any camp policy or BSA rule. It's similar to the cigarette rule, eh? They didn't do it around kids, but different folks have different sensibilities about such stuff. Me personally, I prefer that all the folks who are workin' with or responsible for youth are "dry" when they are doing so. I'm also a private pilot, and that community has some pretty clear rules about avoiding alcohol any time you're goin' to be flying a plane. To me, workin' with kids in the outdoors is like flying a plane. Eight hours must pass between bottle and throttle, and da same time must pass between a shot and a scout. My personal standard is da military one of 12 hours. That having been said, on longer trips or camps and on many an international trip with scouters from less puritanical cultures, there are times when I think it can be OK for an "off duty" adult volunteer to go out. As long as you have enough "on duty" adults with the kids who are "dry", giving the others a break for the evening can be a good thing for everyone. Nights off, whether for that prime rib or for a beer or just for some kid-free adult company, help recharge batteries. So I think yeh just have to find da right balance for your troop and community, sgk8102. Talk to your COR/IH and have a rational discussion among yourselves and decide what's reasonable. I could see anything in a range from "Hey, when we're out with the boys, we stay "dry" even when off-duty because we never know when something will happen where we need people to be fully alert" to "Yah, it's OK if yeh want to grab a beer when you're in town, but then you're 'off duty' with the kids for the rest of the day" to lettin' it slide unless it becomes a problem. I doubt yeh need to do any more than that unless they really get defiant or deliberately break whatever expectations you've set up in the future. Biggest thing is if these fellows are dedicated volunteers and yeh want to keep their kids in the program, yeh do this sort of thing as a friendly adult conversation about what's best for the boys. Beavah

Yah,sorry. I didn't realize neocon was foul language. I agree da labels get in the way, eh? It's just frustratin' to me when people who claim to be conservatives advocate for some of this stuff. I used to be proud to be a conservative. But I recognize times and terms change, and get co-opted by other groups. Gotta get back to Botswana. I was bartering for a fit for Mrs. Beavah and had da fellow talked down to a bag of turnips and three hours use of my yak.

Yah, RememberSchiff... Seems like church, school, sports, etc. demand commitments and mandatory participation, eh? Happy Mothers Day to Mrs. RememberSchiff! B

I also think the recent uprisings in various Arab and predominantly muslim countries bodes short term instability but possibly long term benefits for our interests. Amen to that. Who would have thought even a year ago that Syria would be aflame from end to end with a population arisen in righteous anger against the abuses of that tyrant? The man who ordered the assassination of the prime minister of Lebanon, who has funded or channeled funding for most of the terrorists in the middle east. The Boston Massacre was nothing compared with what the patriots of Syria are goin' through. And all because oil prices got too low for the despots to buy people off, and an American university professor wrote a treatise on non-violent overthrow of despots that went viral throughout the Arab world. Those people, our allies in the fight against state terrorism, are arising in fury against the very abuses like state-sponsored torture that we would condone. Beavah

I need to play devil's advocate here though and opt for the purist stance that the free market would create far better roads and care for them much better than the government ever could or would. Good luck with that, BS-87. Yeh need to study more economics and history. Da problem with your notion is that roads and other infrastructure are not fungible, unless you are willing to give up da notion of private ownership of real estate. Yeh can buy eggs from anywhere, but there's usually only one or two places to build a road or bridge. So rather than having a free market, what yeh have is thousands of private monopolies. This fellow owns and charges tolls for this ford or bridge crossing. This other fellow charges for this mountain pass, etc. What yeh end up with is poverty, eh? You destroy the free market on every other good and service because da transportation friction costs are too high. Yeh are forced to buy eggs from the local egg producer, because the egg producer 2 counties away has to pay for the 17 tolls between here and there to the private landowners who control the bridges, ferries, and roads. Look at da history of Germany back in the 16th, 17th, 18th and early 19th century. Look at Africa now. When you invest as a people in a common infrastructure, that's what creates free markets, eh? Free markets depend on a common infrastructure. Which do yeh think works better, the modern stock market (a common, regulated infrastructure with standardized instruments) or tribal barter in Botswana? This is an important point, eh? It's one that the always-less-government neocons seem not to understand. Free markets depend on a stable infrastructure and regulated system of trade. If yeh don't have transportation and communication infrastructure, the friction costs are too high. If yeh don't have stable, regulated systems of trade, the risk premium and time delays are way too high. That's why building the national defense highway system was a genius move for da U.S., because it strengthened and enabled free markets. Da trick is to limit the government's role to that sort of infrastructure and regulatory investment which facilitates freedom, without allowing it to interfere with freedom. To promote the general welfare, without tryin' to promote specific welfare. Beavah

Yah, sometimes I wonder, BD. I get that people are angry. I lost close personal friends in the 9/11 attacks, and like nldscout I've lost friends in the combat operations in the Gulf as well. I know others who have come back less than whole, physically or psychologically. That's why people who are angry shouldn't make these kinds of decisions. Left to our anger, a father or friend of a dead serviceman would nuke the middle east until all the sand was turned to glass. Which of course would leave all of the fathers and friends of the innocent victims of our holocaust to a lifetime commitment of nuking the United States until it turns to glass. I'm a Christian fellow, so I confess at my core I view everything, even the Scout Law, through that lens. Do unto others and all that. So da question is do you want your enemies to torture American service men & women, embassy workers and their families, etc.? Innocent or not. Because make no mistake, when torture is OK people torture innocent folks as well as guilty. Many more innocent folks than guilty. It's amazing the great confessions you get out of innocent folks when they are tortured. Saves all kinds of time and money. Do unto others... Do yeh want to teach the world that an honorable man abuses helpless captives? Torturing small animals is a solid indicator of developing homicidal psychosis. Torturing humans is much worse. Who would encourage sons, daughters, friends to engage in behavior that leads to psychosis? Can you name the people well known for this behavior? Do you really want our children, our servicemen to be like them? Can yeh name the nations in history or now where this behavior was or is OK? Do yeh really want our nation to be like those? Do unto others... If yeh really think it's just a "prank", try this. On your next scout trip, strap your son to a first aid backboard, hold a rag over his face, Hold his nose, force his mouth open and pour water down his throat a couple of dozen times while he struggles desperately for his life. Be sure to note the cyanosis from lack of oxygen, the terrified panic on your son's face, the bruises from straining against his restraints, the wracking cough. Ignore the risk of accidental death. Then try to explain to fellow adult leaders and the state authorities who arrest you and immediately remove your son from your care how it's only a "prank" or a form of discipline. Do unto others... If yeh really feel that it's legal, despite the fact that the U.S. has successfully prosecuted both enemies and its own soldiers for this behavior in the past, then let go to trial. It's a question of law, eh? In America, we resolve these things through the courts, not through rogue actions by the Executive. We believe in da rule of law, and hold nobody above the law. I'll bet on our American legal system and my fellow citizens. Apparently the perpetrators of these acts won't, because they're doin' their best to cover up and avoid that sort of accountability, which demonstrates their lack of honor. There are few things that are objectively, fundamentally wrong. Wearing patches in the wrong place or retesting on a board of review, despite what some may claim, is not one of them. But this is. If yeh believe in an objective, absolute right and wrong of any sort, torturing helpless captives is it. It is an act of fundamental cowardice. It is against the letter and the spirit of the law, both ours and God's. We condone it at the peril of our honor, our nation, and our very soul. Beavah

Yah, BS-87, I agree with yeh there. I was appalled to find out how some police agencies have "dump your iPhone data" devices that they are usin' without warrants on the assumption that if you "voluntarily" surrendered your phone when they asked that it's OK to data dump your entire phone. Location tracking data, call and financial records, etc. Best if that stuff is just never collected. Second best would be a federal privacy law with draconian penalties for private companies for collecting any data without full opt-in disclosure, and thermonuclear penalties for ever selling/sharing data without positive opt-in permission for each and every individual disclosure or data sale. Right now it's the Wild West out there, and so many companies are creating huge tracking sets on individuals. Downright scary. But SA's right, eh? We do need a fair way of paying for this stuff. That's why I prefer the consumption tax. No tracking required. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Wait a minute. Wait just a minute! You're saying Santa Claus doesn't exist??! Beavah

Yah, that liberal/conservative thing is Eagledad's schtick, eh? I just speak to each in the language he seems to be familiar with. I agree that taxing gasoline would help pay for the "real cost" but the problem is there is no guarantee or even lukewarm assurances that the revenues raised would be used to help alleviate those "costs." Yah, I agree, but when are there any guarantees in life? Up to us to hold our elected representatives accountable. Just for fun I pulled da numbers. The cost for da Navy to protect the oil shipping lanes and da armed forces to rescue and defend the Arab oil suppliers, plus the cost of fighting terrorism caused by da folks upset about having infidels defend the Arab oil suppliers, has totaled about $1.3 trillion over the last ten years. Add the costs for cleaning up spills and the associated economic loss for environmental degradation, call it $1.5 trillion, probably more just because it didn't include capital costs for Navy vessels. That works out to a gas tax of an average of just a bit over $1 per gallon over the past ten years. Anybody not willing to pay a buck a gallon the past ten years to actually pay for the wars and the troops instead of borrowing? That's less than the increase in da cost of a gallon of gas over the last year. For most of the time even with such a tax gas would have been substantially less than it costs now, eh? And the downward pressure on demand would have meant that the base cost of gas would be less than what it is now. Of course I'd have done a more steady penny-a-month increase in da gas tax to avoid any shocks, especially right after 9/11. That means by now we'd only have paid half our costs (instead of none), but we'd be catching up over the next few years. The net cost of gas would probably be the same as it is now, eh? But the money would be goin' to reducing our debt instead of funding dictators and enemies and speculators. As we caught up with the war expenses, we'd be able to use the revenues to pay for da infrastructure needs that acco mentions, as well as the longer-term care and support of the veterans of the above campaigns. That would in turn reduce our need for other infrastructure, repair, and veteran's support taxes in the long run, and those taxes could be cut. End result after 20 years? Gas would be at $6 a gallon (which it will be anyways), but we'd have about $3 trillion less debt, a better investment in infrastructure, slight reductions in other taxes, etc. Most of all, da private sector would have had 20 years to make rational investments in alternatives or efficiencies without any government regulation or mandates. Beavah

Yah, sure, I'd do it with the lad, as long as he can fulfill the bit about keeping records for 90 days of his family's income and expenditures. I think that would make for a very rich learning experience which is age appropriate for a boy of his age. Beavah

Oh, I finally understand, so you think anyone who is socially conservative is a neocon. Nope, I'm socially conservative and I'm not a neocon. As you say, the neocons came out of the southern Democratic party. Yep, they were and are socially conservative, but that's not all that defines them. But I'm glad yeh now recognize that you are a neo-con. The conservative approach is let supply and demand to control peoples habits and domestic oil to give our county more security, more jobs and more money in our pockets. I dont want you using my hard earned dollars to leverage everyone to live your dream. Yah, so which is it, eh? Do yeh want supply and demand to control people's habits or do you want domestic oil to give our country more security? If yeh want supply and demand to control people's habits, then da Russians, Venezuela, Mexican cartels and the middle eastern folks have the supply. Are those the folks you want controlling the habits and destiny of Americans? Or do yeh want some sort of government corporate welfare subsidy to encourage domestic oil? Because right now, it doesn't pay based on supply and demand. The neo-con response is the one that you give, eh? Hands off my pocketbook. Less government. Less taxes. Cut taxes goin' into a war even. I want to consume as I see fit. If my choices cost the nation, someone else should pay those costs (aka bail me out) for the real cost of my personal choices. Da conservative response is that of true individual fiscal responsibility. My use of oil costs my country something, so it's my duty to pay that cost. And the best way of doin' that is not to tax my income, nor is it to borrow from the Chinese and make my granddaughter pay, nor is it to limit my vehicle choices through MPG requirements and regulations, nor is it to ridicule people who drive trucks. It's to tax my consumption for the real cost to the nation of my personal choices, and then to let me make those choices as I see fit. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)