hillary: Down with the bed clothes, up with the nightshirt



Fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about

It's up with the nightshirt, down with the bedclothes.

Tresser: dear parents,

stop making your children so appetizing.

signed,

priests, boy scout leaders and uncle lester Ernie.

...Yes I think it's alright, yes I think it's alright ...

FTA
Eugene Grant told a jury ... parents should not have allowed boys to stay overnight with a single man at his apartment.

When abuse happens on a camping trip or mass sleep-over, the blame is entirely on the scouts org and their staff pedophiles. That's a given.

But here (and I repeat), "PARENTS... ALLOWED BOYS TO STAY OVERNIGHT WITH A SINGLE MAN AT HIS APARTMENT,"(!)(Emphasis added.)

WTF? WWTT? WCPGW? Parent, please.

Isn't that like setting your precious snowflake on the stove and suing the stove manufacturer when it melts?

You're at least guilty of some major stupid.

/Not a parent
//Know nothing about raising children
///:)

I'm not saying this is right, but I think it does raise a valid point; why was any parent okay allowing there child to spend the night with anyone, alone, not part of any troop sanctioned event?

Did they bother to look into the organization they chose for their child? Didn't the even guess that was unusual? When most questions today can be answered in seconds online, is "I didn't know" an acceptable excuse? Surely, something must have seemed different about these particular events.

How many of these opportunities could have been avoided if the parents were more concerned with their child and less with an instant babysitter?

At what point did they value their convenience more than the welfare of their child?

Eugene Grant told a jury Thursday in a $29 million sex abuse lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America and its Cascade Pacific Council that parents should not have allowed boys to stay overnight with a single man at his apartment.

In Jr. High and High School I had an affinity for working with kids as a youth group leader, camp counselor, etc. Statements and attitudes like this kept me from pursuing a career anywhere near kids.

DuncanMhor: Nemo's Brother: Or a Hollywood director.

You really have a hard-on for Polanski, don't you? You keep bringing him up.

/Jail the farker

I just don't like him to get a pass when the Pope and Boy Scouts don't. I don't think any should get a pass. I just hate the same people condemning one not doing so for the other.

Nemo's Brother: I just don't like him to get a pass when the Pope and Boy Scouts don't. I don't think any should get a pass. I just hate the same people condemning one not doing so for the other.

You'll get over it.

trappedspirit: It was ok when Michael Jackson did it!

/damn double standards

It wasn't ok when anyone did it. Though personally, given the choice, I'd take being fingered by the pop star with millions of dollars in hush money over being fingered by the scout leader who lives in the apartment over his parents' garage.

LadySusan: That said, anyone who takes advantage of children probably needs to be locked up for the protection of society.

Why?

Someone has got to be the first.

DenveradoDobbini: Speaking of which, anybody got a buck or two to spare for the Bowl For Kids Sake event?

Jesus. Why on Earth are you giving kids rice wine?

Nemo's Brother: DuncanMhor: Nemo's Brother: Or a Hollywood director.

You really have a hard-on for Polanski, don't you? You keep bringing him up.

/Jail the farker

I just don't like him to get a pass when the Pope and Boy Scouts don't. I don't think any should get a pass. I just hate the same people condemning one not doing so for the other.

Since he's the one awaiting possible extradition, I don't think he's getting much of a pass. But in the public mind, there IS a reason for the double standard. Polanski and his victim both were part of what is perceived to be a morally-lawless Hollywood den of iniquity. The church and the boy scouts are self-promoted as beacons or fountains of morality.

Jim_the_Fierce: I'm not saying this is right, but I think it does raise a valid point; why was any parent okay allowing there child to spend the night with anyone, alone, not part of any troop sanctioned event?

Did they bother to look into the organization they chose for their child? Didn't the even guess that was unusual? When most questions today can be answered in seconds online, is "I didn't know" an acceptable excuse? Surely, something must have seemed different about these particular events.

How many of these opportunities could have been avoided if the parents were more concerned with their child and less with an instant babysitter?

At what point did they value their convenience more than the welfare of their child?

I know of more than one fat single mother, who would love to dump their crotch fruit off for a night so they can get they ther drank on. These moms are very gullible, I mean they let some random splooge into the sacred temple without much more than a slim jim in recompense.

I agree that the parents need to be diligent in all matters that involve their children. That said, if this guy was any kind of scout master or whatever in the boy scouts organization, a complete background check should have been done.

gshepnyc: given the choice, I'd take being fingered by the pop star with millions of dollars in hush money over being fingered by the scout leader who lives in the apartment over his parents' garage.

Reminds me of the Chappelle bit about Monica Lewinsky:


"Ladies, you all know you've got a dick you regret...and it probably wasn't a President, probably a guy that works at Kinney Shoes or Safeway or something..."

rsbgiggles: I hate the BSA. They have a bunch of councils & their districts that consistently make up their own rules as they see fit. This man wouldn't have been a volunteer if the council was doing their job - things like background checks seem beneath them. So, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they will place all the blame onto the Troop, have it disbanded, and continue their existence like nothing happened. All in a day's work for the Council Staff and the volunteers for the districts that fight for the "highest volunteer" position. No regard for the program whatsoever - the Scout Law & Oath are for everybody but them.


/Son is a Life Scout.
//Has no idea how much I despise this particular Council & District.

A lot of BSA's Youth Protection guidelines were developed in the early 1990's, when some of these cases first became public. National realized things needed to change and began requiring the 2 deep leadership, etc.

The background checks are now handled (at least in Atlanta) on the Council level. And I have seen a few people booted when they came back.

red5ish: Since when do the Scouts have "sleepovers" at the scout master's apartment?

That didn't send up a red flag?

Did these kid's parents pack them a tube of lube when they sent them off for the night too? Were they hoping their sons would earn their merit badge in butt mining? Totally irresponsible.

Parents have had to watch out for this kind of thing for, oh, thousands of years. What were they thinking?

Yeah, when I read the headline, I was like, 'look at the BSA, passing the buck and being all immoral.' Then I read the article and was like, 'oh my. Stupid, stupid parents.'

red5ish: Since when do the Scouts have "sleepovers" at the scout master's apartment?

That didn't send up a red flag?

Did these kid's parents pack them a tube of lube when they sent them off for the night too? Were they hoping their sons would earn their merit badge in butt mining? Totally irresponsible.

Parents have had to watch out for this kind of thing for, oh, thousands of years. What were they thinking?

One unit I have been involved with has the annual Patrol Leader Planning conference at one or the leader's cabins. There are usually 6-7 adults there, along with SPL/PLC.

Debby7813: Kazan: Bamboozler: It can be any god or gods, but no athiests.

and so long as they're like this: FARK THOSE ASSHOLES>

my children, when I have them, shall never be associated with their organization. none of my friends children will be either because they all agree with me.

Magorn: That explains why the org is so different now than I remeber it being as a Kid. i was proud to be a scount and learned some valuable skills that Iwish every kid knew, but Ive been so repelled by their leadership of late that I won't enroll my kid

i personally was never a scout, but i can see the value in many of the things they teach.

too bad they're a bigoted bunch of farknuts (the organization, not necessarily the individual troops and members).

an alternative really needs to be created that can gain respect from the wider population.

Link (new window)

The Spirals are an interesting bunch. Don't completely agree with them, but they very could be a viable alternative.

doublesecretprobation: it's up to the local troops to decide their activities, not the council or national office. this is unfortunate yes, but not the fault of the BSA.

Really? So if I wanted to take a bunch of scouts on a free solo climb up Snake Dike, the national organization would have no objections?

Because if they do object, it sounds like they ARE getting themselves involved in the safety of local events. Once they do that, they share responsibility.

Dykes molesting boys?

trappedspirit: gshepnyc: trappedspirit: It was ok when Michael Jackson did it!

/damn double standards

It wasn't ok when anyone did it. Though personally, given the choice, I'd take being fingered by the pop star with millions of dollars in hush money over being fingered by the scout leader who lives in the apartment over his parents' garage.

Oh, that's right. I forgot how much jail time Michael got for that.

Oh lighten up. Don't pretend I said more than I said. To pretend for a moment that your reply came anywhere close to the target I will say that I'd take the millions of dollars in hush money over seeing the guy who diddled me go to jail too. The latter may satisfy the state but only the former makes my life better.

gshepnyc: Bamboozler: Necrosis: As an Eagle Scout, I can say fark the national BSA. My local troop didn't have any issues and they are fairly autonomous, but at the national level they remain dedicated to discriminating against gays, atheists (like me) and others.

When I was doing my final interview to be approved for Eagle, I told them they should allow openly gay scouts, I was a little surprised they still gave it to me.

Scouting provides a lot of good opportunities and experiences for kids, but it needs to be made more inclusive.

I said the same thing about gays in my interview, however, the religious thing has been a rule since scouts was founded.

It can be any god or gods, but no athiests.

However I totally understand where you are coming from

I'm both gay and an athiest as well as a former scout and I have to say I find the "it can be any god or gods, but no atheists" rule even more bizarre than any prohibition against gays.

If I was cynical I would say that rule existed in order to have access to a tool of control over you beyond what camping and tying knots would require. Someone who has a sense of right and wrong based on objective truths is harder to manipulate than someone who has one based on fear of a supernatural power.

Nah.

Baden-Powell concluded that some form of religious discipline was necessary to become a civilized member of society. Originally, he was going to limit it to Protestant Christians, be he modified his position later when the program became popular in India.

ZeroPly: doublesecretprobation: it's up to the local troops to decide their activities, not the council or national office. this is unfortunate yes, but not the fault of the BSA.

Really? So if I wanted to take a bunch of scouts on a free solo climb up Snake Dike, the national organization would have no objections?

Because if they do object, it sounds like they ARE getting themselves involved in the safety of local events. Once they do that, they share responsibility.

We have the "The Guide To Safe Scouting" to help us there. 100 years of screwups, lawsuits and stupidity. If you aren't following it, they may yank your liability insurance.

Kazan: Another Government Employee: Baden-Powell concluded that some form of religious discipline was necessary to become a civilized member of society.fark him and the horse he rode in on.

Hey, that's the history.

Another Government Employee: gshepnyc: Bamboozler: Necrosis: As an Eagle Scout, I can say fark the national BSA. My local troop didn't have any issues and they are fairly autonomous, but at the national level they remain dedicated to discriminating against gays, atheists (like me) and others.

When I was doing my final interview to be approved for Eagle, I told them they should allow openly gay scouts, I was a little surprised they still gave it to me.

Scouting provides a lot of good opportunities and experiences for kids, but it needs to be made more inclusive.

I said the same thing about gays in my interview, however, the religious thing has been a rule since scouts was founded.

It can be any god or gods, but no athiests.

However I totally understand where you are coming from

I'm both gay and an athiest as well as a former scout and I have to say I find the "it can be any god or gods, but no atheists" rule even more bizarre than any prohibition against gays.

If I was cynical I would say that rule existed in order to have access to a tool of control over you beyond what camping and tying knots would require. Someone who has a sense of right and wrong based on objective truths is harder to manipulate than someone who has one based on fear of a supernatural power.

Nah.

Baden-Powell concluded that some form of religious discipline was necessary to become a civilized member of society. Originally, he was going to limit it to Protestant Christians, be he modified his position later when the program became popular in India.

What do you suppose an authoritarian uniform fetishist like Baden-Powell believed "religious discipline" contributing to becoming a "civilized member of society" was all about if not providing a means of control?

People who idealize heirarchies need something to obey and they need to know everyone above them has someone to obey as well. Ultimately that means they need something all powerful that even the person at the very top obeys and from which the entire structure of authority is supplied.

gshepnyc: Another Government Employee: gshepnyc: Bamboozler: Necrosis: As an Eagle Scout, I can say fark the national BSA. My local troop didn't have any issues and they are fairly autonomous, but at the national level they remain dedicated to discriminating against gays, atheists (like me) and others.

When I was doing my final interview to be approved for Eagle, I told them they should allow openly gay scouts, I was a little surprised they still gave it to me.

Scouting provides a lot of good opportunities and experiences for kids, but it needs to be made more inclusive.

I said the same thing about gays in my interview, however, the religious thing has been a rule since scouts was founded.

It can be any god or gods, but no athiests.

However I totally understand where you are coming from

I'm both gay and an athiest as well as a former scout and I have to say I find the "it can be any god or gods, but no atheists" rule even more bizarre than any prohibition against gays.

If I was cynical I would say that rule existed in order to have access to a tool of control over you beyond what camping and tying knots would require. Someone who has a sense of right and wrong based on objective truths is harder to manipulate than someone who has one based on fear of a supernatural power.

Nah.

Baden-Powell concluded that some form of religious discipline was necessary to become a civilized member of society. Originally, he was going to limit it to Protestant Christians, be he modified his position later when the program became popular in India.

What do you suppose an authoritarian uniform fetishist like Baden-Powell believed "religious discipline" contributing to becoming a "civilized member of society" was all about if not providing a means of control?

People who idealize heirarchies need something to obey and they need to know everyone above them has someone to obey as well. Ultimately that means they need something all powerful that even the person at the very top obeys and from which the entire structure of authority is supplied.

Has their been an ongoing society anywhere that has survived without such a structure?

The Southern Dandy: The Boy Scouts are Bullshiat (new window)

"tying a kerchif around your neck and wearing short shorts is NOT gay"

Another Government Employee: gshepnyc: Another Government Employee: gshepnyc: Bamboozler: Necrosis: As an Eagle Scout, I can say fark the national BSA. My local troop didn't have any issues and they are fairly autonomous, but at the national level they remain dedicated to discriminating against gays, atheists (like me) and others.

When I was doing my final interview to be approved for Eagle, I told them they should allow openly gay scouts, I was a little surprised they still gave it to me.

Scouting provides a lot of good opportunities and experiences for kids, but it needs to be made more inclusive.

I said the same thing about gays in my interview, however, the religious thing has been a rule since scouts was founded.

It can be any god or gods, but no athiests.

However I totally understand where you are coming from

I'm both gay and an athiest as well as a former scout and I have to say I find the "it can be any god or gods, but no atheists" rule even more bizarre than any prohibition against gays.

If I was cynical I would say that rule existed in order to have access to a tool of control over you beyond what camping and tying knots would require. Someone who has a sense of right and wrong based on objective truths is harder to manipulate than someone who has one based on fear of a supernatural power.

Nah.

Baden-Powell concluded that some form of religious discipline was necessary to become a civilized member of society. Originally, he was going to limit it to Protestant Christians, be he modified his position later when the program became popular in India.

What do you suppose an authoritarian uniform fetishist like Baden-Powell believed "religious discipline" contributing to becoming a "civilized member of society" was all about if not providing a means of control?

People who idealize heirarchies need something to obey and they need to know everyone above them has someone to obey as well. Ultimately that means they need something all powerful that even the person at the very top obeys and from which the entire structure of authority is supplied.

Has their been an ongoing society anywhere that has survived without such a structure?

There is certainly a wide spectrum between the heavily militarized and the not so much. Certainly a middle-aged guy who thinks that regimenting kids in a uniformed pre-military organization is good idea for society skews to an end of the spectrum most of us would rather not lean toward. Historically that has been a bad idea even if the scouts have been largely (but not entirely) benign.

BSA adult leader here. As has been pointed out above the issue of background checks is up to the charter organization. Local councils may demand it too, in fact I remember getting a strongly worded phone call from a council leader stressing that they needed to run a criminal background check on me. I told them to go ahead and do so. I can not speak to the procedures followed by council in question, but what happened there would not have been allowed in my council or troop. In my troop we insist that every adult leader take youth protection training every two years (it's online and there's no excuse not to) and we follow the principles of two deep leadership. If there isn't two adults present, the outing doesn't occur. All meeting with scouts take place publicly, and we encourage participation from other adults and parents. I really can't understand how or why the parents allowed their kids to stay overnight at someone's apartment without another adult present but the story is short on details-no idea as to what the circumstances are or even when it happened. I do know from experience that way too many parents treat the BSA as a baby sitting service or a substitute for poor parenting skills.

/get back to your usual BSA hating
//don't agree with the no atheist or gays thing either..stupid policy

It's April 2nd. Time to stop with the jokes.

Kazan: Another Government Employee: Has their been an ongoing society anywhere that has survived without such a structure?

never been tried.

Because the ones who prefer it that way are, by definition, the ones who regiment themselves, put on uniforms and tell everyone else what to do.

Again, I was a scout. I look back on many little things that seemed harmless at the time that I now find just slightly creepy.

For just a couple of very small examples:

1. Early school dismissal on meeting days if you were in uniform.
2. Scouts were the only ones at my public school allowed to raise, lower and store the flag. Why was patriotism so hitched to uniforms at such a young, formative age?
3. Saluting the flag during the morning National Anthem while everyone else put a hand over their heart. Again, a weirdly different degree of patriotism that ever so subtly, and undeservedly, devalues that of others who did not choose to wear a uniform.

Dear Fark admins:

Another misleading headline. This is getting really old.

Love,

Grizzly Johnson

gshepnyc: Kazan: Another Government Employee: Has their been an ongoing society anywhere that has survived without such a structure?

never been tried.

Because the ones who prefer it that way are, by definition, the ones who regiment themselves, put on uniforms and tell everyone else what to do.

Again, I was a scout. I look back on many little things that seemed harmless at the time that I now find just slightly creepy.

For just a couple of very small examples:

1. Early school dismissal on meeting days if you were in uniform.
2. Scouts were the only ones at my public school allowed to raise, lower and store the flag. Why was patriotism so hitched to uniforms at such a young, formative age?
3. Saluting the flag during the morning National Anthem while everyone else put a hand over their heart. Again, a weirdly different degree of patriotism that ever so subtly, and undeservedly, devalues that of others who did not choose to wear a uniform.

When I was a scout, that was the first week in February only (Scout Week). Now, it is not allowed at all in any of the districts around me.

Another Government Employee: gshepnyc: Kazan: Another Government Employee: Has their been an ongoing society anywhere that has survived without such a structure?

never been tried.

Because the ones who prefer it that way are, by definition, the ones who regiment themselves, put on uniforms and tell everyone else what to do.

Again, I was a scout. I look back on many little things that seemed harmless at the time that I now find just slightly creepy.

For just a couple of very small examples:

1. Early school dismissal on meeting days if you were in uniform.
2. Scouts were the only ones at my public school allowed to raise, lower and store the flag. Why was patriotism so hitched to uniforms at such a young, formative age?
3. Saluting the flag during the morning National Anthem while everyone else put a hand over their heart. Again, a weirdly different degree of patriotism that ever so subtly, and undeservedly, devalues that of others who did not choose to wear a uniform.

When I was a scout, that was the first week in February only (Scout Week). Now, it is not allowed at all in any of the districts around me.

Year 'round for us. French Creek Council scouts, Western PA. public schools.

TheGreatGazoo: I was in scouts in the late 70s/early 80s. We would sometimes have meetings in one of the leader's basements, but there was always more than just him there. I think the worst that happened was me accidentally singing my hair on a candle.

Our cub scout meetings were at our Den Mother's house, her two sons were in the Den. Pack meetings were at a protestant church with many kids AND parents. In Boy Scouts, our meetings were in a Catholic Church basement but with several adults.