Beavah

Yah, it's actually a bit more complicated than that, Blanc and eisley. Even after ratification, not all aspects of treaties automatically apply without passing separate laws in support of the treaty aims. But I was talkin' about ratified treaties, because such things are "international law" as defined by the Oklahoma constitutional amendment, and therefore prohibited to OK judges. Just as the definition of habeas corpus is not present in the Constitution, eh? It derives from the common law, our international British heritage. In other words, not only is the new amendment odd and rather silly, it creates some real potential problems. Or at least creates quite da welfare system for attorneys in OK who will be litigating this forever. It's a mess. A U.S. court can't apply Sharia in criminal cases, eh? There's no risk of that. It can only consider such things as just one form of background evidence in civil cases, as acco suggests. So, for example, in a discrimination case against an employer for wrongful discharge, a plaintiff may refer to Sharia to explain why his religion requires him to wear a beard, even though the employer doesn't like fellows with beards. The Oklahoma amendment would seem to prohibit such reference to or consideration of Sharia law. Of course, that makes it in and of itself a clear, obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution, since Jews might refer to Jewish Law and Catholics to Canon Law and so forth. I have no doubt Oklahoma's approach will be struck down in every federal court it touches. So da amendment is odd, silly, a bit dumb, unconstitutional, and will cost the state of Oklahoma a considerable amount of money trying to defend and clarify it. What's interestin' to me in the face of all that is the motivation for such an approach, eh? Especially in Oklahoma, which is hardly an Islamic hotbed. Yeh would think acco's Michigan, which has one of the largest arab/islamic communities in da midwest, would be the one pushing this if it was an issue. But acco seems pretty content with things. Beavah

My understanding of the law also eliminates using the 10 commandments as any basis for a decision since they are truly international laws. Yah, that and such other international laws as habeas corpus. Da more amusing ones are things like the Hague Conventions which govern things like the international sale of goods or enforcement of child support. So maybe da State of Oklahoma is hopin' to better its economy by setting itself up as the refuge of choice for deadbeat dads from around the world. B

Yah, OK, I had missed this one earlier this month. Apparently the good citizens of Oklahoma have amended their constitution to forbid Oklahoma judges from applying Sharia (Islamic Law) or other "international" law in their fair state. Now, granted, judges wear robes and folks in the middle east also wear robes... but I'm left wonderin' about the state of bizarre fear in our nation. Or the state of fear causin' us to be bizarre. Or something. I really wasn't aware that an outbreak of Sharia required intervention, especially given that such an outbreak would already run afoul of da Establishment Clause. Certainly wasn't figurin' on such an outbreak in Oklahoma. Their problems in da past have been with fearful Christians sporting fertilizer bombs. So what gives? Or what do people think? And can anybody share what "international law" folks are afraid of? B

Weird. That's quite a size difference. Haven't seen any like that 'round about, but then haven't been lookin'. B

Yah, yeh have to love falsifying a meaningless document in order to ensure insurance coverage yeh already have. Sounds like your son wants to help out but is running into the reality of lots of paperwork. Personally, I'm a "rather yeh didn't do it than deliberately falsify it" sort of fellow, but some folks swing the other way ("just give the paper pushers what they want so they go away"). That is the problem when yeh put too much paperwork burden on volunteers, eh? A few do it well, but most either blow you off or feed yeh crap. Honestly, though, I'd suggest just spendin' a bit of time at the next committee or parent meeting and collectin' the info and then pre-printing a whole mess of forms the way you used to. As a side note, for automobile stuff BSA insurance is always excess, eh? The car owner's automobile policy & umbrella always covers first. So it's really no different than drivin' the soccer carpool and yeh shouldn't worry about it any more than that. Even less with da BSA coverage there as a deep backup. B

Yah, I think your son just has to live with da expectation, eh? Unless he just wants to ask for a certificate of insurance for each outing instead . Probably less work for him. I don't like what we've done with the Tour Permit. We just keep addin' more paperwork for volunteers. Seems like the whole thing could be streamlined pretty easily online (with a real ScoutNet training records system). I particularly find the auto insurance information to be overboard, especially in the many states that have insurance requirements for drivers anyways. Really just a waste of volunteer time. Even in other states, you're really just takin' people at their word. Nobody is lookin' at insurance contracts. Now if we had an online system where yeh could check where you were goin' and what you were doin' and it popped up a few reminders / flags specific to that location or type of activity while it registered your trip and checked training, maybe that would be nice. Otherwise I don't think there's much real benefit to all the other dross we collect. If one council in 10 uses the TP information well I'd be surprised. Mostly they rubber stamp and have done. Anyways, the way most troops handle it is to collect DL's and insurance information once a year and put down a good guess as to numbers of participants a few weeks out. Your son can try those things to streamline. Nobody is expecting perfectly accurate numbers, eh? Lads and adults get sick at the last minute all the time. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hiya Moosetracker, In terms of trainers, my advice would be that you tell the trainers to follow the training syllabus and not say anything more than that about insurance, eh? I know that following the training syllabus is a kind of novel notion, but it does work OK. Certainly it's better than having every Tom, Dick, and Harry makin' something up about what they feel should be right about insurance. Of course, if you're acting in a district or council capacity as you suggest, just get on the phone and call National H&S or do so with your DE. That seems a better way of goin' than using a random quote yeh got from some other internet document. Just remember da cagey bit; nobody wants to give legal advice across state lines. So ask your question directly: "Is a Tour Permit required for BSA general liability coverage to attach for a unit scouting activity?" The answer is "No." In fact, we pay claims like that all the time. But Tour Permits are still worthwhile things to do for planning, program, CYA, make you feel good and official, whatever. That's why we have 'em. Now, if your COR really wants proof of insurance, then he's usin' the wrong document. A Tour Permit isn't it. He wants to ask the council for a certificate of insurance listing the CO as "additional insured" for each event. That's the definitive document, not a tour permit. All your other musings are just hard to comment on, eh? Yeh really don't have any idea why someone else's auto coverage "didn't pay". Might be as simple as the car owner didn't have collision coverage, or the homeowner's policy had an exclusion (as most do) for flood or acts of war. If yeh really feel insurers are slimy, then yeh know they could try to argue that something wasn't a scout outing even if you have a Tour Permit. Da only thing yeh got wrong is the last bit. You don't need to prove that it was a scout activity for insurance to attach. The insurer needs to prove that it was not a scout activity. Such a claim can be refuted any number of ways. Did yeh collect permission slips? Take payment? Use scout account money? Run two-deep? Did registered leaders supervise? Was it advertised as such? On a calendar approved by the committee? On and on. Mostly, with da SM, CC and a bunch of kids and parents standing there saying "it was a scout outing", yeh won't find anybody likely to buy an insurer's argument that it really wasn't. And the penalties for such "bad faith" by insurers are severe. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

she is willing to promote a State that most Americans don't know anything about, is pretty self-less She is getting paid. Hey, I'd happily do a show to promote any state yeh want if I can get paid that well for it. I expect most of us would. But I wouldn't call it "selfless." she spoke about how she and her husband actually did do this years ago. Yah, sure, for a bit. That's not quite the same thing as being a "hard worker" as a fisherman. I do think she's been an unusually hard worker as a celebrity. I'm not claimin' Mrs. Palin is a bad person, eh? I just don't quite buy into an overstatement of her virtues. She got out of public service and made a lot of money. Nuthin' unusual about that. All kinds of politicians make a lot of money on da circuit after they leave office, or sell themselves to special interests as consultants and whatnot. The only thing that was unusual is that she quit her elected public service job early to go do that. The legal costs to Alaska of course continued after she left. And I see that her protege Joe Miller is now taking a lot of out-of-state money to sue the state of Alaska and cost Alaskans even more, but Mrs. Palin is still in his corner. She's an ordinary MSM celebrity and special interest shill. She's just shilling for other interests than liberal celebrities. There's nothing wrong with that, yeh can make good money at it. Just best not to mistake it for unusual virtue. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

LOL. Yah, yeh need to learn to read thinks like an attorney or risk manager, moosetracker. I think if yeh look at the archives, there are a few dozen threads on the topic. But what the hey? The Risk Management notebook, just like da G2SS or the SM Handbook or whatnot is an internal BSA document (actually more of a compilation of stuff). It doesn't have anything to do with insurance, nor does it establish a standard of care for liability purposes. It's just a council level set of materials. Yeh can go to your council and ask to see it, mostly boring stuff, but it won't answer your insurance question. Da part you quote is correct, however. BSA insurance (obviously) only applies to scouting events. And yep, a tour permit is evidence that an event is a scouting event. All that is true. However, a Tour Permit is not required to make something a scouting event, as demonstrated by scout meetings and your council that doesn't require tour permits for local events. Even without a tour permit, those are still scouting events, eh? And because they are scouting events, BSA insurance attaches. In fact, many councils don't require tour permits within their service area, which might take up half a state. A scouting event is a scouting event by being a scouting event. And insurance attaches to any scouting event by default. Yeh see, insurance is governed by a contract, eh? But it's also a regulated industry. In all states, the presumption is that insurance covers. That's the "default". In fact most states have severe penalties for "bad faith" on the part of insurers - far worse penalties than the cost of just living up to their obligations. In order for insurance not to cover, the insurer must demonstrate through some reasonably high level of evidence that the insurance contract does not apply to the case. Nothing else. Not G2SS, not uniforms, not tour permits - those are just internal documents. Your COR can ask your council business manager to see a copy of the first tier master contract for insurance. It's a pretty ordinary general liability policy, eh? And general liability policies are a "stock" item in da industry. Now, a few things on the unauthorized activity list (like skydiving) are exclusions on the master contract, and indeed are exclusions on almost all "stock" general liability policies. So if yeh hop in your experimental aircraft and take the lads skydiving on your own then insurance coverage from da BSA might be a problem. Even if you have a Tour Permit! It used to be that was true for all of the unauthorized activities, but then they started adding silly stuff like simulated firearms and water drinking contests, which are not insurance exclusions. The other thing that is never covered by insurance is deliberate acts of harm, eh? If yeh deliberately hurt a child or deliberately place a child in a situation intending the kid to be harmed, then insurance is out. For you. It would still cover da CO. That's how it works, eh? Beyond that, nobody will ever give yeh a straight answer about coverage for individual cases, especially across state lines. Odds are your SE and council business manager will get cagey too. Just because that gets into the realm of offering legal opinion rather than general thoughts about how things work or what the contract says. And neither this post nor anything furry flat-tailed big-toothed critters tell yeh on the internet should ever be considered legal opinion or advice. Same with da office folks in your council. If this is really eating at yeh, have your COR call your SE or your council business manager and ask to see a copy of the first-tier master contract, or sit with da DE on a call to national H&S and have 'em explain how in general you are still covered even though your council doesn't make you file a tour permit. However, as stated elsewhere, your CO can always require you to fill out a TP for everything. Or sing Jingle Bells as a group before every December outing for that matter . B Edited to add: I believe Frank17 is quotin' the language from the HSR accident insurance policy, not the BSA general liability policy. But he's right on da general principle of course.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

And why is ANYONE discussing how a faith administers their own award, which is NOT a BSA award Because it's an interestin' scouting topic, and because we want to be helpful, eh? The point I clearly didn't make very well is that what camilam was describing is contrary to what the National Catholic Committee on Scouting materials say about how their Catholic scouting awards are to be done. The Catholic awards program is very well aligned with the BSA program materials, eh? They're really quite good. If yeh do Parvuli Dei well, you're doin' cub scouting well. If yeh do Ad Altare Dei according to the expectations of the NCCS then you're doin' MB counseling well according to the policies of the BSA. So camilam's local implementation is ignorin' the instructions from the National Catholic Committee on Scouting (a group run by the national Catholic bishops conference) and the spirit and methods of the BSA programs at that level. That's their choice, of course... leastways, I think the local Catholic parishes can ignore what their governing body says to some degree. I support that they have the right to choose to do that. I just don't think ignorin' the materials of both groups is goin' to get the outcomes that they want, eh? So I'm counseling 'em to try to use the Catholic Awards program as it's written. That seems reasonable to me. No different with the LDS. In that case, their program materials do align with the way they choose to do Scouting in some ways. I've always supported that. The ability to modify the BSA program to suit the CO is a feature of scoutin'. But when Gary_Miller shared some of the details of the implementation and what the stated LDS program goals were was where I had some difficulty. Given their stated goals, the way they were structuring their first year program didn't make sense to me, eh? It doesn't get 'em to their goals. Now, there may have been unstated goals which were more important than the stated ones, but I can't know that. So I inquired whether a local ward was allowed to try a different approach more in line with da BSA materials to see if it didn't do a better job for what they wanted. Now, yeh may all disagree with me, and that's fine. Mrs. Beavah says she disagrees with me just so I don't get a big head. But there's somethin' to point out. When I'm suggesting/cajoling/offering criticism or feedback I'm doin' it to the individual who is offering the program and who is posting to the forums. To their face, so to speak, to try to get 'em to think about other ways they might use the program materials better. That to me just feels better than the other practice of offerin' blistering criticisms of scouters who aren't "here" for "not following the program" based on the post of some disgruntled 3rd party. Quit the troop! They're awful! and all that noise. Talkin' behind the person's back, essentially. That's easier, for sure. Da person who isn't here to defend himself won't argue. But it just doesn't seem appropriate to me. Though it is fun to see FScouter pokin' at me for suggesting someone else try following the program. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Now don't get this wrong, camilam, but perhaps a bit of healthy skepticism is in order, eh? She is selflessly promoting Alaska when she really doesn't have to I don't reckon after a moment of thought that "selflessly" is an adjective I'd use. I don't know what her compensation was for the series, but even with no compensation at all it's a heck of a self-promotion. She is a VERY hard worker. I'd like to see any of you get on a fishing boat and do what she was doing Yah, yeh don't really think she did it for very long, eh? It's a TV series. Yeh do that stuff for a few minutes while they're filming, then quit for a break. Have to so they can move the cameras around and shoot from different angles without seeing another camera. It's not the same as actually workin' a fishing boat. Now, I do agree she is in truth an outdoor enthusiast and a decent example of a working mom. As for those who simply want to rip her for "quitting" on Alaska, I'd say this....she stepped down for several reasons. First, she knew that she was going to have her personal life drug through the mud Well, actually, the lawsuits and ethics inquiries all involved her public life, eh? And many were originated and pursued by honest, hard-working, family-values Republicans. Truth is, from a personal financial perspective quitting was a good move for her, eh? Make hay while the sun shines. Why finish out a term as a public servant when instead yeh can become a millionaire celebrity? I'm not sure that's the example I want to hold up to young people, but yeh certainly can see the attraction. We compensate our entertainers a lot more than we compensate a governor. B

Hiya saschuster, A "Polar Bear Patch" is not a national award, it's a local council award, eh? The rules for it are set by whoever is issuing the patch (i.e. your council). So yeh have to ask them. Loosely speaking, there is some consensus in the northern midwest states that a Polar Bear Patch means camping out (not in a cabin, lean-to, or other fixed shelter) overnight when the temperature is below freezing (32). For the colder states where it can hit below freezing 8 months a year, there's often a restriction to between December 1 and March 1. Typically, it's a Boy Scout award, not somethin' that is done by a cub pack. Someone with fresher BALOO training will have to comment on its appropriateness for cubs, but I personally wouldn't recommend it. Most families don't have appropriate outdoor sleeping gear for the lads for those temperatures, eh? And most sleeping gear that would be appropriate for adults just ain't right for the little fellows. They chill a lot faster, and can't heat up a big ol' adult sleeping bag. Yeh want cub camping to be fun, easy stuff. Stuff that will get the young guys to enjoy the outdoors without stressing 'em. I think your instinct is right, below freezing is a bit much for a pack campout. Way too much chance for a boy to be miserable and "never want to do that again." So trust your instinct, plan for a cabin campout, and leave the Polar Bear challenge for when they're Boy Scouts and need somethin' to push their skills. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sorry thriftyscout. Your thread seems to have been hijacked by the Great Insurance Monster. My fault. Your average DE won't know that much about patrol outings, eh? Remember, the job of a DE is really not to support program, or even know all da different program features. Do yeh need to ask your DE if the boys can do parkour? Would he even know what it is? Try askin' your unit commissioner or a district commish. So, do you know where the proof the tour permit is NOT for insurance purposes is in writing? Moose, yeh have that backwards, eh? Do you know where the proof is that NOT wearing a red bow tie is required for your auto insurance to apply? In writing? Of course such "proof" doesn't exist. But everyone knows that's not how insurance works. An internal document, like a tour permit, does not have any direct bearing on an external contract, like an insurance contract. I think stating it for insurance does give it teeth.. With out that it is sort of like why bother? Yah, I think that's why all these silly insurance rumors get started, eh? Some trainer or some other fellow wants to sound authoritative and give what he says "teeth" so he makes up some blather about insurance. Yeh have to wear uniforms or the insurance won't apply. Yeh have to follow G2SS or you'll be eaten by a carniverous lawyer. Yeh have to file a Tour Permit or you will wake the Mummy (No! You must not read from the Book of the Dead!). It's just dishonest. It's not in the training curriculum, and it causes all this confusion and worry and bad relationships with IH's and CORs like moosetracker reports. The primary reason for a tour permit is that it helps yeh check to make sure folks have the right training, that you've got drivers in place and all the rest. Just the sort of checklist you should be runnin' normally for any outing, so why not use da BSA's form? The secondary reason for tour permits is that in an on-the-ball council they can use 'em to collect data on what the units are doin' and that can help provide support or information. Maybe even catch a few problems up front like a cub pack deciding on a family whitewater weekend or da crew that wants to explore abandoned mines. It's not expected that you're goin' to get the numbers right. Nobody ever gets the numbers right. Your son can just put down a best guess a week out and it will be fine. Point is really to make sure yeh have adequate supervision, eh? Enough (properly trained) adults for the kids who are goin'. It's not really expected that you're goin' to get the drivers right either. Lots of units just get all the driver information for the whole unit and staple it on to the submitted form. Yeh just gather it as a service to the families as much as anything else. BSA insurance is excess coverage over the minimum required personal auto policy, eh? (dependin' on your state, of course). So yeh want to help your families and the kids by makin' sure that minimum coverage is in place. Like everything the BSA does, Tour Permits are meant to be a service, a help, a program feature. Somethin' to push yeh a bit to get the most important things in place before rushin' out the door Friday night. Beavah

The tour permit is needed for BSA Insurance, for the outing, not for planning purposes. This statement is FALSE. But like all of the many "insurance rumors", it does seem to get passed around a lot. Tour permits are not required for insurance coverage. Insurance coverage attaches any time you or the CO gets sued under some theory of liability for anything involving scouting or scout activities. Period. No paperwork is required, no uniforms are required, memorizing and following every jot and tiddle of G2SS is not required. Only paying the unit annual registration. A Tour Permit is just a helpful planning document.... Helpful for you, and helpful for the district/council. Tour permits are not required for meetings, yet if a lad gets hurt at a meeting through negligence, or yeh accidentally smash the window of someone's car with a baseball at a meeting, insurance covers. Many councils neither require nor accept tour permits for outings within their council service area, eh? Yet insurance still covers on those outings and events. In short almost any time anyone tells you that "BSA insurance won't cover" they are spreading an urban legend and yeh should at least ignore them, if not correct them. Most of the time they've just got the urban legend bug, but sometimes it's people who think they need to make stuff up to sound authoritative. So now, goin' back to the original question, yes by all means run patrol outings! Whatever your patrols can dream up. Weekend backpack trips, hikes, geocaching, ski trips, patrol shoots at da camp or local sportsmans club, on and on. Look over their plans, review for safety and experience of the kids, and have at it. Easiest beginning steps for adult-less outings is to start with a simple overnight campout or a day hike. Somethin' that the boys are clearly familiar with and comfortable with, in decent weather. It will be a new adventure just being on their own. And that's the key, eh? Make sure they have all the other things down so that the only new component is being on their own. Another thing to try is to go somewhere the patrols can hike in different directions and send each patrol off on it's own. Yah, sure, the patrols can do this outside of scouting, but why would we give it up? By doing it within scouting, we make scouting special for the boys and we get the chance to give advice and consent on their plans. As for fillin' out da paperwork if your council requests it, I think yeh fill out the tour permit as usual, eh? List the adult(s) who approved the boys' plans, list the drivers, etc. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm.... Welcome to the Scouter.com forums, concscouter. There's a lot in your post, and no way for us folks out in internet land to wade through it and develop any real sense for what's goin' on. In some ways, yeh seem to be holding some awful long-term grudges, eh? "5 years ago... they failed to recognize him or give him his patch over the course of 3 pack meetings." 5 years over a patch and it's still gnawing at you? Let it go. Well-meaning volunteers often overlook things, especially if somethin' comes in on a different piece of paper than all the rest or somesuch. In some ways, some of what you're complaining about is "ordinary" stuff, eh? Nobody, and no troop, is perfect. Just a bunch of parents and volunteers with good intentions but not always the time and skills to do the job perfectly. Yeh take the bad with the good. If your son does in fact love his time with some of the other boys, that's great, eh? Unfortunately, your son's friends often come with parents that you might not care for, or who aren't as dedicated to Scoutin' as you are. Just the way of the world. In some ways, some of what you're describing is just poor scouting, eh? We're seein' it through your eyes, of course, but especially the misogynist stuff and all the adult sniping is what often destroys scouting. The kids are much better at working with each other and developing friendships than we adults are. So when yeh get to that point where yeh have a litany of grudges and gripes that are still on your brain over multiple years, I'd say it's time to take a step back. Yeh can do that in a couple of ways. You can simply take a step back from participating in the troop as an adult. Take your kid, help with things when asked, but let the troop experience be your son's, not yours. Dealing with different adults and adult expectations is part of growing up. If he's happy, be happy. If he's upset, sympathize with him but support the "coach"/other adults and ask your son what he's going to do about it. Just be dad, eh? You can do a great job of that without being ASM. Besides, being Cubmaster is plenty of Scouting for one fellow. Spend your energy doing a good job with that for your younger boy. Or, alternately, if yeh think enough boys and fellow parents are looking for something different, put together a core group of adults that you enjoy working with and go start a new troop. Your DD's insight that the current unit is fallin' apart is probably a good one. DD's see this thing a lot and often have decent instincts about it. So go and build a strong program. That requires yeh to work with folks and not hold long-term grudges though, eh? If anything, building a new scouting program requires patience and good humor, with a deep reservoir of good will among all the adults. If I were to guess, I'd say that yeh seem to have most of the necessary ingredients to startin' a new troop : chartering partner, gear, area that can support the additional troop, cub pack connections, some adult contacts who are dedicated, hard-working types. So rather than stickin' it out with all da accumulated angst I'd say go for it and do the new troop program. That's fun and positive work if you've got that core group of friends/adults who see eye to eye and are willing to make a go of it. Good luck with it. And a Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. Beavah and a good ol' Beavah, too

But da congress controls the purse strings. Most presidents aren't willing to veto budgets and go for shuttin' down the government. Presidents can try to exercise some leadership. When they do they give the weak-kneed congresscritters someone to hide behind. Be interestin' to see if President Obama is willing to back the Debt Commission report or one of the alternatives, or whether it'll be another dilly-dally and shill performance that will lead to a 3000 page "debt reduction" bill that projects it might reduce the deficit by 2030. Beavah

Yah, someone really just needs to take da entire Kim Jong family out back... No question, Republicans since Reagan have been the party of borrow-and-spend. The whole "fiscal responsibility" mantra that the current bunch chants is just surreal. The Republican congress of 2000-06 was the Master of Earmarks and funding special interests. No question, da last two years have seen extraordinary government and Federal Reserve intervention in the markets. That's what happens when yeh deregulate the financial services industry and encourage 'em to gamble with other people's money. Party like it's 1929. At that point yeh either let the banks collapse and go for the 15 years of Greater Depression or yeh jump in with a massive bailout and go for 10 years of economic weakness, with a healthy risk of rebound stag-flation. We're not through it yet, eh? Does anyone realize how underfunded most state pension funds are? It's not just SS and Medicare, virtually all public and most corporate retirement plans are Ponzi schemes, and mis-managed ones at that. Us elderly, republican voters aren't finished robbin' you young folks yet. Beavah

Yah, da problem with the common currency is that yeh can't hide your bad fiscal management behind a central bank smokescreen. Used to be Greece, Spain, and Ireland when they got in their current mess could do what da U.S. is doing and just start printing money. Now that they're on the euro, someone else is controllin' the printing press, so the government actually has to pay its debts, not print its way out of 'em. Of course devaluing your currency amounts to an across-the-board tax on your entire populace, falling most heavily on the working poor. But if you're lucky, it makes your exports artificially cheap, so it keeps people workin'. Of course they're workin' harder for less, but that's what they need to do anyway, eh? Only difference is that when yeh devalue the currency it seems like "bad luck" or "hard times". When yeh can't devalue the currency it's easier to see the real cause: government profligacy. Lots of us back when da Euro went in were predicting it wouldn't survive da first real recession for just this reason. Either the profligate countries would pull out in order to avoid bankruptcy/austerity measures or the stronger economies would just refuse to continue to be taken advantage of. Nuthin' personal, Eamonn, but the Irish were fools, eh? They had all the benefits of a young, well-educated population suddenly put in a free trade zone with no barriers. They could have maintained solid growth had they only exercised a modicum of restraint durin' the boom. The Greeks, on the other hand... B

Yah, I gotta agree with John-in-KC. This is another system which is largely a burden to units so that their corporate masters can compile statistics. I have a dream, that one day, the corporate leaders of the NFP Scouting Movement in da US will place da emphasis on servant leadership and service to the units, rather than expectin' the units to serve their needs. Yes, I have a dream. NeilLup, you've been doin' the corporate scoutin' thing too long. Sit with some units and work recharter. Between da ScoutNet system not reliably handlin' any browser other than IE 7 and the pages of paperwork, addin' more pages of paperwork isn't exactly friendly. Even very strong units tend to hate recharter, and what's our timeliness compliance rate? 70%? It sounds easy, sittin' in a corporate office, for a troop to compile da things you mention. But how many kids went to a long-term camp means someone finding the summer camp registration list from 6 months ago, then back-figurin' how many kids were eligible at that point to get a percentage (subtractin' off the boys who joined in the fall, and then calling da DE to figure out whether the 2 lads who are in split families spending the summer with their dad should be counted or not...). Most troops don't keep a runnin' count of how many service projects they do in year. Includin' Eagle projects? That call from da elderly neighbor that the Flaming Monkeys patrol took? About half da troops I work with throw up their hands in frustration over the how-many-ranks-earned question. Who keeps track? That's spread across a couple dozen advancement report sheets that weren't kept around because da AC mailed 'em to the council office that's an hour and a half away. I have bigger issues with da council and district sheets because once again we're settin' up The Numbers Game. It's not service-quality focused, and da metrics are not under the direct control of those levels of the organization. So when yeh have a high-stakes assessment where yeh can't directly influence the outcomes being measured (because those are things that are determined by the units), what do yeh do? Yeh cheat. You push units on rapid advancement, yeh hold more Merit Badge Midways, yeh fudge numbers, yeh take any warm body as a commish. It's like we didn't learn a thing from the last 2 decades. Everyone wishes that the best things will happen with a new system, and ignores all evidence and expectation of the likely unintended consequences. At da district and council levels, this is another gawd-awful terrible system that will hurt scouting. Beavah

Nah, Gern, da judge has to hear the case which is brought before him, eh? This judge mostly did the right thing, and turfed it back to the state courts, with just long enough a restraining order (over the weekend) to give Miller a chance to file. Essentially it was a polite version of a "this is a state court matter, you idiot" ruling. B

What a dingbat. It's of a piece with the interminable legal struggles in Minnesota last election. Tie up the election winner and keep 'em from taking a seat to represent their state just out of spite. What's interestin' is DeMint and the Republican leadership funding the bizarro legal challenges in this case. Have they no shame? Serve 'em right if Murkowski jumped ship and caucused with the Democrats. I want a new party to vote for that is actually honorable. B

Hi Eliza, For internal unit use, yeh can have anyone the unit leader feels is competent sign off on da Aquenaut requirements. As someone else pointed out, usually that would be the acting lifeguard for an event. Parents or boy's swim coach would be OK, too, if yeh felt that was appropriate. Camps and other folks might be stricter in order to ensure the safety side, rather than the advancement side. Though the two should of course really line up! If you're using the swim test / Aquenaut badge for any of your own safety planning for den or pack events, that's particularly important. Will your lifeguards at any point let a boy who says he has the aquenaut badge into the deep end, because he "should" have passed the swim test? In that case, I'd think yeh would want to make sure the test was done well. B

Yah, well. We all know that da thousand or two Sea Scouts out there are a different bunch Beavah

Yah, thriftyscout, thanks for your report on steppin' up to Patrol Method. Sometime soon maybe you'll have a patrol hike and camp for a weekend on their own, so that they can use all of their T-2-1 knowledge like navigation and site selection and such. Then if you're really wicked, yeh can plant a first aid scenario somewhere along their trail and really give 'em a workout . I think if somethin' goes stupidly wrong in a patrol site, that's why we teach outdoor skills and first aid. Dealing with "bad" things, improvising gear repairs, managing people is all a part of the experience we want boys to have in Scouting. We don't want 'em to be like other naive civilians who are unprepared and just rely on a cell phone (or a whistle, or a bugle, or...) to summon help for their clogged stove or da fact they missed the last trail junction. And if somethin' goes really wrong, yeh send two scouts for assistance, and the most skilled scout stays as "buddy" of the victim. Easy. Sneakernet works great. Beavah

Actually, da World Crest used to be optional. That was odd, because in all other WOSM organizations it isn't optional and is worn with pride. Indeed, if yeh travel internationally without the World Crest on your uniform your hosts will often comment on why you aren't wearin' it. The current instruction for the World Crest in the BSA Insignia Guide for Boy Scouting is "Wear on all uniforms." But like most things in da guidebooks, it's a bit muddled in terms of the editing. You'll also still see "may" wear in some places. The old routine for adding the World Crest only after participatin' in an international activity I don't think was ever official, but it was a widespread tradition. That has been replaced by the International Activity Patch (which is worn as a temporary patch on da right pocket, not in place of the world crest as yeh occasionally see ). B