Beavah

Yah, I think da best troops do what emb is describin', eh? Even though emb is apparently a paperwork scofflaw like me. Keep a supply of rank patches. As soon as a boy passes a BOR, award him his patch that same night. He should be able to sew it on his uniform and appear as his proper rank that weekend on the campout, eh? No waitin' until next week. At the Court of Honor, present the rank card, the mother's pins, give him a round of applause and hearty handshake and all that. Even present a second badge for his summer/winter uniform, eh? Only time a lad should miss wearin' a badge he has earned is when he earns Second Class and First Class on the same night. Beavah

Yah, I suppose it's true, eh? A CC, out of ignorance or spite may not follow da rules. If da CC doesn't sign because he doesn't understand his role, someone else signs for the committee and da COR approves. Person is appointed. Then it's the job of the COR to get da CC proper trainin' or readjust his attitude, or ask the committee for a recommendation for a new CC. The committee of course can just proceed by sending the COR two applications at the same time - one for the original person whom they selected, and one for the new CC they had to select to replace da CC who thought he was King. COR signs and submits both, problem solved. An active unit commish might get involved in either situation, too, eh? Givin' the CC some advice on the side on his proper role and tryin' to defuse things. I'm fairly hard-nosed about this stuff, though. Better to quickly replace an adult who doesn't understand da program or execute his role honorably than let it gum up a unit for the kids. I can't help yeh with your brain hurtin', though. Perhaps yeh might consider a transplant? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Hal_Crawford, We've got no great candidates for president, eh? What else is new? Yeh can't point to an essentially unconstitutional action by the Senate to make me feel any better, though, eh? All spendin' bills must originate in the House. There's a reason for da Constitution, even though this administration and congress don't seem to like it much. But at least yeh heard the alternate voice, and had a chance to make a reasoned decision. Right now congress is gettin' rushed by an inept executive and overrun by lobbyists. Not a good recipe for makin' a decision in our long-term best interests. I would love to hear, though, how yeh think this bailout package isn't goin' to cause us a lot more pain in the mid-to-long run. I agree with yeh, in the short run, through the election and into next year a bit, it will make things seem better. ScoutMomSD, I think any real solution has to address a bunch of things, and is goin' to cause us pain and sacrifice. Yeh don't go on a 40 year credit bender without wakin' up with a heck of a hangover and a lot of mess to clean up. But da real solution has to address: 1) Regulation of structured products 2) The nature and existence of problem securities (which aren't touched by this legislation at all). 3) A means of accurately and transparently pricing those problem securities. 4) A cleanup of attendant instruments like credit default swaps that are massively contributing to the problem and sinkin' the economy almost on their own. 5) A short-term set of accounting principles, short of eliminating mark-to-market, which allow bankst to hold these problem securities without incurring unrealistic writedowns. 6) A means of helping homeowners directly, including sensible tax and capital gains treatment. I've seen some decent proposals on all these things, but none of 'em are gettin' much air time in da face of the simplicity and lobbyist delight in just throwin' a trillion or more taxpayer dollars at da problem and praying. This ain't my area, of course. I rely on folks down da hall and in the buildin' next door when it comes to understandin' this sort of thing, eh? But there's a lot of folks out there who understand da system better than congress. Yah, and I will add, now that I've got some understandin' of da crazy contractual things some of these banks did in these structured products, that long, hard jail time and public ridicule should be part of da mix. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, OGE, I think you've always made too much of da one paragraph in the second class requirements pages, eh? The point of the paragraph is that "character is what you do when no one else is watching." It's meant to tell da lad that even if he gets his SM to sign off on Scout Spirit, real scout spirit is what he's doin' when da Scoutmaster/teacher/coach/parent isn't watching. That only he can judge. Da handbook is callin' a lad to a deeper understandin' of character than what we can accomplish with external feedback. But it's not sayin' he can sign off his own book, much as he might want to. A lad who comes with that kind of argument is probably a bright kid, potential future attorney and all that. So I laugh with him, and tell him so. Then we talk about real character a bit, and da difference sometimes between real character and what others see when you're askin' for a job, or an award. When you're askin' for a job or an award, other people evaluate your character based on what they can observe. Might not always be da "real you" or at least the you that you want to be. But it's da "you" that we see. So since you're askin' me for an award, here's the "you" that I see... good and bad. And here's what I think yeh need to show before I can honestly say you deserve an award. Then I tell him for Eagle, we'll be asking more than just us scout leaders about him, eh? We'll be talkin' to his friends, teachers, coaches, parents, employers, and religious leaders to report on what they've seen in his regular life. Real character is measured not by da words on page whatever of the Boy Scout Handbook. It's measured by how you have touched all da people in your life. Beavah

Yah, I hope Bob Mazzuca gets that office under control. Practically speakin' click23 and evmori are right on da documents. And da documents may be right on how best to run a small office in Irving which has to deal with complaints and threatened legal action all da time. But da documents are wrong on how to develop character in children. When we deliver "bad news" to boys, it should be the person with the greatest long-term relationship with the boy, who the boy respects, that has that conversation about behavior. Not a bunch of relative strangers on a BOR. And givin' a boy an award because he's been registered, has held a position but done little, and has pouted through a SM conference about his behavior - and thereby "fulfilled the requirements which we can't add to", is da kind of sophistry that leads to lawyer jokes. Oh yah, and add da bit that even though the lad has been a twit in the troop, we should sign off Scout Spirit because his parents report he's been a good boy in his "everyday life" at home. But maybe that's part of modern citizenship, eh? Be an idiot, don't live up to your responsibility to investors, have a conference with Ben Bernacke where you tell him you've screwed up repeatedly (but you're a nice guy in your "everyday life" with him on da golf course), win $850 billion dollars. What's a Boy Scout rank compared with that? Maybe we are preparin' these kids well after all! Beavah

Oops... Yah, I doubled with BobWhite. I agree with BobWhite completely. Da process is not used often enough. Like the materials say, appointin' people to key positions, especially kid-contact positions, is the single most important thing a unit does. It's a responsibility da committee and COR should take deadly seriously. Serious responsibilities require time and thought and data from a bunch of sources and input, eh? Appointin' a "warm body" who was da only guy willing and available can land yeh in a world of hurt. Predators are willing and available, eh? So are folks who are a bit immature, or who are out of jobs (perhaps for a reason). We're talkin' about trusting someone with children in a remote environment, pretty far from supervision of any kind, eh? If you're worried about whether da water is 11 feet deep or 13 feet deep in your swim area, but yeh didn't run da full process for selecting a unit leader properly than you are an irresponsible fool. Strainin' at gnats and swallowin' camels. When da CC, COR, or committee person calls references (everyone does call references, right?), I think it's good practice to ask da references for other people not listed as references to call. People list their best buddies as references, eh? Only after yeh dig a little further do yeh get to folks who might be honest about a concern. I think it's also a good thought to evaluate a person's workin' with kids and outdoor skills directly in some way. Workin' with kids IMO can't be taught, adults either have a knack for it or they don't. Outdoor skills are important because far more than tryin' to memorize 75 pages of G2SS, an adult's outdoor skills and experience are goin' to determine how safe da unit is. A committee should work "live evaluation" of these things into its process, and then have a training package ready for da person when they approach him/her about the position. Beavah

Yah, GoldWinger, as we've seen a lot on da forums, there's a lot of poor-quality trainers out there who don't follow da syllabus and ad-lib, eh? I'm sorry you've run into a few. So I gave yeh at least half a dozen quotes from different BSA materials which all say that it's the committee's responsibility to select leaders, not the CC's alone. And which indicate that it's the COR/IH's responsibility to approve da committee's choices, not the CC's. Next time you're at one of those trainings, yeh can point out those materials and correct da trainer politely so that others don't get the wrong notion. All the BSA documents are in agreement and are clear. Leader selection is done by the committee, not da CC, and the CC does not have independent "veto" or approval authority. That privilege belongs only to the COR/IH. The BSA documents also reflect the real world of service on a board, where the chair is just first among equals, with responsibilities for coordinatin' the work of the group, but no independent authority. It takes your council executive board to sell a camp, but da council president signs the sales contract. If he signs a sales contract without approval of da rest of the board, he commits fraud. As always, there's ways to "violate the rules" here and have the CC really be the sole ruling authority. That's a choice da CO and unit can make. When it comes to unit governance, da BSA's materials are strictly advisory. But it's a choice of the CO, not the CC. And it should be taken mindful of the BSA's recommended procedure and aware of the potential problems. In my experience, CC's who try to become the sole ruling authority in their units without a CO culture that supports such an arrangement do a world of harm to Scouting. Been involved in da removal of several of 'em as a commish, but not before they had lost us some good kids and good adults. Beavah

Yah, sorry Hal_Crawford, I just don't see that da biggest government socialist intervention in da markets in the history of the nation has to happen in a week or less because an administration which has demonstrated its lack of competence suddenly finds it urgent to be given an $850 billion transfer to executive control. And don't think for a minute that da sudden increase of the FDIC insured limit comes without a big taxpayer price tag as well, eh? There's been no time to collect premiums to offer that kind of insurance, so the bill specifies that the FDIC has unlimited borrowing authority from the Treasury. Yah, dat's right. On top of $850 billion, this bill authorizes unlimited additional borrowing. And it still probably ain't enough to fix da problem, eh? Best estimates at one point were that there were around $60 trillion in mortgage derivative bets outstanding. But da bailout has long term consequences, eh? One of 'em is it guarantees the worldwide decline of the dollar. In one bill, added to the insanely loose Federal Reserve actions, we're inflating our currency 20% or more. Second is it guarantees that oil prices will go up to over $200 or more a barrel sooner rather than later - because of both da decline of the dollar and because oil will be seen as a safer investment than T-bonds. Are yeh ready for $8 a gallon gas? Third is that such a level of unconstrained borrow-and-spend fiscal irresponsibility puts the value of our debt instruments - T-bonds and T-bills, at risk. If in order to finance our humongous debt we have to sell treasuries that out-perform inflation on the dollar, we're goin' to need to be payin' higher and higher interest. That's a stock-market and credit market killer, eh? And as interest goes up, so does our debt, eventually puttin' the bond rating of da country in question. That's da financial equivalent of Nuclear Annihilation. The risk here isn't da failure of banks and loose credit. We lost 10 times as many banks during da Savings and Loan debacle in the 80s. The risk here is to the dollar and our debt exposure to the world. There is no bailout from those. We are selling our childrens' and our grandchildrens' future - the very future of da U.S. - for this ill-conceived, rushed bailout of a bunch of bad actors. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Scoutmaster's Handbook, p. 157 "The committee may be seen as the "board of directors" of a troop... The responsibilities of the troop committee include the following: *Select quality leaders for the troop." "The most important responsibility of a troop committee is recruiting qualified adult leaders for the troop. This is an extremely important task, because the committee must find individuals who are excellent role models as well as effective leaders of young people. "When a leadership vacancy occurs, the troop committee identifies the names of several candidates based on their ability to do the job and then selects the individual who, in the committee's estimation, is most qualified. Once approved by the chartered organization representative, the next step is to recruit the candidate for the position.... The brochure "Selecting Quality Leaders" and a video by the same title define the process for a troop committee as they select leaders for their troop." ----- Yah, I reckon click 23 has already described da process defined by da "Selecting Quality Leaders" brochure and trainin', eh? That as well says a committee, whether da full unit committee or a subcommittee or steering committee charged with da task, screens and selects leaders. Never da CC on his/her own. ----- The Troop Committee Handbook, Chapter 5 "A key function of your troop committee is assisting in the selection of the best possible person to be your Scoutmaster." "Meet with the other troop committee members to develop a prospect list." "Rank the prospects. The committee should agree on and rank the top three prospects, in preferential order. Clear the list of prospects with the head of the chartered organization before making any contact." "The same standards used to determine the best prospect for Scoutmaster should also be used to qualify assistant Scoutmasters." ----- Even committee members and positions, not just direct contact leaders, are selected by the committee, not the chair. The Handbook continues: ----- "As with securing a Scoutmaster, to get qualified adults involved with your troop, you [the committee] must first identify good people, select and rank top prospects, and then use all available influence to recruit them.... The Troop Resource Survey should be completed by every troop member's parents... The survey will inform the committee what professions, special interests, skills, and resources are available to your troop... Troop committee members should also use the troop resource survey with interested members of the chartered organization, personal friends, Eagle Scouts, and Scouting supporters in the community." This again is borne out in da supplementary module on selecting leaders. ------ Training the Chartered Organization Representative (BSA module) "Each Scouting unit (pack, troop, team, or crew) is managed by a group of adults approved by the organization who serve as the unit committee. The committee's principal responsibility is to select the best-qualified leaders for the unit and see that they are supported in carrying out the unit program." "We have referred several times to the responsibility of the unit committee and chartered organization in leadership selection.... The head of the organization appoints a selection committee. In the case of an existing unit, the unit committee is the logical starting place" ------ Yah, da BSA materials are all perfectly consistent on this, eh? The Committee, not the CC by him/herself, selects unit leaders and committee members and recommends 'em for approval to the CO. I reckon in cub packs in particular, things get pretty loose. The committee spends most of its time on who is bringin' refreshments next meeting, and so da CC takes on a lot of the more important stuff solo. Sometimes that works up into Boy Scoutin' too. Usually those CC's have never served on a real board of directors or public board, so they don't quite get the concept that just because there's a line for your signature doesn't mean you can sign without da approval of the rest of the board. Da BSA materials assume the person readin' 'em knows what a board of directors is and how one operates, eh? Like a Board Chair, the Committee Chair is leader and representative of the committee, eh? He or she is not da pope of the committee, with independent personal authority. At least, that's not what da BSA materials recommend. As always, the Chartered Organization has da real authority here, and may choose to set up da CC as the COR, or even have the Institution Head serve in all three roles and simply decide all leadership appointments him/herself. That can work OK, eh? Just not what BSA recommends for most units. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Quick civics lesson, State Police do not determine the law. Nor does a personal opinion of a State Trooper establish law. Certainly you realize that if you are ticketed for speeding and you try to use that as a defense that you will quickly have a traffic conviction on your record. Actually, dat's the point, eh? It presents a situation where followin' the law is less safe. Any collision on a highway is goin' to be "high-speed", eh? After you've chosen to do something 100 times more dangerous than was necessary with other people's children, what are yeh goin' to say when they're injured in da crash you caused? "I was only followin' da rules"? Of course, if yeh read the article, you'd find that da state police did override a municipality and change its speed limits, and that those who used the argument as a defense on a speeding ticket actually prevailed in court. Guess your civics lesson wasn't all that clear either, eh? Law's a bit more complex than yeh think. Still waitin' on answers to 2, 3, and 4 though. Unit participation in a triathalon, unit open water mile swim, swimmin' off da back of the boat or snorkelin' the reef. Is it unethical to do all these things? Anyway, in deference to skeptic's request, I'm bowin' out for a bit so that he and others can join the conversation in earnest. Beavah

Holy smoke, was that just BobWhite encouragin' crv-66 to persist in violatin' da rules? As click23 points out, da process for selecting quality leaders requires consideration and vetting by a committee. Either da troop committee or a steering committee or subcommittee charged with that task. It is not somethin' a CC should be doin' on his own. That's not to say that in some units, particularly where da CC is also da COR, it isn't done that way for good reason. LDS units, where selection of unit leaders is a "calling" by da IH, is an example of a CO that chooses not to follow da BSA's practice. That is a CO's right, and it works OK in some units. Generally speakin', though, da BSA's recommended/required practice of having a committee vet and select unit leaders for recommendation to the COR is the way to go. As we see in this case, when a CC tries to do it all himself, it's a recipe for adult conflict in the unit. Adult conflict over leader appointments is a really bad thing for a unit. It hurts boys and hurts programs. Parents, da CO, and the boys all need to have full confidence in anyone who is wearin' an ASM or SM badge. Da committee also makes for a much more thorough vetting process, that remembers to consider things like the input of current scouters, potential liability and PR risks to the organization and whatnot - things that a CC on his/her own might forget. It also prevents a CC from doin' somethin' ill-advised, like appointing her husband SM and her older son Treasurer. Always best to read and understand all da materials, not just rely on one line on an application form (where there ain't much room to offer instruction!). From everything crv is sayin' it sounds like da best way to continue to accommodate this young man is as a youth member, not an adult leader. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BobWhite, I think what you want is to pick and choose what parts of Christianity and western ethics you believe in order to suit your own convenience. Actually, my personal concern is how to stay ethical in da midst of a professional world of rules and policies which often lead to poor behavior. Now, mindful that highcountry is entirely right that this is an amusin' exercise in futility, I'm still waiting for an answer to my four questions. Or, if yeh want, you can comment on whether David CO is unethical, endangering his and other people's children, etc. for sending chocolate chip cookies with his kid's lunch. Or, if yeh want, you can comment on whether da scout I talked about, who chose to sit with his friend and then take her to the counselors office because she was so depressed and expressed suicidal ideation, was really unethical because he broke a school rule about gettin' to class on time. Or, if yeh want, you can comment on whether da State Police commander in da article in a former thread on this topic http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=191493&p=5 is really unethical when he says that travelin' at da average speed of traffic is best no matter what the posted speed limit is, because folks who travel below da average speed of traffic to observe the speed limit are 100 times more likely to cause an accident. Should Scouters endanger other people's children by doin' something authorities have clearly said is less safe, in order to follow a rule? Beavah

Yah, crv-66, welcome to da forums, eh? The proper way to view the CC position is that you are like da chair of the troop's board of directors. As Board Chair, you have a lot of influence, can set the agenda, help lead and direct discussions. But you are not da COR, eh? You do not have the authority as an individual to override the Committee. When you sign an application, your signature represents the approval of the committee. They can, should, and must have a say in the vetting process. The committee, not the chair alone, vets and approves unit leaders (or if not the committee, some other subcommittee set up by da COR). Check out da supplementary trainin' module on selecting unit leaders. What's happened is you've gotten ahead of your committee, and are behavin' like a King. Their reservations are legitimate, eh? If the lad is ever going to be effective as an ASM, he needs the support of the committee, not just you. Take a step back, regroup, apologize to the committee for gettin' ahead of things, and work the process right. Always best if there is consensus among all the adult leaders on a direct-contact leader appointment, because SMs and ASMs are so vitally important to the program. The process of screening and selecting them should be a full and complete one, not da quick sign off of one guy. In that process, your responsibility is not to this boy, it's to the Chartered Organization, includin' being mindful of liability for adult leader actions, bad PR, and the amount having to watch over this "adult" takes other adults time and therefore affects the quality of program for all the boys. That is a responsibility you share with the committee, because different committee members have insights and skills, and all are approved by da CO to act as the "troop's board of directors." Thank goodness! You do not want to have that responsibility alone! Now, if you're tryin' just to do somethin' to help the lad, here are a few other options for yeh: 1) It may be possible for him to continue as a scout, past the age of 18. That is often done for youth with disabilities. Check with your DE for the procedure. 2) The lad can join a Venturing program as a youth member at age 18, then continue to work with the troop as a Venturer who assists with instruction. Of course, a Venturing crew might be a better place for him to spend his time overall, away from dad and on his own a bit. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BW, yeh must be in marketing or public relations, eh? Great spin. A bit like watchin' a presidential debate. Rather than answer the question given, make up a question to answer instead, or just revert to your talkin' points. 1. So you agree that if you were a member of a religious community, you should follow da rules and beliefs of that community? Excellent. There's not a single Christian religious tradition which holds that one is always ethically bound to obey human law. In fact, my earlier post on the differences between natural law, human law, equity and all that pretty much describes da western Christian ethical tradition with respect to law. Even Catholics in da days of "Divine Right of Kings" rejected da notion we were always ethically bound to obey the king. So I assume, since yeh have professed in da past to be Christian, you will now admit that followin' human rules is not necessarily an ethical imperative, even if you've agreed to 'em. 2. The group that held the event was not a scout group. Yah, but the troop that participated in the event WAS a scout group. Surely you're not saying that a troop can participate in any event hosted by a non-scout group? Da question is not whether an outside group can hold a triathalon, eh? Da question is whether a scout troop can participate in it as a unit activity without, as you say, "endangering other people's children" even though such events are encouraged in Boys' Life. 3. Again Beavah. Council and national camps have regular and safety inspections Again, BobWhite, we are not talkin' about a council or national camp, eh? We're talkin' about a unit activity, swimmin' the mile swim, in the exact same place as camp, with exactly da same safety arrangements, and exactly da same level of training as camp. Not a completely theoretical thing either, eh? I know at least one troop with no less than three BSA Aquatics Directors as unit scouters. Is it unethical, "endangerin' other people's children" and all that for them to run da mile swim as a unit activity? Perhaps in part because some lads didn't "make it" at camp so they practiced some more and really want to get the patch this year, and da unit thinks it's a great way to promote fitness? 4. Yes, as a unit activity you must follow the safe swim defense plan. However only a small percentage of Sea Scout Ships actually have a ship in an area where this kind of activity is even possible. Never lived on da Great Lakes, West Coast, East Coast, Chesapeake, Inland Waterway, or Gulf Coast, eh? Remember, too, there's lots of Venturin' Crews and troops that also do water activities includin' keelboat sailin'. Again, this ain't a theoretical, eh? We've featured units doin' this stuff in both Scouting Magazine and Boys' Life over the years, and I know several units that have done exactly this kind of activity in those locations usin' either Ship-owned boats or charters. So if I'm understandin' you right, what you're sayin' is a unit sailin' in da British Virgin Islands, in order to allow their youth to swim or snorkel in the bay where they've anchored, must establish a hazard to navigation by ropin' off a SSD area (with illegal hooks dropped on da reef), and cannot explore any reef anywhere near water over 12 feet deep? Or else they're unethical, endangerin' children and all da rest? If you cannot behave within the rules of your community in or out of scouting then do not follow the rules, but stop trying to get others to approve your poor choices. In addition, consider not trying to convince others to follow your example of such unethical decision-making. It is the antithesis of the Scout Oath and Law Aw, shucks, BobWhite. Resortin' to personal attacks now? The point, which yeh sort of admit to in #1 above, is that rather than bein' the "antithesis" of da Oath and Law, what I'm describin' is the thesis of the oath and law. It is a central principle of Christianity and da western ethical tradition. To fail to teach duty to a Higher authority and da limits of human law is not to be "the best kind of citizen." What you are proposin' I believe is contrary to da Oath and Law, and to Christian ethics. It puts human rules above loyalty, and helpfulness, and kindness, and obedience to higher rules and principles, and bravery, and reverence, and being mentally awake. Might explain da nature of your postings often, eh? This is important to me personally, perhaps more than others, because it is so amazingly easy for those who work in legal or policy fields to make an idol of da law, and to justify all kinds of unethical and reprehensible behavior with da quip that "they're followin' the law" or da professional canon, or "it's not against the law." We can be worse than da Pharisees the Lord regularly chastised, eh? Unless we make real effort to cleave to principles and to be mindful of equity as well as statute, we deserve all those lawyer jokes, eh? And we can do amazin' amounts of harm. Matters to kids too, eh? Ever picked up a student handbook lately? Miles and miles and miles of Rules. Like David CO describes, some of 'em forbid chocolate chip cookies. Remember da lad out in Utah who almost died because he was "following the rule" about Stranger Danger, and hiding from SAR personnel? What we teach kids matters. Kids have to know it's OK sometimes to be late to class if you're sittin' with your friend who just found out her parents are gettin' divorced, even though bein' late to class is against da Rules. Teachin' kids real ethics, and how to be really mentally awake, to my mind means teachin' 'em to evaluate human rules, both their importance and their relevance, in order to be ethical. To do Duty to God first and foremost, eh? And duty to page 36 of da handbook for a youth organization, while important, is way down the list. Otherwise yeh don't have da Best Kind of Citizenship. Yeh just have a stunted form of ethics that's worthy of a lawyer joke. Beavah

A Rescue Bill will pass House this week. Senate was already on board so things should move pretty quickly. I doubt that we will be out of the woods but we should be in a lot better shape. Yah, I sure hope not, Hal_Crawford. A borrow-and-spend rescue package would be about da worst thing we could do for the medium to long run. Yah, sure, solves da short term problem and gets those Congressional bozos through da election. But then what? In rescuin' some foolish, over-extended banks, we're making the Federal Reserve and the National Treasury overextended on credit. That is settin' up a disaster from which there is no bailout, and no recovery. How long with this kind of out of control borrowing would a rational person continue to rate US Bonds at AAA? At this kind of low rate of return, how long will our lenders continue to buy and hold dollars and treasuries? This bailout if it passes takes da nation to the brink of the absolute precipice, with dragons around and no bullets left in the gun. It should be voted down. Beavah

Yah, but I really want to know, am I da E. Coli. colony or da refrigerated chicken? Nah, Beavahs aren't chicken, eh? That would have to be them flighty BobWhites. Beavahs might carry Beavah Feavah if yeh don't treat your water though. Guess that makes me the E. Coli. I admit at this point I'm just tryin' to get a straight answer out of da bird for entertainment value, so here's kickin' again. 1) OK, BobWhite, assume someone was a member of a western Christian religious tradition, do yeh think they should "pick and choose" elements of their faith to believe in or not, as they see fit? 2) OK, BobWhite, it sounds like what you're sayin' is that a local council can actually waive a national safety policy for an individual unit, eh? Are yeh sure dat's what you want to claim? Even so, let's assume that da troop in question has chosen as a troop activity to participate in a triathalon hosted by one of da youth triathalon organizations recommended in Boys' Life. Assume further that they are in a council which does not require Tour Permits within the council service area, and da triathalon is bein' held within the council service area. So there's no obligation to get prior approval from council. I'm not just makin' this up; I know several councils where this is da case, and at least two units that participate in this kind of triathalon as both participants and safety workers. Now are yeh still claimin' that these troop leaders are unethical, violatin' da rules, endangering childrens' lives, etc. because they're swimmin' without a roped off swim area in more than 12 feet of water? 3) Yah, true that there are different rules for units and councils, eh? But of course yeh also know that Safe Swim Defense applies to both, right? But fine, let's say as a unit activity, a troop runs an event which includes an open water swim at the same camp where they went to summer camp, over da same course as the mile swim in camp. The event is supervised by a BSA Aquatics director and several BSA lifeguards (all of whom are scouters or youth in da unit), and da same sort of safety boatin' arrangement is in place as at camp. But it's a unit activity in September. Are yeh still claimin' that these troop leaders are unethical, violatin' da rules, endangering childrens' lives, etc., because they're swimmin' without a roped off swim area in more than 12 feet of water? And just to be even more clear, da camp is one of those that operates in a public state park durin' the summer, so in September, the unit is in the same state park, not on council property or supervised by a council ranger. Those exist too, eh? I think Eamonn's council's camp is like that. 4) Lets say a Sea Scout Ship activity or long cruise, pulls into a safe bay and anchors off in 15 ft deep water, and then allows the youth to go snorkeling off the boat to view da reef, or swimmin' off the transom, usin' the buddy system and good supervision and proper snorkeling safety and lifeguards and the rest. Is da Skipper really being unethical, violatin' da rules, endangering childrens' lives, etc. because they're swimmin' without a roped off swim area in more than 12 feet of water? (which, BTW, was my only reference to rope in da original post). Remember, da boldface rule in G2SS is "According to BSA Safe Swim Defense standards, no diving or swimming activity of any kind is done in water with a depth greater than 12 feet. Inquirin' minds want to know. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Naturally, BobWhite, we often see in others a reflection of our own foibles, eh? Like false premises and changin' da subject, I reckon. My original example said nuthin' about tyin' ropes around people and all that, eh? But since yeh want to stay on topic without changin' the subject, we're all waitin' for your answers to the followin' questions: 1) Do you believe it's OK to pick and choose what parts of your religious tradition to believe? Your personal religious tradition, eh? No need to speculate on others. Is it OK for you to pick and choose? 2) Do you believe that it's OK for a troop, as a troop activity to participate in a community triathalon to encourage fitness and tie in with da Boys' Life feature? 3) Do you believe that all those summer camps that do mile swims in open water over 12 feet deep with safety boaters are wrong, unethical, puttin' kids lives at risk, being bad examples, etc.? 4) Do you believe that SeaBase or a Sea Scout Ship or older Boy Scout sailing expedition that anchors in a safe bay and allows their youth to snorkel a reef or swim off da transom in water that might be over 12 feet deep (or without ropin' off three areas b/c that might damage da reef) are all wrong, unethical, endangering other people's children, not teachin' character, engaged in situational ethics, etc.? Live up to your own ethics, eh? Don't change the topic. Answer da questions directly. Is it in fact the obligation of a member of a community to follow the laws and rules of the community as a moral imperative in each of these four cases? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'm open to an explanation as to why this fix is needed and I'll probably get a better one here than "This sucker could go down." Effect so far is limited to commercial paper, SA. Commercial paper or "money market" is very short term debt issued mostly by banks, but also some big companies. A bank sells a big block of promissory notes, usually to a "money market fund", that pay relatively low interest on maturity. They get the cash to make other loans at higher interest. Kinda like a line of credit, except they do it cheaper than a line of credit by just rotatin' through these promissory notes. Problem is, they're addicted to that short-term credit, eh? Product of not keepin' big enough reserves, and playin' around with these darn derivative things particularly after repeal of Glass-Steagall. So if they're takin' a hit on the rest of their portfolio and depletin' their reserves, and some banks are failin', who wants to buy their short-term promissory notes? Nobody. Folks who've been dumb enough to do so have seen their money-market funds "break the buck" and go bust on what should be a "safe" investment in the last two weeks. Bunch of ordinary folk, too, who just had money market funds in investment accounts. So da banks can't sell their promissory notes for short-term capital, and therefore they have less money to lend and still less reserves. Run on da bank panicville. Thing is, the real issue is transparency, eh? Yeh need to see a bank's balance sheet to be able to tell da good ones from the fools. If yeh can do that, then yeh know who it's safe to accept a promissory note from, and who it isn't. Bingo, no more problem. We made it illegal to do that of course, so that "big players" didn't have an advantage over retail investors by gettin' information earlier, and gettin' better information from da raw books instead of management's official quarterly statements. No need to dump cash on everybody, just need to open da books and let the weak ones die. Of course, that'll accelerate the collapse of the bad ones, eh? Might add to the panic in the short term. Beavah

Some businesses are beginning to report that they can't arrange short term financing to buy inventory. That will lead to empty shelves, loss of customers, laid off workers, and "going out of business" signs in the windows if it continues. Yah, OK, this is another pet peeve of mine, eh? Why exactly is a business borrowin' money short term just to maintain inventory?? One of the pieces of the "Faustian Bargain" that packsaddle talks about has been the unethical and disgustin' practice of "maximizing shareholder value" in the short run by taking a cyclical industry and leveraging its balance sheet (borrowing a boatload of money) in good times. Wheee! Wheee!!! Stock price goes up, executive stock options soar! Then yeh hit the down cycle for da cyclical industry, and the company has no reserves, has to borrow just to keep inventory, is over-leveraged, and is faced with sellin' assets at a discount and cuttin' jobs right when da job market for folks is weakest. Good companies can go under with da practice. O' course, the execs and board members who are smart all "parachuted" out long before their choices came home to roost destroyin' the livelihood of a lot of workers. And to be fair, unions practice da same idiocy, eh? Pushin' for lush contracts in good times, only to guarantee their members massive layoffs when da cycle turns. Lunacy. Let 'em go under. But make directors who approve that kind of leveragin' personally liable for up to 10 years, with a "homestead" type exemption of $1M. We're goin' to be takin' the hit on this no matter what, eh? Better it be the bankers who caused the mess who get sunk than the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury. All together, between the two, they're contemplatin' between 2 and 3 trillion dollars of exposure - up to SIX Iraq wars. If you had loaned someone half of your available money, and they pay interest but never repay the principal and just keep borrowin' more money, and then in one year they borrowed another 20% while also tryin' to inflate their currency to avoid havin' to pay you real interest, what would you do? Would you keep loanin' 'em money? How about if your business was weak? Wouldn't you sell your riskiest asset - da loans you made to them? This bailout will stem the problem in the short term, maybe. But it only guarantees worse pain in the long term, when we are forced to make a huge jump in interest rates to protect the dollar and finance our debt. THAT really will be a depression. Better to pay the piper now than get run over by da entire band in the comin' years. Unless you're an unethical, socialist pseudo-republican fool of an executive who just wants to get out of Dodge and leave the problem to the next guy. Beavah

Yah, Bobwhite. I really was curious whether yeh felt it was OK to pick and choose what you would believe from your religious tradition, eh? But yeh keep dodging the question. So let's play your game. As I understand it, you're sayin' that every BSA camp which conducts mile swim in open water usin' safety boats (a very common camp practice) is endangering lives because they are not followin' da full SSD with roped-off areas, swimmin' in water over 12' deep and whatnot? And any unit that, for example, gets excited about encouragin' boys to be fit by participatin' in a local triathalon, just like the most recent issue of Boys' Life recommends, complete with contact information for youth triathalons, is puttin' lives at risk because of course da triathalon is conducted as an open-water swim without roped swim areas and in water over 12 feet deep. And any Sea Scout ship on a long cruise that anchors off in a bay and lets da Sea Scouts go snorkeling off the back of da boat along the reef is puttin' kids' lives at risk because they didn't take the time to (illegally in some cases in sensitive reef environments) marker and rope off areas and because the water may be greater than 12 feet deep? You know, like what almost every trip run by SeaBase does? Dang, we're a dangerous organization. Beavah

Yah, jblake, thanks for sharin' an interestin' permutation on an idea. I've seen units do the ASPL becomes SPL thing, or APL becomes PL so there's a trainin' progression. Another tool for my toolbox helpin' units! Thanks! Question for yeh, though... What do yeh do when two boys are both interested in a position. Or, more properly, what do the boys do? Have an election six months early? Work it out by consensus? Play rock, paper, scissors? SM's favorite gets the quiet nod? Might not come up much given your troop culture, but I bet that and the occasional lad who isn't doin' the job will come up at some point. Beavah

Yah, I was proud of the folks in da House yesterday who said "no" to this monstrosity of a bill. At this point, it's really hard to say how much of the market shock is real, and how much is the result of Bush, Paulson, and Bernacke runnin' around last week screaming "the sky is falling! give us money or else!". I hope they recess and go home. Any way yeh cut it, we're goin' to be payin' the price for this inanity, but I'd rather it be us than the boys I see out campin' on weekends. It was a mess our generation made. A massive bailout only postpones the mess, while handin' the Unitary Executive congress's power of the purse. Borrow another 700 billion, on top of da nearly 500 billion we already borrowed this year, on top of an $11 trillion debt, on top of a worldwide banking mess and slowdown, and yeh make da credit of the United States suspect. We're really not much better than one of those subprime borrowers, eh? Already have taken out a loan of $100K per family and now we want more? If we do this deal, by next summer, expect our creditors to be dumpin' dollars and treasuries. No Federal Reserve magic or bailout possible from that, eh? Nah. Better to pay the piper now. Beginning with the nitwits on Wall Street who caused this mess. No bailouts. No parachutes. Consequences. Beavah

Yah, CubScoutJo, good question, eh? One school of thought is "Why have fixed terms or fixed-time elections?" Elections should be called by the patrol whenever they feel it's necessary or appropriate to make a change in leadership, or when the PLC feels it's time to have a new SPL. There's considerable merit to that approach, which was Baden-Powell's. I reckon Kudu will jump in soon and tell yeh all about it. Don't mind his rhetoric too much. He's a passionate fellow, but there's some good ideas and good scoutin' under the rhetoric. Otherwise, in troops that do hold "timed" elections it seems like every year or every 6 months are da most common. If every year, then elections can be held so that new lads are in positions prior to the troop annual planning conference, so the new youth leaders plan da year's program and then get to execute it. So it's elections -> troop leader trainin' -> annual planning conference in short order. That might be in da late spring/summer (so the new SPL can attend NYLT trainin' at council during the summer and the kids can plan for the fall). Or it might be some other time durin' the year, like recharter time or January. For every 6 month elections, my guess is dat folks are lookin' at the 6 month term needed for positions for Life Scout and Eagle Scout, eh? That can be an issue if they're really tryin' to use advancement to drive their use of patrol method rather than vice versa. Not da best approach, IMO. In that case, a new group of leaders might "inherit" part of an annual plan they didn't put together, which can be a problem. Best to have lads plan for 6 months, then, and choose times that make for a good transition in planning. And of course, then yeh have to offer troop leader trainin' and other trainin' for the new leaders more frequently. More frequently than 6 months would be unusual, eh? Boys need time to learn from experience and to grow into a position. Sometimes, though, New Scout Patrols will be encouraged to elect a new patrol leader a bit more frequently as a learnin' exercise. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hiya boysmom3, Welcome to the forums, eh? Sorry it took a bit of a mess with your troop to get yeh to your first posts, but I'm glad to have yeh. IMO, there's nuthin' worse for Scouting than "adult wars" in a unit. It's why I always encourage folks to think carefully about goin' down that road. Few things hurt boys and programs in the way that does. It's really hard for any of us out here in the ether to offer advice, since we know less about your unit than you do. Here are some thoughts to consider. 1) How old is your son? If he's been a couple of years in a troop, then perhaps a few of those former leaders who left might be interested in goin' somewhere and startin' a Venturing Crew. Even more exciting outdoors, maintain connections that your son has made. 2) Even if #1 isn't possible, I'd encourage yeh to talk to one of the leaders your son really liked who has left. Share your concern. Scout leaders are by and large good people, and will be helpful if they can be helpful. They might have ideas we here do not. 3) Talk to the parents of your son's friends in da troop. Get their perspective. Find out what they're thinkin' and what they intend to do. 4) There are three places locally where you can also voice your concern. a) Yeh can approach the Troop Committee or the Committee Chair. Yeh might not get help, but you can convey your concern and perhaps learn a bit more about the issues. b) Yeh can approach the BSA Council, and ask for the contact number for the District Commissioner for your district. Commissioners, both district ones and unit ones, sometimes can help a unit strugglin' with "adult wars" by bein' outside friends for perspective. c) Yeh can contact the Chartered Organization Representative or Institutional Head of the Church, school, PTO or club which owns the troop, and share your concern. If the organization is "active" in the troop, they are the ones who can really make changes. If they aren't "active", they are still da ones who can really make change, but they may need some guidance from da troop committee or a commissioner. 5) I reckon this last bit is most important. Keep showin' support and encouragement for your son. Kids of his age like and need "connections" to people and programs, eh? Fact is, though, sometimes people move on for a variety of reasons... and even if they didn't, he will as he grows. It might not be as good as when Mr. Beavah was there, but Scoutin' and the great outdoors can still be fun, and with Mr. Beavah gone, his troop needs your son. Fill him up with hope and a sense of responsibility, and maybe he'll find rekindled, but different, fun in his troop. Yours in service, Beavah

You cannot possibly believe that there is a comparison between having to miss a campout in order to attend your father's funeral, and choosing to ingore a safety rule and endangering the lives of other people's children by ingnoring a safety rule? Nope. But nobody was talkin' about endangerin' lives, BobWhite. Nice spin, though. Always easier to get people to vote for a big honkin' bailout if you spread a lot of fear around, eh? You'd fit in nicely with this white house team, I reckon . We were talkin' about a man breakin' his word and bein' unTrustworthy to the "program," because of da "situational ethics" of his father passing away. You'd endorse situational ethics in this case, then, I take it? GoldWinger it seems would not, perhaps to his credit. He believes his word is his bond. But you think it would be OK for the man to cancel the trip, even though he was breaking his agreement? As for da rest, I was clearly raisin' too many things at once, and confusin' things. Forget drivin' in the dark in winter, or doin' a mile swim or triathalon in open water for now. Yah, but I am curious if yeh come from a Christian tradition, and whether you feel you can "pick and choose" what parts of your faith to believe? Beavah