Beavah

Yah, BuffaloSkipper, just depends, eh? Committees can be set up all kinds of different ways. I know some unit committees that are essentially made up of the youth ministry team of da CO. They might be completely "closed." Other committees are completely "open" to all parents and adult members and everybody gets a say/vote. Just depends on da CO and how they want to structure it. Generally speakin' I think in larger troops it's a good thing to have a committee that's selected rather than "open." Just helps avoid problems with new folks who aren't yet trained or others who are hard to work with and can monopolize group time. However, most of the discussion can be open, except when talkin' about kids or campership finances or whatnot. If a committee is an "open" one, then not allowing SM or ASM to attend or vote I think is insulting to those hard-working volunteers. They typically have kids in the program, too, and they're giving more time than anyone on the committee. They should have a say. Just simple decency and fairness. However, in the CO youth ministry committee, that wouldn't be the case, eh? Just depends. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Don't listen to all da drivel, daveinWA. Your role as a unit scouter is to serve da mission of your Chartered Organization and its goals for youth development. What do they say active is? What values do they want to teach children about commitment and loyalty and all da rest. That's what you should adhere to. If our mission is to build character and timeless values, then da notion that active = registered is ridiculous. The official BSA Rules and Regulations that you agreed to when you became a member state the Policy of the BSA: An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age. So there yeh have it, the official rules that trump whatever tripe da national office is putting out. An active member registers, AND obligates himself to attend meetings regularly AND fulfills a member's obligation to the unit AND subscribes to the Scout Oath AND participates. That's what yeh agreed to do as a condition of membership in the BSA. But as a CC, you work for the Chartered Organization, eh? So it all comes back to what I started with. What does the Chartered Organization believe and want to teach young people? You are honor-bound to promote that, even if the BSA down the road chooses to reverse you. Beavah

Nuthin' fraudulent at all about it. Perhaps a bit juvenile. Most "closely affiliated" crews with troops share leaders and youth, eh? Multiple registration is cheap, and joint trips are common for recruiting, instruction, and other purposes. Again, our mission as scouters, our only reason for existence, is service. Cheerful, friendly, loyal service. At the point when we aren't doin' that, people should go elsewhere. And if we fail in our commitment to service often enough, we should cease to be. Beavah

To serve the Chartered Organization by providing structure, support, and guidance for the Organization's scouting program in accord with the Organization's mission and values. To learn and make best use of the BSA materials and other resources to achieve the aims of the Chartering Organization for the particular youth it serves. To provide recommendations and feedback to the Chartering Organization on leadership selection and other issues of import to the Organization's scouting program. To take on additional responsibilities and tasks as directed by the Chartering Organization. To conduct themselves in a manner that represents the values of the Chartering Organization and the BSA.

LOL. Yah, that's a creative (and common) work-around, eh? Da risk of course is that yeh do break your relationships within the troop. Da place where we see this most commonly is with GSUSA units that also charter with da BSA as Venturing Crews. Whenever the GSUSA regulations become too much of a pain, they just go on the outing as a crew. Of course we also see the same response to goofy BSA regulations like the laser tag thing, where folks just go as a CO or family activity. All these folks are just service providers, eh? At the point when they stop providin' a service, folks just go elsewhere, as they should. B

Yah, interestin'. A lot of folks are about where I'd expect. In da most youth-run unit I work with, the boys: * Plan either a six-month or annual calendar, including budget and fundraisers. * One or two PLC members plan each outing (and meetings that prepare for the outin'), including making reservations and instructing the treasurer or an adult to make payments. That includes high adventure trips, summer camp, etc. * Patrol Leaders and the PLC members planning an outing manage all safety plans/preparation/instruction/discipline/decision making on most outings (exceptions for outfitter-supported trips). * Patrols routinely select their own routes or make their own plans within a particular outing, and camp/hike/etc. without adults. In other words the SPL doesn't set times for most things (wake up, etc.), each PL does. * Older boys do signoffs for T21. * Experienced youth handle most ordinary first aid response. * Set their own rules/expectations for each other, and sometimes for adults. * Decide on troop gear purchases. * Serve on BORs, run Courts of Honor. * Determine patrol membership & structure. * Contribute to decisions on SM and ASM appointments. * Decide on appropriate uniforming. Of course, then get can find troops that don't let boys do any of that , or any combination in between. Da thing is, the units that are more youth-run are also the units that have (as one poster put it) more of a skills emphasis, eh? In other words, they tend not to do First Class in a Year, and they focus heavily on skills proficiency in the program and as part of TLT. As SR540 put it, the boys (and adults) make sure the boys really develop the skills to succeed at these tasks. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Hadn't thought through all da implications. As RichardB indicates, da health form is designed mostly with camps in mind, eh? Camps in many states get treated as day care centers or somethin' similar under state law and regulations. That is to say, yeh have a paid staff that doesn't know the boys but is professionally trained. Da state laws really don't anticipate the typical BSA camp case, where the boys come with volunteer leaders and parents who do know the boys, know their circumstances, and are often granted explicit permission or authority by the parents beyond da usual "camp staff" stuff. Problem is often da councils and camp staff are so focused on da state law and regulation components as though they were a YMCA camp that they don't understand da funky overlap. And to be fair, sometimes da state regulators don't get it, either. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats, after all. Yeh see this often with inane medication policies, eh? But also in da other medical stuff. It's all written like da camp is takin' care of the kid, where in reality in most cases the adult who knows the boy and is known to the parents is likely to be takin' a primary role (and might even be the parent). Things get even more challengin' when yeh take da med form designed for camp and try to apply it to regular troop operations. For one thing, yeh have to be very careful about waivers and permissions between states. Different states have different expectations for such things. Da second thing is that some of the stuff designed for camp can get yeh in trouble, like this release stuff. Generally speakin' within a troop most folks don't run a gate check after a meeting or outing and make sure that da person picking up a lad is on da approved list. Heck, some of da carpool arrangements I've seen would have parents listing a dozen or more people, and then all of a sudden the college-aged older brother of one of the boys in the carpool does the pickup and he's not on the list. Long and short of it is most folks would think it reasonable for leaders not to do that kind of high-scrutiny check before sending the boys home. However, if those forms were collected that asked for da information, then there's a good shot that most folks would consider it negligent if yeh didn't follow da instructions you solicited on your own form. So da form potentially increases da liability of unit scouters if they don't adhere to it. IMNSHO, given that da forms were designed for camps and we seem to be addin' stuff just to make Texas or other states happy, units would be better off not usin' the BSA form for regular unit operations, at least in terms of da permissions. Have your own permission form / liability waiver that's tailored to your unit operations and your state, and make it clear that da BSA health form stuff applies only to BSA camp, if then. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... I think we all mostly recognize a few things: 1) What this CC/COR/CO is doin' is not required by the BSA, is not "normal" in scouting, and is what most scouters would consider "over the top." Da sort of thing rraffalo is proposing is pretty ordinary, and done by troops and crews all the time. It doesn't really pose any objective hazards except in people's minds. And rraffalo is correct, da same sort of things can happen on a car ride, eh? One driver takes a wrong turn, has a breakdown, suffers a heart attack, gets in an accident and now yeh have 4 kids along da side of a rural road somewhere with only one (possibly incapacitated) adult. Not everywhere has cell phone coverage, and up until a few years ago we did this all the time without cell phones. 2) Da CC should not mandate this on his own, it is properly the role of the committee to make that call when they approve the outing. 3) The CO/COR can mandate this on his own, but generally should not micromanage da committee unless it truly represents an area of concern for the chartered partner. But yeh can see how it might. A church that is a CO and runs other youth groups might well have an expectation for two-deep coverage on all legs of a trip. It's not completely unreasonable in that broader context, where often some of da youth group leaders are paid staff. So really, da folks just need to talk. Rraffalo can set whatever conditions he wants for his own participation. He doesn't "owe" volunteer time or donation dollars to the CO. At da same time, the CO can set whatever conditions it wants to allow a trip or individual to go, because they're responsible for the program in a way rraffalo is not. Rraffalo should respect that they may be operatin' under different expectations and constraints. Personally, at this late date if this truly is a Chartered Partner constraint, I think the chartered partner should put up the money to make it work, and pay for rraffalo's added plane fare. That's somethin' da COR should authorize. If the COR isn't in that position, then he should sit down with da IH and make that budget request or find out what wiggle there is in da CO expectation. That has nuthin' to do with rraffalo, though, eh? And he can't force that to happen. All rraffalo can or should do is explain what he's willin' to do and where his willingness or ability to volunteer ends. Everything is always easier if each person just does their own job, rather than tryin' to do someone else's. Yeh know, be adults. Rraffalo should describe what he is and isn't willing to do as a volunteer. Da CC should have expressed his lack of comfort with da arrangements, and then taken the question to the committee to help find ideas and solutions. The COR should have communicated da CO's expectations well in advance to the committee, and should help the committee and scout volunteers with all the support required for them to comply. If each person sticks to their proper role and behaves in a service-minded and friendly way, it's much easier to keep molehills from becoming mountains and then volcanoes. Beavah

Yah, EagleScouter2010, welcome! What you describe I see a lot of, eh? The adults who take kids camping by and large like camping, eh? They enjoy it, they want to do it, they want to show perfect their own skills. They're like big kids, eh? It's a very different thing to think about teachin' rather than leadin'. If yeh don't have some fellow among the adults who is really into helpin' kids learn more than they're into camping, it can be hard to get adults to see things. It's a bit like da coach who was a great soccer player and still wants to play, and spends his time hollerin' from the sidelines. Yeh have to try to gently get the adults to see that as scouters, they succeed ot when they're good campers, but only when the scouts are good campers on their own. Yeh might even try the coaching metaphor with 'em. You need to play the game and they can't be on the field. One way to do that is to try to get 'em to buy into the common arrangement that the adults camp together on their own, in the "adult patrol". If any adult visits a youth patrol campsite, he has to ask for permission to enter and is expected to act as a good guest. Same for the boys entering the adult site. That, by itself, will do a lot to get 'em thinking differently. Biggest thing here is don't fight your adults, help 'em grow. They're good guys and gals to be takin' yeh out, eh? They just haven't grown into being good mentors and scout leaders yet. So your job is to encourage 'em in a friendly way. Here are some things to try: 1) challenge them to a contest. Scouts vs. Adults camping/cooking whatever. The contest will get yeh to separate them off, which is the key. The scouts will lose. That's OK. Then ask 'em to teach you instead of doing it for you. Then challenge 'em again. 2) tell your dad you'd like to go with him and visit another troop. Call up your council office and ask the District Executive if he knows a troop that's really youth-run, and then call up that troop and ask if yeh can come as a guest. It really helps if your dad can see, smell, touch, taste what's possible in a boy led troop, and talk to other adults (adults don't always listen to kids that well, eh? ). Do that a bunch. 3) tell your SM that you and another up and coming leader want to do NYLT training (council-level training for youth leaders), and you really need him to do WoodBadge training at the same time as a commitment to each other. Those two trainings run in parallel, eh? NYLT helps youth leaders run a troop, WB helps adults manage a youth-run troop. Plus you'll get ideas from fellow youth leaders and your SM will get ideas from fellow SMs. 4) keep it fun and friendly as yeh teach your adults. Use lots of thought-provoking statements rather than arguing. "Camping is like riding a bike. You can't do it for me, and I need to fall down a few times.". "Camping is a lot safer than driving. Eventually you have to give us the keys and get out of the car." Be patient, be of good humor, and keep nudgin' em to learn to be good scouters, not just good campers. Beavah

In da parent thread a young JASM asks for help tryin' to get the adults in his troop to back off and let the boys do things on their own. One of da things that always comes up when you're workin' with troops is the worry that "boys aren't capable" of doing this, that, or the other thing. So it seems to me we should have a thread we can point folks to that describes in detail what boys really are capable of doin' on their own and without help. Somethin' that might be used to inspire, or embarrass, other adults into movin' to a more boy run program. For all of you out there who have truly youth run units, or who have tried it and been surprised to see it work, or who have overcome your fears... share your tales. Tell us true stories of what da youth in your troop have done on their own without adult support or help. Tell us also what things da youth do routinely, that no adult would ever even consider doing (cooking, perhaps?) Let's show da fearful and reluctant what's truly possible, eh? Beavah

Hiya NealonWheels. Answer da question in my last post startin' with "Now answer me this." Capital gains taxes on corporations incentivize business growth (not taxed as capital gains) over playin' the market (taxed as capital gains). In a similar way, taxes raised to improve common infrastructure increase business investment and the general economy. Businesses look for a well-educated and reliable work force and will invest in those areas. Infrastructure like da federal highway system or the GPS satellite constellation spurs business investment and innovation by reducing costs. There's a reason why business startups are strongest in da areas served by large public universities supported by tax dollars, eh? Go to any town or small city and get a sewer map. I guarantee yeh that where the sewer system stops so does 80% of the business activity. Taxes to build or maintain common infrastructure or appropriately regulate commerce so as to minimize fraud are good for business, business investment, and the economy. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

There is an unpleasant bias among our educated elites to sneer at religion, and this latest prediction certainly brought out that bias. Oh I don't know. While I suppose I'm an educated fellow, I sneered at Camping because I am a Christian and he was talking damnable nonsense. And yes, God really does damn people for falsely claiming to speak in His name. About that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Matthew 24:36 To claim to know the time of Judgment is to claim to be greater than the Son of God. It is pure and simple blasphemy. And like all blasphemy, it cast all of us people of faith in a bad light. Most people's knowledge of most things is based on listening to and trusting others. Listening to and trusting what parents say, listening to and trusting what teachers say, reading and trusting what books and newspapers say. If it weren't for that, we'd still be back in da bronze age. Just because yeh pick good sources and listen to them doesn't mean those sources are wrong. Even most scouts eventually admit that their parents were right about most things. No different when talkin' about science. Yah, yah, we can be like a petulant teenager in our approach and stick our fingers in our ears and go "la la la not listening!" or argue this that and the other thing the way we all did with our parents. Doesn't make da science wrong. Just makes us look like petulant little kids who really need a program like scouting. Beavah

Nah, BadenP, even with a good, active COR. The committee makes a recommendation and the COR usually rubber-stamps, unless there's a real CO interest in the matter. All da BSA materials talk about after all is COR "approval." Nuthin' anywhere about "disapproval." I think one of the things that's happenin' in a couple of these threads is that units are doin' things like appointing old CC's to da COR position (without real understanding what they're doin'). Then the COR becomes a defender of "the way I used to do things" rather than really being the representative of the CO's mission and values. Beavah

Yah, what 5yearscouter said, eh? Sorry for da alphabet soup. IH: The institutional head of the Chartered Organization. If the COR is the head of the scouting department in the organization, the IH is the CEO of the organization. The pastor of the church, the President of the PTA, the Head Guy of the men's group. The only person who with the stroke of a pen can wipe the entire troop from the face of the earth. UC: Unit Commissioner. A volunteer "nice fella" who volunteers for the district/council rather than for a unit, and whose job it is to be an "outside helper" to the unit. Experience varies. Presence varies in different councils. A good one can be a great help, but mediocrity is more common. DE: District Executive. A paid staff person at the council office whose job it is to serve a particular geographic area. Is expected to meet with IH's once a year but few do. Frequently the point person at the council office for unit problems, but has no real authority other than lookin' official. Can be very good, can be very bad, often is very young. The point being "take someone who looks official and can express the BSA's position so that the IH doesn't have to take your word for it." Good luck with it. Listen to the others, eh? Do what's right for all the boys. Beavah

Yah, this gets back to goals, eh? I think yeh can have a few documents. 1) A short one-pager that is bylaws, with perhaps a page of explanation for new members on how the committee operates and what its scope is. 2) A longer policy/procedures set that the committee puts in place and refers to when needed that might cover some of what I suggested above. 3) A short new parent handbook which gives the basics like Ox describes. Easy & quick. Or, if yeh want somethin' longer, require training for all of your committee members. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Well, first off, da COR certainly can do what he's doin'. Yeh can't win that fight if he plays CO trump. Da question would be whether he is honestly and accurately representing the position of the CO on the matter. A COR is not meant to be a tin dictator, but the representative of the owner. Yeh resolve that question by having a meeting with the COR and IH. I would bring your UC or council program person or DE if possible. The question is a simple one: is this really the Chartered Organization's policy or has the COR misinterpreted the IH's and organization's position? Making it clear that it's not a BSA requirement, and making it clear that the trip will be canceled without your participation, and making it clear that it might result in a mass exodus from the unit helps focus that conversation. Da CC signature issue is now moot, eh? Before the COR got involved yeh could have just gone to the committee for approval. Now that's off the table. Honestly, I think you're probably too hot around the collar to have the COR/IH conversation without doin' more harm than good. As moosetracker says, unless it's handled with a lot of finesse, a decision to override da COR and CC on a contentious issue is essentially a vote of "no confidence" in the COR and CC. It's really a decision to replace both of them, because yeh can't have people traipsing off to the IH on silly stuff like this. It's the stuff a CC should be handling. That burns a lot of bridges and relationships, eh? So yeh have to ask yourself, is this issue worth all that damage? Do yeh really want to tear your troop apart because of your family vacation? I guarantee you'll lose half your boys and families from scouting. Sometimes being right is da wrong way to go, if all it leaves is scorched earth. Being an adult also means compromising and workin' with others who are at times difficult. I can't say from afar what's right for you and your unit. Yeh know the people, and you know the kids that will be hurt. Da choices to me seem to be 1) schedule the meeting with you, the co-trip leader, the DE, and the IH (and the COR/CC at the IH's discretion), or 2) quit the trip because of your prior family commitment, expect a full refund, and let the chips fall where they may, or 3) be the adult in the situation, chalk it up to bad communication, and either eat the RT airfare for yourself or ask for reimbursement for it so that the trip can run. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I reckon some of that was from your R/C culture, eh? You folks take da notion of sin, guilt, and penance to a high art form. But I do believe you are right even in da secular sense. There is no sense of honor anymore. This of course is most noticeable in politics, which was always a bit honor-deprived. But it used to be that there were certain lines a fellow wouldn't cross at least in public. You'd see folks present their argument in da best light, but they wouldn't lie. You'd see folks do their best to get legislation through, but they wouldn't try to use procedural work-arounds or manipulate da process. That was a matter of honor, particularly in the Senate. Now "winning" or "scoring points" seems to mean more. Banking, too, is a good example. Banking used to be a pretty staid, boring profession, eh? Yeh provide a service. Yeh know your clients. Yeh make a few percent a year on the spread plus some fees. Now da entire banking industry is about gambling with other people's money. Excitement. Trading. Making 30% a year usin' leveraged instruments. Used to be that would be dishonorable, eh? An honorable fellow exercises greater care with the money of others than his own; anyone who didn't would be so ashamed they might even jump from their highrise office. Beavah

Hiya JoeBob, welcome to da longrunnin' discussion. BS-87 is a a fun fellow and good to debate with. Thanks BS-87! I'm not sure I quite understand yeh, JoeBob. What "strangulating energy policy" are you referrin' to? Da U.S. energy policy hasn't changed in da last 2-3 years, or indeed in the last 20. It remains as incoherent as ever. I agree with yeh that the financial re-regulation bill is a complicated mess that fails to achieve in 2000 pages what depression-era laws achieved in 50. That's mostly because the banking lobby got a hold of it. But since it's barely into implementation, I don't think yeh can honestly blame it for the economy. And da health care industry is about the only industry that has been actively adding jobs, eh? So much as I agree with you that the health law is another monstrous mess that will cost taxpayers money in the long haul, in the short haul it controls the deficit and hasn't harmed the economy. Heck, very little of it is in place yet. So perhaps yeh can explain your thoughts in more detail. Now answer me this. You are an exec in an American business and yeh have a mess of cash in the bank. You are evaluated based on short-term performance (quarterly and annual), and da accounting rules say yeh can mark to market. You can take that cash and invest it in a new factory, hire new workers, and increase production. That will take at least 5 years to see results from, and odds are yeh won't even be with da company then. Or, you can take that cash and go play the market. Da market is up almost 100% in da past two years. That's 40% profit per year, mark to market. Yeh don't have to produce a thing, yeh don't have to wait 5 years to see a big boost to your bottom line. And what's more? Da business capital gains tax is so low that yeh get to keep most of it. It's a much better investment for your stockholders than doin' something slow and pedestrian like increasing production and hiring workers. When yeh look at policy and its effects, look at what gets incentivized, eh? Low business capital gains taxes incentivize trading rather than building, while low personal capital gains taxes incentivize saving and investing. There's a difference. Beavah

Holy smoke. Really? That's truly sad. A museum should honor history, eh? Not try to rewrite it. Timeless values include being Trustworthy and Loyal. B

Nah, my opposition to da gold standard is that (1) the supply of gold is limited and the growth of gold supply (from mining) does not match the growth of the economy. That will create a deflating currency, which discourages investment. In other words, if da currency is tied to gold, and the gold supply is not growing as fast as the economy, then you're best off to hold on to the currency because it will become more valuable with time. So it's not worth taking a risk and investing it. This "hiding money in mattresses" deflation is what causes depressions. (2) historically, the volatility of gold and other commodities has been much higher than the volatility of fiat currencies. High volatility makes a currency unstable and risky, and makes it hard for businesses or consumers to make business and investment decisions prudently. Yeh want a stable currency. Nothing about the gold standard prevents borrowing, either by the government or private individuals. When we were on the gold standard, we still had banks and savings and loans, and we still issued corporate bonds and treasury bonds and municipal bonds. Leveraged borrowing while on the gold standard contributed to the Great Depression. What you're talking about when you talk about forcing people to pay as they go is eliminating banking. Yeh can do that. Da Catholic Church did in da middle ages, though folks then went to Jewish bankers. All it gets yeh is a much bigger government and a lot more serfs. Beavah

Ah, BadenP. You know me. I reckon it's the people that do the work who control the outcome most of the time, eh? And that's the committee. We all know most units don't have very involved CORs & IHs. Besides, from a group dynamics point of view, I think CORs are well advised to involve da committee in the process most of the time. Transparency and buy-in are good things. There are of course times for a COR to exercise full authority, but that should really only be in da worst of cases. Beavah

You're completely underselling the success many communities are finding in localized currency. Nah, I'm completely ridiculing it. People will always barter a bit, but it's terribly inefficient. Any society that uses it as a primary means of exchange is guaranteed to fall far behind a society that uses an exchange mechanism that has less friction and higher portability. It's just foolish except in small-scale edge cases. If yeh live in a commune or a prison, have at it! And as yeh say, yeh can always create a new currency. There's a couple new internet ones out there now I understand, tryin' to become iCash. That can work OK for a bit among people of goodwill, though typically such things are wildly susceptible to speculation or fraud by less commune-oriented business types. Essentially, they're a great way for smart people to fleece fools. Beavah

Oops. Missed your question. Well, da logical thing if yeh wanted to base a currency on somethin' that would match economic growth without being jiggered might be energy. One dollar equals one kilowatt-hour of energy production. But it's hard to implement, and it has some of its own problems. More important to my mind is that yeh have to keep the Fed independent of the government and focused just on monetary stability. Fed interest rates should be based on bond yield spreads (the difference in yields between long-term and short-term bonds, which reflects what the market feels about the long-term growth of the economy). That is transparent and allows for a growth of money supply matched pretty well with economic growth, thus maintaining a stable currency. Where I think we blew it is when we expanded da role of the Federal Reserve from monetary stability to economic stability. That's a very different thing, and has resulted in this bubble-production machine, because they're always waitin' too long lookin' for signs of economic recovery or inflation. It's interestin', though, that all that increase in money supply hasn't caused much inflation, eh? It's just caused bubbles. That's sorta weird. I think it's because we've cut capital gains taxes for businesses too far. Without capital gains taxes, it's more profitable in the short-term for businesses to "play the market" than it is for them to grow their business and increase employment. And short term is what most American businesses care about. So yeh have more money in the markets but less money actually building the baseline economy. Without that added employment/business growth, yeh don't get real inflation. Yeh just get asset inflation, whether it's stocks or home prices or speculation in oil and commodities. So while there's all this money around, it's only the bankers and brokers gettin' rich on shufflin' it and producing nothing, while unemployment stays high. One of those weird situations where yeh need to increase taxes to improve business investment and the general economy. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, that's all a muddle again, BS-87. Yah, you're right, I was simplifyin' a bit. There are government bonds that can just be issued by government bodies (city councils, university boards, etc.) in anticipation of future revenues. But you were talkin' about people voting on special projects, eh? Somethin' like building a new school. And in those cases, the people are both authorizing the debt and increasing property tax to service that debt. So da tax increase comes with the bond authorization. Now let's say a bank can borrow money from da Fed at 1%, and they can buy your school-building bond which returns 4%. So they can borrow money from the Fed and use it to buy your bonds, even though they otherwise wouldn't have the reserves. When yeh pay off your bonds, you pay 4%, the bank gets 3%, and the Fed gets 1%. The Fed printed money to make the loan, but in the end they took back in (and destroyed) more money than they printed. When a Central Bank is purchasing, it's not purchasing with debt. It's either purchasing with dollars (created out of thin air), or with its reserves (gold, foreign currencies, etc. that it has). You're mixing it up with the government. When the government is purchasing, it might be purchasing by issuing debt (U.S. Treasury bonds). With quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve is buying Treasury Bonds with dollars (created out of thin air), that the government must repay with interest (which will make more dollars than were created disappear). The Fed holds those Treasury Bonds in its reserves, and can sell them to investors to diversify its reserves. None of that has anything directly to do with mortgage or bank bailouts. It's a wild and crazy mechanism for keeping interest rates low and introducing more money to the system so as to prevent deflation/depression. If instead the central bank were limited by a gold standard, then what would happen in a panic like this is that people would demand gold for their dollars, wiping out the central bank reserve, and the central bank would not be able to control interest rates. So in a high risk environment like 2008-09, interest rates would skyrocket, lending would cease, and you'd have Great Depression II. So da absence of a gold standard saved us from economic catastrophe. I'm not sure what your objection is to selling bonds to foreign banks or individuals. That's routine stuff. It provides foreign banks with dollar-denominated reserves which allow them to loan money to their citizens which in turn allows their citizens to buy American-made products. Why do yeh object to that? And of course debt is leverage or a "money multiplier effect". That's how all modern economics works. If yeh want to buy a house, you take out a mortgage. For a small down-payment yeh suddenly get control of a large amount of cash which allows you to buy the house. That cash in turn goes to boost the economy by paying a realtor and the builder and his employees, which causes them to employ more people, which grows the economy, which helps you earn what you need to pay off your mortgage. Now, in the end, da value of any asset is only what people will exchange for it. Doesn't matter whether it's gold or dollars or barrels of oil. If yeh increase the supply of dollars faster than the growth of the dollar-denominated economy then yeh would expect some devaluation/inflation. But only if it's in circulation, eh? Not if it's in da mattress (or a bank reserve). If yeh stuff it in a safe, its value increases because there's less supply in circulation. That's why da employment figure matters. No different for gold, eh? Da value of gold has crashed in da past, as has the value of oil. Right now the value of gold is hyperinflating because people are hording it. Certainly the fiat-currency dollar has fluctuated, but nowhere near as much as gold. So based on da objective data, tying a currency to a less stable commodity like gold doesn't make much sense at all. Yep, it's all a house of cards when yeh get right down to it. Da modern world uses a token, a chit, to represent value in order to make commerce work. The token is really just a piece of paper. It's a crazy system in a way, but it sure beats the heck out of bartering chickens for medicine and labor for electricity. Beavah

LOL. I like da idea of a firing ceremony. momof2cubs, in da case of a PTA, yes, it would be the case that the PTA president is the IH. BP is 110% correct on this matter, only the IH and COR can remove a person, the committee and the unit leaders have no vote in the matter. Nah, this is 50% wrong, not 110% right. Practically speakin', the procedure for removing someone is the same as the procedure for appointing someone, eh? Essentially, it's just appointing a replacement. When yeh appoint a new CC, the old CC is removed. There's no form, after all, for "removing" a CC. The BSA recommended procedure to appoint someone is that the COMMITTEE makes the selection (by consensus or by vote or by lot or by the Holy Spirit), and then the COR approves the selection (or does not approve, and sends it back to the committee). So the committee in most circumstances certainly does have a vote in the matter. In fact, there are relatively few COs that do things more centrally. So while it's true that a COR or IH can act unilaterally, and it's true that they do need to approve of a change, it's also true that CORs and IHs generally set up da normal procedure to be that the committee decides. I think yeh would be hard pressed to find a single unit where da COR acts unilaterally in an average district. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)