Beavah

This is why special projects should be paid for through bonds instead of just raising taxes Yah, hmmm.... Yeh do understand what a bond is, eh? It's a debt obligation that's paid for by raising taxes. Yeh need to build a school, but everybody in da neighborhood can't fork over $10K each to pay for a school in cash. So yeh authorize the school district to pay an investment bank help it issue bonds, which in turn are mostly purchased by banks or insurers or pension funds who might in turn be borrowin' from the Central Bank. The bond means that you agree to a tax increase which will pay the amount borrowed back, with interest, over the course of some period of time. So when yeh authorize a bond, you are both increasing taxes and in all likelihood borrowin' from the Central Bank. In fact, that's how the Central Bank helps the economy, eh? By making funds available to borrow that wouldn't otherwise be available, so that builders can be employed building your school, so that teachers can be employed to staff it, so that kids can be educated, so that the economy will expand. Beavah

Nope, SeattlePioneer. Payin' for societal services is a moral and civic duty. Yep, I've no doubt that there are folks out there who feel that only other people should pay, and would happily freeload if given da opportunity. They'd use the roads but not pay for 'em, benefit from an educated populace in their workplace or community but not pay for education, have lower insurance costs because of fire and police protection and not pay for it. And of course send other people's kids off to fight a couple of wars to protect 'em but not pay for those either. So yah, while taxes are a moral and civic duty, an obligation of citizenship that requires every good citizen to pay for the common expenses of society, we do have to respond to those who are selfish and would take advantage of the group for their own benefit. That's why we have laws against theft and fraud, and enforce them with guns and prison. And that's why we have laws against tax evasion, and enforce them with guns and prison. Because while most citizens understand and recognize that paying taxes honestly and fully is a civic obligation, there are some folks who try to steal, or would steal if there weren't an enforcement mechanism. Maybe that's you. It isn't me. Of course if everyone were in Boy Scoutin' and were taught their rights and responsibilities as a citizen and kept to their Oath, then yeh wouldn't need tax evasion laws. Or many others, for that matter. Beavah

The way a CO protects it's unit is to fire people who are causing problems or acting inappropriately. And to have policies and procedures in place for a variety of things. Yeh know any organization anywhere that only protects itself by hiring/firing? That doesn't also have employee handbooks and policies and the like? I reckon there's a reason for that, eh? Furthermore, Scout units generally aren't run by majoritarian processes. Leaders are appointed to make decisions. Youth leaders are typically elected by a plurality or majority. Troop committees typically operate by majority or consensus. Unit leaders are selected by da committee or a subcommittee operating by majority or consensus. Scout units generally should be run in a manner similar to the kind of citizenship and values we're tryin' to teach, eh? That most often means majoritarian processes for leader selection and then leaders making decisions within policy or procedural strictures that ensure review and oversight. Beavah

Yah, 5yearscouter, I reckon you can google and find all kinds of examples that might give yeh ideas. I didn't feel comfortable answerin' your question directly because I don't know your situation, your CO, or the goals of your group. There are a lot of ways to go about this stuff. Some of us here are familiar with more formal environments where there are distinctions between bylaws, policies, procedures, and guidelines. I don't think for an average troop yeh need to get that formal, though in a large unit it might help to make some distinctions. And of course in a self-chartered unit it is necessary. Traditionally "bylaws" define how the troop committee is formed and functions. Things like: Classes of membership (do you have regular and ex officio? is it open to all parents or only to registered MC's?) Who votes (do ex officio or non-registered folks get a say?) How are members selected or removed if membership is not "open"? (subject of course to CO approval) What is the term of membership (I know one troop committee that runs 3 year terms, renewable once. That prevents long-term old guard). Meetings and quorum (how many members need to be present to make decisions? If only 3 are there, can they spend the entire treasury to buy a trailer?) Is any meeting notice required (it can be good to require notice if you're considering major purchases or a change of bylaws) What kinds of actions are allowed without a meeting? In other words, how do you handle emergent decisions? Who chairs the meeting and how are meetings to be conducted (eg. Robert's Rules? consensus required?) Are there other officers (secretary, treasurer, vice-chair)? How are they selected? What are their terms? What are their roles/duties? When can they act without committee approval? Who is authorized to spend money? In what amounts? When is full committee approval required? Are there any standing committees or subcommittees? How are they selected? For how long? What do they do? Anything about conflicts of interest? CC and treasurer can't be from same family? CC and SM? When must a MC refrain from participating in discussion/voting? How are bylaws modified? First and second reading? Supermajority required? CO approval required? Now the TC guidebook offers suggestions for some of this (like possible officer positions), but each troop handles those differently, so yeh might not want to adopt that wholesale. Larger troops might have more, smaller troops less. Treasurer and Advancement Chair are common, the others "just depends.." Policies and Procedures are much longer and more locally tailored. They might include things like: How do you handle a serious discipline matter for a scout (one that might lead to suspension or removal)? Having that in place in advance really helps. How do you handle a serious discipline matter for a parent (one that might lead to removal)? What's your CO's procedure for handling accusations against scout leaders or committee members? How are fundraising funds handled? How is the money allocated? How are scout accounts handled, if yeh use them? What can they be used for? How are disputes resolved? Who reviews medical forms for youth and adults? How are necessary people informed of important information (allergies, chronic conditions, medications, special needs)? How is confidentiality maintained? Does the troop buy supplementary accident coverage as a matter of policy? Are parents required to volunteer/serve in some role in the unit? How is that monitored? How are exceptions made? What's your unit's/CO's procedure for selecting/approving unit leaders? Do you have any training requirements for the committee or unit leaders? How is that monitored? How are exceptions made? How are event signups/permissions handled? How about cancellations? Are fees refunded for cancellations? For illness? Who fills out Tour Plans? How are they reviewed? Do you designate an "official leader in charge" for a trip? What if he/she drops out? Are there any standard procedures for handling emergencies? Can siblings/family members come on outings? Under what circumstances? How are reimbursement requests handled? Do you reimburse for gas? For leader expenses? For SPL/PLC expenses? Who selects/recommends/purchases troop gear? If a boy or patrol loses/breaks troop gear, is he/they charged for loss or repair? Are there other outing rules that need to be communicated? No electronics? No coming late or leaving early? Are there attendance expectations to remain a member in good standing or to qualify for membership renewal? Who is permitted to "sign off" advancement (this is the SM's call, but it often helps to document it here for good communication)? How are BOR members selected? How about MBC's? What's the troop's procedures for advancement stuff? Blue cards? No blue cards? Go to SM? Go to AC? etc. Who handles advancement disputes within unit? Full committee? Subcommittee? Solus Scoutmasterus? What are dues? Who sets them? Who collects/records? How are outings payments handled? Who collects/records? How are campership/support decisions handled? By whom? How to make a request? Any appeal? Is Boys' Life mandatory in your unit? Any other similar things? Troop neckerchief a required purchase? Who can accept donations? What about donations with conditions/restrictions? Sponsorships? How about advertising? Does the troop allow advertising? On its website? Any limits? Anything about conflicts of interest? Any other code of conduct for adult volunteers? For example, are gifts to kids allowed? (often used by predators) Expectations for conduct within or outside of scouting? Mandatory youth training of any sort? YP for youth? At the boy/PLC/SM level there might also be policy & procedures. The PLC after all can set its own rules, so it might decide "no electronics". Often it's helpful to put such PLC rules or procedures into a document somewhere so that new families/parents are informed. How long is the term of a PL/SPL? Are there procedures for election/selection? Any rank/age requirements for serving in different positions? How are exceptions made? What troop PORs does the troop use/recognize? Any attendance expectations for PLC members/PORs? Training requirements for youth leaders? Procedures for lost and found/returning lost gear? Anyway, you get the picture. Few if any of these things are really specified by the BSA materials, or they're things that are well buried or frequently modified by units. Then it might be worth copying a few things from G2SS into troop procedures, like the unauthorized activity list or YP expectations. That should be enough to get yeh goin'. Beavah

Yah, SeattlePioneer, I don't think I've said anywhere here that I supported any spending program, other than that I don't mind payin' universal service taxes so that folks in rural areas can have electricity and phone service. Of course, as a scouter, I find myself makin' use of rural and remote phone service on occasion. But I disagree with your notion of taxes as theft. Not paying taxes is theft, eh? In fact, we send people to jail for it. Why? Because taxes are the price we pay for liberty. Freedom is not free. It demands sacrifice, and not just by young men and women in uniform while you and I and da rest sit on our arses. It is an honor and a duty as a citizen to pay our share. In fact, just like we teach the boys, an honorable person not only does his share for the group, he gives extra. Those who want to lead should be an example of generosity and service. Now I get that some whacko survivalist nut-jobs will go "off the grid" and claim to be self-sufficient. But we all know that's bunk. From the guns and tools that they take with 'em to the fact that the U.S. military defends their freedom to be nuts, they are the beneficiaries of a society, and that comes with costs. An honorable man pays his dues to society. On time, and in full, without whining or complaint. If we'd done that with the last two wars instead of expecting our young people and our grandchildren to shoulder the burden with no sacrifice from us, the nation would be much better off. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

A unit committee that has to take formal votes, count numbers for a quorum, and establish policies about bank accounts isn't operating in an efficient, Scoutlike manner, IMHO. There's simply no need to get all legalistic and procedural about this Scouting stuff. Nah, I disagree, and I continue to disagree with CalicoPenn on this. It's just fine when yeh have a group of like-minded individuals who clearly share a common mission and are all perfect in their communication to operate by consensus. We all would love troop committees and other adults to be at the "Performing" stage, eh? Fact is, though, committees have turnover and as we all learned from NYLT or WB21C, they don't stay at the "Performing" stage. Sometimes they Storm, sometimes they renorm, and sometimes someone tries to steal money or hijack da process. The reason we so often have troop committees melt down is because they operated for a bit on consensus at the "Performing" stage and became completely informal. Then they have nothing in place to help with da "Forming" of new members and nothing in place to handle the "Storming" stage when it comes around again. That's da purpose of written documents, eh? That's why yeh have procedures. To help yeh communicate and manage when you're at those earlier stages of group development. Or to have somethin' in place to protect against the rare but serious case, like a treasurer who's taken a pay cut at work being tempted by the troop account. 5yearscouter's case is a good example, eh? 5year complains a bit about da old guard being able, in a consensus environment, to shout down or bully other folks. If they are strict about Robert's Rules, though, then that's a mechanism for workin' through that. Each person only gets to speak twice to a topic, and everyone votes. A small group of older folks can't just push through their own way. It's one possible way to help manage the "storming" process without makin' it personal. Of course there are others. These are the kinds of things that you get when the adults put together a set of by-laws - they do things contrary to what the BSA has set forth. All these by-laws end up doing is contradicting the BSA program... Read the Troop Committee Guidebook and point out where the COR is a figurehead, point out where the Committee elects the COR, point out where the committee votes on the program the PLC creates. Now if yeh pick up da Official BSA Troop Committee Guidebook and actually read it, you'll find whole sections of it that duplicate what is written in other BSA materials. There's a chapter on Advancement, for example, (which is out of date). There's another bit on outing safety from G2SS (which is also out of date). So the BSA itself clearly sees merit in copying over excerpts from other BSA materials so as to make a smaller, more concise book to help troop committee members understand the program. There's nuthin' inherently wrong with da approach, even though it does mean that yeh sometimes get behind in updates. And as I've said before, da notion that committees don't vote is dead wrong. In da BSA materials committees are definitely expected to select new leaders (both for da committee and for the boys). Select means "choose." They are expected to approve the annual program plan, and the annual budget to support da plan, and the unit money-earning activities, and the monthly plan. Approve means "decide." The BSA doesn't tell 'em how to choose or decide; they could draw lots, they could pray and consult with da Holy Spirit, they could use pistols at 10 paces, da old fellows could shout the new ones down, ... but by and large in the U.S. when groups make a choice they vote and record it in the minutes. And if yeh read da Committee Handbook, yeh see there is an expectation of minutes and approval of minutes from the last meeting, and da only reason to do that is to confirm that decisions/votes are recorded accurately. Beavah

Surely taxes are seen as a punishment so if we go for punishment should we punish those who save, give to charity, and volunteer; or should we punish those who show no real propensity or will to exist as much more than a ward of the state? I don't consider taxes a punishment. I can't even imagine an American citizen thinking of taxes as a punishment. Just as we teach the scouts, I consider taxes part of the responsibility of citizenship. I have a duty to pay for the civil society I enjoy and to contribute to its betterment. Yah, it's easy to imagine that there's a lot of folks just achin' to be a ward of the state, eh? Hard to fine 'em IRL, though. Da problem with poverty is that often it doesn't leave yeh with boots, let alone bootstraps. What's an impoverished 75 year old with medical problems to do? A depressed young man struggling with addiction or other mental illness? An underinsured family whose son is severely injured on a scout campout where the only parent has been out of work for a year? A person in Section 8 housing who was never taught by family or school how to save or hold any job other than temping at a fast food joint? Sometimes folks just need help, eh? Nursing care out of pocket costs six figures per year. Medical expenses for a serious injury can exceed that. Life can sometimes exceed a person's or family's ability to cope. And if yeh think the average church congregation takes in enough to assist its members on its own, take a look at their balance sheets. Now, philosophically I actually agree with yeh. But all things in balance, eh? It's important to understand this stuff is complex and there's a fair chance any of us are wrong. And even though I'm a free market, small government fellow, I reckon it's OK that sometimes we pay taxes for things we don't use just because it strengthens the country. Yah, I suppose we could expect rural folks to pay 100 times as much for phone service or electricity or to do without. There just aren't enough customers in rural areas to make it profitable to build out that infrastructure. But I really don't mind da universal service taxes. I want all my fellow Americans to have access to modern services. Yep, that's muckin' with da free market a bit. Probably it's not a good investment in economic terms or da private sector would have done it. But sometimes yeh do somethin' just because it's a good investment in social terms. Yeh just feel it's important for all fellow citizens to have access. Beavah

I think Social Security could be a great thing! That is if it was run as private accounts instead of a Ponzi scheme. It's really the role of churches and families and communities to pick up the disabled and downtrodden Yah, it should be, eh? But that requires da whole populace to live according to the biblical code, eh? Including tithing 10% of your income to charity. We're nowhere near that, which is why prior to social security such a large percentage of the elderly members of our families lived in poverty. Right now, much of America has switched to private retirement accounts in da form of IRAs, 401Ks and the like. How's that workin' out for most of 'em? If you've been constantly invested in da S&P for the last 10 years your account has gone nowhere. Probably down, actually, given fees. And as more folks retire and draw on those investments, the likelihood of general capital appreciation for da average American is small, eh? So private accounts, too, can be naught but a demographic Ponzi scheme. And that's before yeh get into bankers and hedge funds playin' games at the expense of da average investor, or folks doin' mortgage fraud. These are hard, complex questions, eh? I'm a strong supporter of more local and personal charity and responsibility, and I believe that nations are judged by how they treat widows and orphans and the sojourners in their midst. But da average American gives much less than the tithe demanded by God, fears loss and insecurity more than most other nations, and saves much less than the percentage demanded for providing for their own needs as seniors, or even for da education of their own children. Beavah

Now a bylaws could say for advancement details always check the current addition of the Boy Scout Handbook Nope. Da Handbook is rarely current. It gets updated only 10 years, but advancement requirements can change every year, documented in the Boy Scout Requirements Book. Yeh gotta love the system. And no, I'm not inclined to do those summaries for yeh. For the rest, I think yeh need to accept some of what's in place and then nudge a few important things. For instance, if the CO prefers the committee to send a recommendation for COR, there's nothing wrong with that. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with the committee electing CC, treasurer, etc. as "officers" and then the CC appointing others. Similarly, there's nothing at all wrong about being formal Roberts Rules about voting on stuff and taking minutes. It helps avoid or manage disagreements. Similarly, I agree with your old gruff fellows on the legal stuff. The BSA's hold harmless wording is poor and very generic, and written more with camps in mind than unit programs. It should be adapted to your organizational structure and the law of your state. So I wouldn't sweat that stuff, eh? I'd stick to where your main interest seems to lie on the program side. Now in the BSA guidelines the program plans of the boys do require approval by the Troop Committee. So in the BSA program, the committee certainly can exercise a veto. So yeh might perhaps want to establish a local rule that your committee doesn't follow the BSA materials in that. That would be OK and more like traditional scouting. Or yeh might want to just nuance the BSA guidelines and say in your own bylaws that the troop committee only approves the annual plan as a package, it does not micromanage on an outing-by-outing basis except where there is a clear safety issue. And of course the committee doesn't "make it happen" as you suggest. The boys do. The committee only provides expertise and support. But you knew that. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Huh? I don't get the bandaid thing or the 1930s thing. Are yeh referring to Social Security? I think yeh did hit the nail on the head, though, in terms of this thread. Most Americans allow their "eyes to glaze over" whenever it comes to anything that requires expertise. As a result, they're susceptible to charlatans who offer punchy, easy-to-digest slogans that sound good. Some even actively dislike experts who tell 'em things they don't want to hear. They prefer snake oil to medicine. Beavah

More and more as I look over the threads that having been coming up as late, it seems to me that we (Volunteers in this organization.) Are being hit with so many rules and regulations that I see a time when there are just so many that it will become impossible to know what to do and what not to do. Yah, I'm with Eamonn on this, eh? I think that when troops create these guides they're tryin' to fulfill a real need. We might look at a 58 page booklet as excessive, but there are literally thousands of pages of BSA materials, from multiple guidebooks to supplementary training. The SM Handbook is 180 pages. The TC guide is 40. G2SS is well over 100 when yeh include da materials it incorporates by reference. ACP&P is 60, but then yeh have to add in da Requirements Book which is a couple hundred. And the Rules & Regulations. And that odd Unit Fundraising form with its page of very fine print. And da Tour Plan with its instruction guide and fine print. And the new medical form with its multi-page FAQ. And... And... If we're honest, only a few of us complete crazies who hang out on internet forums actually read and keep up with all that stuff, and we frequently see folks here who quote old stuff or don't really understand where things fit in context. For a troop, a 58 page concise guide seems like a really great deal compared with thousands of pages. So probably we should avoid the simple-sounding answers of "just follow the BSA materials" (which themselves are at times self-contradictory) or "you need nothing more than the oath and law." Units need a concise, easy-to-read guide that informs new parents of the basics of what they need to know about unit operations, and committees need the same for new committee members. Beavah

However, the majority of the country agrees with me in saying that our government is doing too much and needs to shrink. The very fact that they cannot afford their own budget spending every year is evidence of this. The result is that we're buried in a debt none of us will see resolved in our lifetimes. Right now, I reckon it's hard to really claim what a majority of da country thinks. With the Clinton-era tax rates, we were running a surplus. So if yeh just take away the cost of two (now 3) unfunded wars and one unfunded prescription drug plan for seniors, we would be back to affording our own budget spending every year. Does that seem reasonable to you? Go back to the 1990s tax rate (which was lower than the taxes during the 50's economic boom), drop or find alternate funding for Rx drugs, and agree to pay for wars with taxes? I'm all for that. Otherwise, yeh have a choice. Yeh can eliminate Medicare and cut Social Security. Yeh can eliminate the entire defense department and cut Medicare, or yeh can eliminate social security and halve the defense department or Medicare. Nuthin' else matters. To live within our means at the current tax rate yeh have to do somethin' like this. And then yeh still have to raise taxes to pay for the two unfunded wars. So which do yeh choose? The FED is unnecessary. Government was able to fund itself through excise fees, tarriffs, etc. with no income tax for most of our history. Well, for about half of our history. Back then, of course, we also clear cut forests for fuel, strip mined for coal, subjected workers to robber-barons, had such poor sanitation that we had to reverse the flow of rivers to avoid poisoning cities, had no standing army, and traveled on horses along dirt paths. Yeh can return to that if yeh want. Just move to any of a dozen second- or third- world nations. Try Pakistan. You'll get no income tax, no fed, government funding itself through excise fees, a strong military that isn't interfered with by the government, strong religious-based moral values, states that are functionally independent from the national government, the works. We may have avoided a Great Depression II, but we've inherited something far worse. We've inherited a system that is not entirely sustainable in the long term and have gone down the road of borrowing our way into poverty. I'm sorry, I don't see long-run risk as "far worse" than immediate catastrophe. Did yeh really mean that? I agree with yeh, the Fed's balance sheet is preposterous and poses real risks, as does da nation's. But we could solve it by lettin' the Bush tax cuts expire, putting a reasonable excise tax on gasoline, and making reasonable fixes to Social Security and Medicare, especially now that the "Obamacare" plan is pushin' younger people into the insurance pool to reduce costs. Of course I think there are a lot better ways than those, but it's definitely addressable. So in the end what happened is the Fed bought us time to work on the problem, eh? The problem was already there. Rather than accept immediate catastrophe, they bought us time. That's a good thing, if we use it well. Right now, though, the tom-fool idiots in the congress seem to be hell-bent on pursuin' a policy of catastrophe. Better to take the nation down in flames than act like statesmen. Personally I think if the debt ceiling isn't raised by the end of the month President Obama should immediately suspend all business subsidies and social security payments. Tell each member of congress that if they aren't willing to put together a package that combines revenue with cuts then he's suspending all federal funds to entities in their district. Stop fiddlin' around with accounting tricks to hide da congresses' lack of action. Let constituents feel the real pain of what partisan inaction entails. Beavah

Actually, CCbytrickery, what I think qwazse was sayin' about the study was that it did adjust for prior school ability and socioeconomics and all da rest so as to isolate the effect of divorce. That is to say, they took every effort to avoid selection bias. And when yeh do that, divorce has a substantial negative effect. It puts kids behind where they would have been, and that behind-ness is persistent. If yeh end up a grade level behind your peers, yeh aren't goin' to "catch up" because they are continuing to move forward, too. On the upside, da study suggested divorce was a one-time hit, so while yeh end up behind, you don't end up getting further and further behind. Unless of course divorce triggers da other emotional effects it often does, like depression, drug use, etc. I think yeh misunderstand Christianity, too. Christians have values, eh? We believe in right and wrong. Murder is wrong. Murder should be condemned as a choice. Murder should be punished. At the same time, it is an act of love and charity to visit the murderer in prison and care for his needs and try to change his heart. Yeh condemn the choice, but not the person. Similarly there is nothing inconsistent about considering divorce wrong, of condemning divorce as a choice. Divorce hurts people. At the same time, it is an act of love and charity to help a family goin' through a divorce, to care for their needs and try to change their heart. Yeh never condemn the individual person, even though their choices have hurt people. Yeh do what you can to help 'em make reparations and do better. We all make poor choices that hurt ourselves and others at times. That's what sin is, eh? Poor choices that hurt ourselves and others. We respond to others as we would want them to respond to us - to try to stop us from making a bad choice where they can; and if they can't, to offer us support to grow and learn and make reparations and do better next time. Beavah

That is an important distinction, but I think that some people might prefer to take actions that will limit the chances of them appearing before a court in the first place In that case they're being foolish, eh? People should do the right thing. That's what we teach in the BSA. That's what we mean by character and values and the Oath and Law. And if yeh do the right thing, yeh should not fear the courts, because the courts are just society's way of providing a fair venue to resolve disputes. The CC could just as easily land in court when rraffalo files a small claims action for a refund, eh? Or a defamation action for calling his choices unsafe for children. In fact both are almost infinitely more likely than a negligence claim for sendin' a handful of high school teens with one adult on a commercial airliner. Our threads on this stuff should never end up in this inane legal mumbo-jumbo. Instead they seem to every time. The big point here is that if yeh can't do the right thing for kids without wringing your hands about litigation worries or other legal nonsense then yeh have no business being in scouting. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... thanks for the answer to da question. I agree with yeh, and that was the real point of this thread. As for da economics, your thinkin' seems to be a bit muddled there, eh? The 1930s fed did the opposite of what the current fed is doin', not the same thing. You're completely right that we're vastly underestimating unemployment right now and completely wrong to believe that a slack labor market doesn't have a major impact on inflation. If wages are stable or shrinking because of a large labor supply, price inflation can't occur because there's no one who can afford to buy, eh? You're right that the federal debt is increasing, which is bad, but then yeh should be relieved by monetizing because that means the real value of the debt isn't increasing as fast. The alternative, raising taxes so as to actually pay for things like wars would be better. You're completely wrong that the supply-demand picture on oil hasn't changed. Supply has been stagnant, extraction costs have increased, and demand by growing emerging markets around the world has accelerated. But you're right that a component of oil prices is currency-based, and that should make yeh happy, eh? That's the natural result of a trade deficit caused by oil, and is the way the free market acts to encourage domestic production and higher efficiency. In short, yeh seem to have a lot of right general thoughts but wrong details. The Fed prevented Great Depression 2 by printing money, eh? We agree with that. Yeh avoid deflation by makin' it as disadvantageous as possible to stuff money in your mattress. But as you say, they couldn't have done that with a gold standard. Which means that we would have had worldwide Great Depression 2, just da way the 1930s Fed on the gold standard did. So how is that a good thing? Right now, Greece is on da Euro, eh? Much like the gold standard, it means Greece can't devalue its currency. How's that workin' out for them? The government is in bankruptcy, unemployment is at depression levels, and civil unrest is multiplying. IMF-imposed government austerity has acted as a multiplier to make things worse, not better. Cutting government spending has decreased investment and devastated employment. That's what you're prescribing for da U.S.? Really? Now, I do agree with yeh that the lack of regulation which allowed excessive margin (directly or through derivatives) was the primary cause of both crashes. We allowed bankers, funds, and businesses to gamble with other people's money believing that gamblers can "self regulate." So da first lesson we should re-learn is that regulation is necessary, as are legal firewalls between higher risk investment banks/funds and mortgage/depository banks. We haven't learned that yet, because the bank gambling lobby bought the Republican Party and the Democrats never met a 5 page regulation that they couldn't turn into 5000 pages with 10,000 special interest loopholes. I agree with yeh that the fed by loose monetary policy contributed to the 2008 debacle, and to several of the bubbles before that. So I agree there's merit to da notion that the role of the fed should be focused/limited, as it once was, to monetary stability. Rates should generally be set more transparently accordin' to differential bond yields, not pushed by political considerations. That's what I think the "gold standard" folks are really advocatin'. At the same time, the past 40 years overall have been remarkably stable compared to the pre-fed history, eh? Problem is that the gold bugs have chosen da wrong standard. The supply of gold no longer grows at the same rate as economic production. It hasn't since da early 1900s. That's why everyone had to move off the gold standard, eh? It creates a deflationary currency, which is not economically healthy because it discourages investment and growth. So while limiting the political influence on the fed is a good thing, and limiting the fed's role to monetary stability might be a good thing most of the time, and perhaps even tying the dollar to a standard of sorts has merits, the gold standard is impossible unless yeh want da U.S. to be an economic backwater. That's the danger of fellows like Ron Paul who are physicians and not economists, eh? They can be right about general principles, but because they lack expertise they can be absolutely dead wrong and dangerous when it comes to particulars. And if yeh don't value real knowledge and expertise, yeh can follow such a fellow whose general principles are good right off a cliff. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The BSA does not indemnify the CO from legal damages should they be sued by a parent of an injured Scout. The Oregon Case proved that....BSA is paying as is the LDS. I reckon yeh should stick to engineering, eh? The point being made was that da CC does not have any personal liability, because as a CC he (1) is not empowered to make the decision solo (2) is most likely accorded statutory immunity by federal law and (3) is otherwise indemnified by the BSA coverage. With regard to the CO, (1) and (2) do not apply but (3) definitely does. When reading news reports yeh have to distinguish between a judgment and a payer. A court will render a judgment against the defendant, but then insurance will pay the judgment. So if you kill someone with your car, the decision reported in the papers will be against Engineer61, but your auto insurance will then pay. Additionally as Basementdweller points out, with some COs an abuser is also working in other youth ministry roles, eh? Remember most abuse by scout leaders occurs outside of scouting. That means it might perhaps occur in a church ministry or school environment where the CO is directly liable and BSA coverage doesn't apply. In da Oregon case, if I remember correctly, only one or two incidents occurred in scouting. Most of 'em were in other activities. The justice of leveling a hugely outsized judgment against the BSA for having deep pockets is left as an ethics and values question for da reader. Beavah

I'm sure this guy is great at playing with numbers in a vacuum or limited experiment, but I know with absolute certainty that any Keynesian economist will only perpetuate our current problems. And how do yeh know that, pray tell? Right now we're admittedly conductin' a big uncontrolled experiment with da economy. Have been since 2008. Anybody who claims to know anything with absolute certainty is just foolin' themselves. Yep, yeh might think that Fed action would lead to inflation under ordinary circumstances, but inflation also requires high employment, which we don't have. Yah, yeh might think that it might devalue the dollar, except there's no alternative. The Euro? The Yen? Yeh must be jokin'. And it's also perfectly natural for a currency that's running a large current account deficit to devalue, which improves domestic manufacturing. Yah, yeh would think that under ordinary circumstances these fed tricks and TARP would be preposterous, and they sure make all of us angry. But then, under ordinary circumstances da events of 2008 would have led to cascading bank failures and a worldwide Great Depression 2. It still amazes me that didn't happen. Remember, we were on da gold standard and non-Keynsians in da 1930s. How'd that work out by comparison? Under ordinary circumstances the stimulus would be outrageous, eh? But right now we're seein' most states in the country in budget messes and cutting thousands of jobs because the stimulus has run out. On its own right now it's enough to cause political turmoil and stall the economy. Imagine if those budget messes and job cuts had come two years earlier, at the worst part of the crash. Expertise is expertise. Yah, it isn't always right, and there's a lot to fault in da Federal Reserve, especially under the previous chairman in his last decade. But expertise is a darn sight better than ignorance. So BS-87, do you believe it's constitutionally sound to allow single senators from da minority party to (often anonymously) block appointments for any reason they choose? Or does "advice and consent" of the Senate mean that they should discuss and vote? Beavah

Yah, da purpose of the form is so that the scout leaders know who to release a child to, eh? In this day and age with many divorces, custody battles and the like, it's hard to know whether or not if dad shows up to allow the kid to go with him or not. Number one kidnapping risk is a non-custodial parent. It's not offerin' an option for designating who can drive your kid on the trip. That's up to the unit leadership, and by and large yeh take it or leave it or drive your kid yourself on every outing. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, by and large people are willin' to pay for what they perceive as quality. In fact, sometimes when you don't charge much you are perceived as being "cheap" or low quality for that reason alone. But as Basementdweller says, it does depend on demographics. Yeh can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Still, I think Oak Tree's is closer to the more common experience, eh? Parents will pay for quality, and in paying they and the kids will also be more proud and involved. So attendance goes up, as well as satisfaction/involvement by families when troops increase prices. Financial commitment goes hand in hand with personal commitment. Beavah

Yah, that's what I'm talkin' about, BS-87. It's not enough to be an expert in a field, eh? Yeh have to pass a philosophy litmus test. No difference between that and a religious litmus test. What we want are experts in da field doin' work for us. When yeh need to build a bridge, yeh hire a civil engineer and a construction crew that's good at building bridges. Yeh don't make da engineer swear his loyalty to the current philosophical fad of the day, or refuse to consider the best engineer because some dumbass who knows nothing whatsoever about engineering disagrees with da fellow's philosophy. When yeh do that, yeh get bridges that cost twice as much and have to be repaired after 5 years. No different here. This fellow was a renowned expert on economics, with a particular specialty in systemic unemployment. What do we have in da U.S. right now? Systemic unemployment. We do the nation a profound disservice when we don't hire the best people for the job because our politicians want the civil service to be philosophically cleansed, or otherwise filled with "yes-men". That's just what we need, eh? One life-long politician senator who never held a real job insisting that da folks who serve in the most important positions of economic oversight in the nation agree with his philosophy. Used to be the folks who believed in liberty and conservative approaches to governance understood that. The nominee should go for a vote of the full senate. Individual senators do not have a constitutional prerogative to block a nomination anytime they don't like a person's philosophy, or the way he looks, or who his grandparents were. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hard to imagine this thread still goin' on. There's perhaps one additional thing to consider, eh? In dealin' with new folks, especially new young kids, it's often best to establish a firm and clear position from which you then can make exceptions or teach judgment. We start with "don't cross the street" and then move up to "don't cross our street without looking both ways, but don't cross Major Thoroughfare." Then "well, you can cross Major Thoroughfare, but only at a crosswalk and following the light, provided you still look both ways." And then of course all of us adults at one time or another have jaywalked. None of that makes it bad to say "no" to the novice, eh? "No cell phones/electronics on campouts" establishes a baseline expectation for new scouts and new families. I was just out at an event this past weekend where a first year Boy Scout borrowed/stole an older lad's cell phone to text dad not 5 minutes after arrival. I think it was to complain about some other 11 year old. Sayin' "no" at the start avoids all that stuff until yeh have the time to teach proper use down the road. Lots of troops do the same for knives and fire and stoves and such. After all, there's plenty for a young lad to learn from buddy system to how to light a stove safely without addin' cell phone etiquette right from the start. Beavah

It also states that one leader is fine when traveling in a vehicle to a destination. Yah, hmmmm.... Now you're playin' da same foolish game with words that your CC was, eh? You're usin' a G2SS section written and intended for automobile transportation for somethin' it wasn't intended for. And you're not quite understandin' that "youth protection" means somethin' far larger than "risk of sexual abuse." Sexual abuse prevention is just a small part of youth protection. It includes havin' enough adults on a trip to provide for safety and proper supervision, includin' the possibility of any single adult being irresponsible, ill, disengaged, or engaged with a problem and leaving the rest unsupervised. So stop it. Yeh won't make your case by playin' word games. Go take a walk, calm down, and remember that in scoutin' yeh have to behave in a manner that provides the best example for your son and other young men... even if they aren't watching. Yeh make your case by being reasonable, thoughtful, and involvin' the necessary folks on the committee to get approval. Beavah

However, having dealt with very smart people (and being one myself), I'm not certain I want them running things. I want them giving advice and input, but not necessarily making the decisions. Yah, it's much better for da nation to have dumb people makin' the decisions, eh? That way everyone feels justified talkin' about just how moronic the decisions are. Da Federal Reserve Board is a board, eh? A deliberative body. It makes decisions as a group, not as individuals. And da decisions it deals with are complex ones which require expertise but are not time-sensitive. Yeh don't want a "leader" type like a general makin' monetary decisions. Yeh want intelligence, collaboration, and above all independence from the politicians. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... So today I see that da minority party in the Senate has again misused da filibuster threat to derail a nomination, this time to the Federal Reserve board. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have misused the filibuster in this way for nuthin' more than obstructionism and I really wish both parties would stop. Now I'm not completely familiar with Peter Diamond or his work, but by and large I think it would be nice to have a Nobel Prize-winning economist on the Fed. I can't say that I agree with the fellow philosophically as he clearly comes from left-of-center, but that's just ordinary when the Executive doin' the appointing is left of center. It's to be expected, and it's fine. It's da way the nation works. Certainly it's far preferable to having one more fellow from Goldman-Sachs or the damnable banking lobby on the Fed. I reckon that perspective is well-covered. Yah, yah, I get that Congress prefers mediocrity. It's so much easier to play the bigwig when yeh surround yourself with yes-men and lightweights. But da folks who I want appointed to fill important roles in the government are smart people, eh? People who know more than I do, and certainly who know more than Congress does. I want professionals, and I don't much care what their philosophy is, so long as they are professional. Why has it become impossible to appoint professionals to professional positions in da government? Beavah

If the children being studied "entered kindergarten in 2008" as the article says, and assuming these are kids with regular school years, they would be finishing SECOND grade right around now. Yah, wondered about that so I looked it up. Da actual study started with the kindergarten class of 1998-99, part of a big federal study called the Early Childhood Longitudinal study. The blogger in Eagledad's article doesn't type da language very well. She meant to say that the study was published in 2008, not that the research was started in 2008. A study published in 2008 probably used data through 2006, which would fit. B