elitts

If the pool is 25' long in one dimension, you could use it for the 2nd class requirement, but not for the 1st class requirement. For First Class, the standard backyard pool just isn't going to be sufficient since they have to past the BSA Swimmer Test. Please see this excerpt from the BSA Swimming Classification: If you are actually trying to verify a scout's ability to pass this test, stopping to turn around and then shove off again 9+ times (in a standard backyard pool) just isn't going to show you what you'd need to see to know that the scout has sufficient skill and stamina to swim for greater distances.

Yes, that word is clear. I don't think anyone is arguing about whether or not they want 2 registered leaders at any Scouting activity. Unfortunately, that one point of clarity doesn't answer the whole question. We still need to know what a "Scouting activity" is. Is "Summer Camp" the activity? Is gathering wood in the forest an activity? What about fetching water? What about hiking from the base camp to the mess hall? If hiking from the base camp to the mess hall is an activity, what about hiking to the bathhouse? If hiking to the bathhouse isn't an activity, how about taking a short walk to clear your head? How far can you travel before that walk turns into a hike? Then once we know what constitutes a "Scouting activity" is, we still need to know what they mean by "at". When my son is in class, he's "at school". When he's eating lunch in the cafeteria, he's "at school". When he's at football practice in the stadium, he's still "at school". So if a troop meeting is going on upstairs and one of the only two adults is downstairs is that adult still "at" the meeting? What about when the meeting breaks into patrols an one group goes outside, one goes to the basement and one stays in the main room; do we still need two adults or 6? I mean, there are actually people out there who think "2 Deep Leadership" means "No scout should ever be out of the sight of two adults unless they are in the bathroom or their tent".

If you find a standard sized school that manages to go a whole school year with 100% student attendance and attentiveness where no one ever got upset with anyone else, I think you'll find you are in the Twilight Zone (or possible on the planet Camazotz).

Personally, I think at this point the "unofficial" BSA position is: "Can't we just have Cub Scouts (and its rules and risk profile) run from age 7 - 17?" I mean, stating that "preference" is about as useful as a school saying "We'd prefer that every single student be in class and alert every day, diligently complete and turn in every assignment on time and get along with the rest of the students in perfect harmony". Yeah, that'd be nice, but it's also never going to happen, so why even pretend that's the goal? Beyond that, my take is that I'm going to have to treat Scouting Magazine articles and Bryan on Scouting posts the same way I treat instructions on rules that I get from any other Scouter or Council staff or volunteer. ie: "Either show me where it's published in the official guidelines or manuals or stop talking to me about it." The BSA has clearly shown it's capable of publishing official FAQs since there are several on their website; so if that explanation of "Two Deep Leadership" isn't on the Youth Protection page, I can only assume it's not really the official party line. Hiking isn't a high risk activity in most circumstances and even the BSA thought so until the lawyers got involved. As long as the adults in camp are within a reasonable distance/time given the most likely injuries, I think "2 Deep" is covered. This of course means the acceptable distance will vary depending on the functionality of radios or cell phones. If it's a longer hike or hilly enough that communication isn't feasible, I think having the adults trail along a mile or two back isn't any big problem.

It's not very often I agree with David, but I think this comment is on the money. I can't say that I have much experience with council level political infighting, but I've certainly seen it in plenty of other organizations. While retaliation for YP reporting certainly isn't something that should be tolerated, giving organization leaders with such closely held inner workings (and an absence of effective oversight) as a local council a simple "one button push" method of ejecting someone is always risky and easy to abuse. The methods of retaliation are already considered violations of the "Scouter Code of Conduct" under item #5: If someone is being retaliated against, this provides sufficient justification for that person's removal. There isn't any need to add additional (more highly charged) language that says essentially the same thing.

Why would this bother you? You know COVID is a risk anytime you leave the house or bring any thing or person into your house. Is formally waiving your right to sue BSA specifically over COVID a big deal? I mean, if in some freak circumstance it was discovered that an infected employee in a Scout Shop was going around deliberately licking every item and it caused an outbreak, the release would likely be thrown out anyway, so what's the problem?

Honestly, unless you are dealing with some "fear of the water" issues, learning to swim well enough to pass the 2nd class requirement shouldn't take too long. When I was teaching lessons full time, I usually took the total beginners. With kids that are beginners and 5-6 years old, I could get probably 3 out of 4 swimming well enough to cross the width of a 6 lane pool in a couple two week sessions. At 9-10 years old, it's even easier because they have usually started developing enough muscle mass to swim efficiently.

No, legislation usually doesn't pass unanimously, however there are frequently situations where pretty much everyone agrees that something needs to be addressed and they only disagree over the methods. In the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 however, the "opposition" wasn't arguing for an alternate approach, they just plain wanted to maintain white superiority and segregation. Senator Russell, the leader of the opposition was quoted as saying "We will resist to the bitter end,any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states".

That would be the so called "Greatest Generation". And while it's nice that they finally passed the legislation, the telling point there was that roughly 30% of congress was opposed to it. So essentially, 1/3 of the the US (90%+ of the Southern congressmen) thought it was not just acceptable, but a right, that people be allowed to discriminate against minorities.

Well, in the context of what BLM is arguing for, I think that's measurably true. My grandmother's generation (Silent Generation) was "accidentally" racist enough to be horrifying sometimes (and that ignores any deliberate racism). My parent's generation (Boomers) were better, but if you look at the time period they've been "in power" they certainly haven't spent much time or effort to fix or work toward fixing the issue; but at least the Boomers started to be cognizant that there is actually a problem. Gen X is only just now getting to the high table of politics, so we don't really know what they'll manage once they can overcome the existing political inertia. The <40 folks (maybe even <30) are the ones that are fully engaged on the issue and energized about it, so from the viewpoint of "Who is most likely to drive us towards fixing this" standpoint, they are "the best hope".

Well, I didn't actually mean "liberal" using any kind of modern political definition, that was poor word choice on my part. I was referring to the tendency of each younger generation to lean towards new and different methods and ideas while the older generations lament the passing of their "traditional values" regardless of what they are. I realize that's not going to hold true in every specific cultural circumstance, but overall, I think it has been the case for as long as young people have been able to actually learn about new ideas. Obviously in cultures and time periods where information flow was constrained, this tendency is far less pronounced. That said, I know there have been societies where there were relatively sudden shifts to more conservative beliefs, but I'm not aware of any where this change was driven by the younger generations. All of the time periods I'm aware of where this has happened it has been an older generation forcing the issue, usually either out of a desire to retain political power or out of religious fervor. (or after a war)

Crime victims get plenty of sympathy, but they aren't entitled to revenge, which is usually where ideas of this nature tend to head. But the numbers show that one way or the other, something is drastically wrong with the way our legal system works. The facts show that the US incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world. And not just by a little bit, it's an astonishing difference. The only other country that comes close is Russia and our incarceration rate is 20% higher than theirs. If you only look at Western countries, the next highest is Poland and we are 213% higher than them. Of countries we actually tend to think of ourselves as being similar to, the closest is the UK and our rate is 398% higher than them. So given that data, we have to conclude one of a few things must be true. Something about the US leads to criminality at drastically higher rates than everywhere else in the world; The US is just amazingly better at arresting and convicting criminals than everyone else in the world; The US puts more people in jail for longer periods of time than everyone else in the world. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html This attitude doesn't seem very Christian. Not much in the way of mercy or forgiveness. 18 years in prison for stealing a wallet while holding a stick even though no violence was used? It sounds like you'd be happier in a more Muslim country. Your ideals are right in line with some of the more extremist Islamic views on punishment.

That's because scrawny kids don't float well. When I was teaching swimming lessons, I used to allow kids to scull with their hands while floating if they were the "skin and bones" type because that was the only way to keep their legs up. Otherwise their legs would drag their whole body down. Realistically, no; you can't use your pool because it's not going to be long enough to actually test their swimming ability and trying to do it this way will result in kids getting passed that should not be. There is a big difference between being able to swim 25' (the length of an average home pool) 3 times and being able to swim 75' one time. Swimming the 75 feet in one go takes a higher level of endurance, and that's a critical part of what you are testing for. About all the average home pool can be effectively used for is testing floating, and working on basic skills with a non-swimmer.

I missed that "nuclear family" bit. To my mind, that seems like the kind of line that gets thrown in because it sounds impressive, but isn't really descriptive of what someone is working for. Kind of like how "Defund the police" actually means, "develop community response methods that don't require an armed officer whenever possible".

I dunno. I've reviewed their web page and I don't see anything on there my priest would object to. I think the problem is simply that BLM's structure is just so fractured that they can't keep the people speaking out using their name on message. That and the people getting interviewed sometimes get wrapped up in their emotions and start spouting their personal opinions instead of the organization's positions.

I find this particular issue incredibly frustrating. I realize that a vest for a K9 dog is only of limited use, but given the fact that a fully trained police dog costs something like 15k-20k, why the heck are police departments even operating a K9 unit if they can't afford the $1400 vest? I can't help thinking that the issue is mostly the fact that the PD knows they can go hold their hand out to the community talking about how much at risk the poor little dog is and get some do-gooder to fork over the money rather than having to pay for it themselves. My rant aside, I have to wonder how that project got approved when you aren't supposed to do a fundraiser for an eagle project. I mean, the fact that he gave them vests instead of cash doesn't really change the fact that his project was simply to raise money.

There are actually two different restrictions that come into the issue of scout accounts. The first is "private benefit" and the second is "private inurement. Private benefit is when organizational assets benefit an individual as opposed to being used for the group purpose. While private benefit isn't generally permitted, it is allowable if the amount is "incidental". By contrast, "private inurement" is entirely prohibited. With scout troops, "Private Inurement" isn't usually going to be an issue (as opposed to the sports club letters where much of this originates). The private inurement doctrine generally applies to persons, commonly referred to as “insiders,” who are in a position to influence or control use of the organization’s assets for personal gain such as founders, directors, or officers. So unless the CO's founders directors or officers (or their families) are benefiting, inurement isn't an issue. That just leaves "private benefit" as the potential problem and for that I have two points that I haven't yet seen refuted: I have yet to see anyone suggest that a "non-profit" can't sell a product by offering a commission So if a scout sells a Christmas tree for $50, that sale could be recorded as $40 revenue to the troop and a $10 payment to the scout's balance owed. So rather than recording this as "Scout A has a $10 balance with the troop" it would be "Scout A owes -$10". I realize that to the layperson, this seems like B.S., but technicalities of labeling and using different columns on the same page is pretty much what Accounting is all about. And in fact, this is exactly the sort of reasoning Trails End uses with the whole "Scholarship Program" with popcorn. An important aspect to the concept of "incidental private benefit" is that it has to be considered in the context of the whole Chartering Organization, NOT just the scout troop (because the CO is the entity in question and the troop doesn't technically exist on it's own). So while allocating $2500 of a troop's annual $10,000 budget to 15 scouts might seem like it would obviously be "other than incidental", that's not the correct math for this analysis. Instead you would need to compare the $2500 to the entire annual budget for the CO. So, to give you an example, my troop credited roughly $3500 to scout accounts last year from our two main fund-raisers (popcorn and wreaths). Given the size of the church that is our CO, I'd expect the annual budget for the organization to be $750k-$1000k per year. That means the worst case scenario is that 0.47% of the church's annual expenditures went towards "private benefit". My personal feeling is that as long as the "scout portion" of a sale could be reasonably considered a fair commission for the product in question, things are far less likely to set off warning bells rather than if you had a troop selling a $5 coffee mug for $25 and crediting $10 to the scout making the sale.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would find me absolutely intolerable to be around. But I want to clarify, I don't simply avoid anyone who thinks homosexuality is immoral. If someone thinks it's wrong and decides they need to pray for the person's immortal soul, I can respect that. We are probably too far apart culturally for us to be great pals, but that doesn't mean I'm going to treat them like a foul odor and turn up my nose and leave the area. Where I start running into a problem with being around someone is when they follow up "I think homosexuality is immoral" with some statement about which aspects of life that person should or shouldn't be allowed to participate in.

I don't have a problem with people who think homosexuality is a sin. I think those people are wrong and probably won't want to spend much time with them, but there are people who believe much stranger things, so there you go. And I'd even go so far as to say that, on it's own, the belief that it's a sin probably isn't inherently homophobic. What IS homophobic is the belief that homosexual people should be banned from activities and groups on the basis of their sexuality. I mean, if actively behaving in a sinful manner was made a bar to membership in the BSA we'd REALLY have a problem with keeping older kids because we'd have to be kicking out every teen engaging in pre-marital sex. Not to mention getting rid of all the re-married Catholic adults and any adults who have a live-in significant other. But we don't do that. Instead we just say, "Sexuality has no place in Scouting, so as long as you leave it at home, it's not a problem". Given that fact, the only conclusion I can come to is that the people advocating the ban of gay scouts and leaders do so NOT because it's a sin and therefore incompatible with Scouting, rather they do it because of how THEY feel when they know homosexuals are around them.

While I suppose I could be wrong in this case, this type of language is usually code for: "Gay people shouldn't be allowed". (and occasionally "Christians only)

I think you would be correct if they could be certain that a settlement would be reached. But if I were a local council I'd be very concerned about the idea that by agreeing to participate, I'd be tacitly agreeing that we were part of BSA national and run the risk of a full liquidation. If it's a "sign up without making any admission of being the same organization" it would be a little safer.

Not when it comes to bankruptcy court. If you were talking about civil lawsuits, you might be right, but bankruptcy court is pretty "equal opportunity".

True, but my understanding is that what has happened is that when particular dioceses have filed bankruptcy, the creditors have been unable to get separately held parish property or arch-diocese properties added to the mix. I was kind of ignoring the actual Vatican.

LOL! This is just about right. I know that to date, the most talked about camp-out in my troop was the canoe trip where we were canoeing in high (but below "Action Stage") waters on a local river. Everything went great until after lunch. Then we came around a bend unusually clumped together and came up on a tree crossing 85% of the river. Three canoes went down, one got stopped on the far side of the river in flooded, but shallow area and 2 of us pull in on the near side of the river. Police and fireman, who happened to be there frantically hunting for 4 boaters reportedly in trouble, ended up going into full bore rescue mode (rather than letting us deal with the situation) which involved several rescuers trying to swim out to the scouts hanging out patiently on a small rock outcropping in the middle of the river. One canoe was abandoned to the river (with it's gear). One everyone was out, the EMTs insisted on trying to bake the scouts dry inside an ambulance instead of just letting them change clothes. Finally the adults managed to fend off the EMTs (who were desperate to send SOMEBODY to the ER to pay for their services). Then we had to hunt along the river for the missing canoe and found it flipped and partially submerged a half mile down on the far side. Retrieving it involved yours truly sliding about 70' down a not quite sheer ravine with a rope, fishing the 3 duffels out, then getting the line attached so people at the top could pull it all the way back up. End result, one lost dry-bag that my son decided not to secure to the canoe, one lost pair of glasses (Scoutmaster ignored the repeated warnings to wear a floating strap) and some poison ivy from scouting the river edge for the lost canoe. That night, scouts were talking to their parents about the "miserable canoe trip they never wanted to do again and can we please go get ice cream"; the next week at the troop meeting it was an awesome adventure that "the annoying police and firemen interrupted when we were doing just fine on our own". P.S. For those who might have wondered, the police and fire were originally alerted by hikers that "4 people had gone under while boating and they didn't know what happened to them". What we found out later was that there were four kayakers who had bailed out of their boats at the same fallen tree. They'd all been wearing PFDs and had grabbed their boats, climbed out and were (at the time all of us were being "rescued") hanging out at the nearby McDonalds waiting for someone's wife to bring the trailer.