Stosh

Does that mean if the person is a parent they cannot attend any of the scouting activities their son does? Or is this just another one of those "we haven't really thought it through" things they are notorious for? Your son is an Eagle Scout, how come you're not in the picture with your son and his mom? The rejection letter is also a rejection of the child as well. But then that's nothing more than collateral damage.

@ I'd be careful if I was you. Any one of the admins could really be former BSA IT people. Disclaimer: I personally don't think any of you admin guys are former BSA IT employees..... the forum for the most part stays up and running far too long.

I'll take a wild stab at it.... your son? Am I right? Do I get a prize? Well if you're not responsible to make sure your son isn't out of your basement by the time he's 45 years old, who is? C'mon people, we've coddled these kids through school, we've pencil whipped them through Scouts, we've allowed them to waste their formative years with electronic devices, and then POOF they're chronologically an adult with maturity level of a grade school student (maybe). So, the parents don't whip this kid with a belt until his summer homework is done. So the kid fails and the parents are put in jail for neglect. Child Protection steps in and puts the kid in Foster Care. And guess what. After all is said and done the kid still doesn't do his homework and nothing changes except the masking of symptoms of the problem instead of dealing with the problem itself, the kid doesn't take responsibility for himself. Well, when people never learn to take care of themselves in life, we have institutions dedicated to taking care of them.

Canoeing the Yukon...every other year. Philmont, Sea Base, Northern Tier on the alternating years.

Three of my boys wore vintage (1960) uniforms to the Centennial Jamboree. I have mine that I wear occasionally with all the correct patches, too. I'd say half my boys wear uniform pants that have red piping on the mule-ear pockets.

If one looks at the overall picture of what was going on in 1860, one would have to conclude that the entire "conversation" was centered around the problem of slavery. Politically most of the congressional arguments focused on returning runaway slaves, would the new states coming on line be free or slave, the economy based on slavery was VERY lucrative financially, slave trade was a big issue, etc. Couple that with the fact that the southerners were not at all that pleased with how things had to shape itself into preserving the issue of slavery. These people pretty much lived in the slave prison they created and maintained. In the mid to late 1700's there began in Europe the emancipation of slaves and the abolishing of the slave tradition. Because of cotton, the US could hang on and justify it economically. However, eventually the abolitionist movement began to pick up speed. The constant threat of slave revolts basically terrified the southern population. What if the millions of slaves DID revolt? It would be the basic holocaust they imagined. Then the north refused to return the runaways, the slave/free issue out west, etc. and the parting of the way began to emerge. The Democrats basically had it all wrapped up to preserve slavery and maintained it pretty much through political means. However, the party soon split it's differences and the Southern and Northern Democrats couldn't hold it together for the 1860 election and with a split vote the third party Republicans (known for it's abolitionist stance) managed to squeak into power. Lincoln won on the lowest populace vote ever garnering only 39% of the population supporting his presidency. That, along with such threats as John Brown's "terrorist" tactics of inciting slave revolts, was too much and the Southern states had had enough. Yet not everyone was really on board. What held the Union in tact in 1776 was going to need to be done once again to hold the Confederacy in tact. Not everyone was on board with this separation mentality. Maryland was taken over by military force immediately because it surrounded Washington DC. Missouri governor took the state militia and went south, but the populace remained loyal to the Union. US invaded Kentucky to hold it, Virginia split off West Virginia who stayed loyal to the Union. etc. All this political posturing occurred rather quickly to draw up sides. The reason everyone's "interpretation" of events vary is because it has been politically spun just about every which way imaginable. The states that officially voted to removed themselves from the Union believed they were on legal grounds (Mass. tried to secede earlier and no one really made an argument for it being illegal). They spelled out their rationale for secession in these Articles of Confederation and explicitly state that the reason for leaving was slavery. Of course that has been spun to mean "States Rights" of self determination. However, that premise is totally false, because if anyone was yelling States Rights it was the NORTHERN states who refused to do such things as return fugitive slaves at the mandate of other states, free states didn't recognize slavery so southerners couldn't safely pass through free states with their slaves, etc. So, whether anyone likes it or not, the Civil War was fought because of slavery. Lincoln's only concern was the preservation of the Union. He was willing even as late as two years into the war, to allow slavery to continue if only the southerners would lay down their arms and rejoin the union. Lincoln's solution was to send all the slaves back to Africa if they did. The political atmosphere was so bad at that point that the two sides couldn't even agree on why they were fighting. North was NOT to set the slaves free, but to preserve the Union at all cost. South was to maintain the economic institution of slavery. The South was under the impression it was actually fulfilling the mandates of the US Constitution (The US Constitution and the CS Constitution are remarkably similar except for slavery language.) They would have been content to kick the US presence out of southern states (Ft. Sumter) and be at peace. Seriously? A small fort in the middle of a key port in the south that couldn't defend or maintain itself was a big issue? The first casualties of the war were self inflicted by the Union, but it did make good media press. That was pretty much okay until the US "invaded" the south (First Bull Run/Manasseh) To further complicate the issue Lincoln made a HUGE international mistake at the beginning of the war. He BLOCKADED the southern ports instead of CLOSING the ports. One closes their own ports, but blockades are reserved to be used against foreign ports. It was paramount to declaring the Confederacy sovereignty right from the beginning. Unfortunately no one really wants to admit to the reality that slavery was the real issue behind the Civil War, but it was. But remember!!! Slavery and Racism were two different issues back then. Yes our slavery was based on race, but there were many free blacks in the North as well as the South that were still persecuted because of their race. A group of southern black businessmen raised an artillery unit and offered it to the southern forces to fight in the war. The Southerners rejected the offer. So they, in turn, offered their services to the Union forces, they too refused the offer. Slavery as an institution of holding another human in captivity was the issue. The issue of race was not addressed until the 1960's, one hundred years later. If one doesn't think slavery was the issue. read the writings of some of the Founding Fathers who knew what was going on but needed the southern colonies to pull off the Revolution. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who made the comment about having a "wolf by the ears" on the issue. Not a good place to be, but as long as you hang on, it's okay, just don't let go. For you, @, you'll understand it a bit better if I just say, "Don't blink."

The USA flag flew over slavery far longer than the CSA flag ever did. One can add an additional 100 years on top of that for racial segregation.

Okay, I can understand that. Thanks!

Gee, as stupidly Captain Obvious my answer was, it turned out to be correct. But then we're dealing with the BSA here when it comes to computer technology here.

There's an extra . (period) in the my.scouting.org. I've been in the computer business for over 30 years and I still don't know what the difference is. Just something out there that someone is going to make a lot of money off of.

@@5yearscouter As stated in the post, "Like the $25k is just sitting there and we can't really touch it.", how does this money which was earned by the boys for program all of a sudden become the adult's money to hoard and keep from the boys. Sounds like theft to me. Need new tents? "The discussion was had that we need new tents, but if we buy new tents we have to do a fundraiser to raise enough money to buy new tents." So now the scouts can earn the money twice to pay for the tents to overcome the adult greed of having stashed money. This isn't scouting. When the boys raise money for events they have every right to spend it on it.

If you don't have one no one can steal it. The once or twice a year that we may need one, we get one with the U-Hall marking on the side. Those that use their trailer for storage purposes are really begging for problems.

Maybe when they schedule the World Jamboree in Bejing, your boys can get the discount passage on the slow boat to China from your council? Diisclaimer: My apologies to all persons of Chinese descent who may have felt offended due to the arcane expression still in use by the older generation in our culture.

I occasionally get asked to do a program for Blue/Golds on the Civil War. This usually occurs when the regular program bails on them and they are in desperate mode for some kind of programming for the banquet. I get a call the day before begging for help. The first time I said sure, I could help. They assured me it would be only a half-hour fill needed. No problem. Okay, the boys had no idea was the Civil War even was, but I had guns and swords and ... and... and... They slept in those tents? No hiking boots? They carried their food in what? Didn't that make them sick? etc. I kept waiting for the CM or someone in authority to cut off the discussion but they didn't Eventually, I cut off the discussion after an hour and a half, much to the chagrin of everyone, We have had the local D.A.R.E. officer show up to do the annual discussion on drugs, etc. and every year the discussion always ends up with something on his belt, his gun, his baton, cuffs, etc. One year the D.A.R.E. officer showed up with the dog that sniffs out certain substances (which can't be mentioned on the forum) and that was a big sell for the boys as well. I'm thinking that if the dog shows up next year wearing a gun, that will be the most excellent preso for the boys, ever!

While I can understand groups have large budgets and holding accounts of payment receipts for upcoming events, my comments were directed towards $25K of undesignated funds sitting in an account, possibly CD's doing nothing for the program that money was raised to provide. And then there's the laundered $25K sitting in scout accounts that basically mean they earned for having participated in certain activities of the troop. Rainy day funding runs contrary to "A Scout is Thrifty" in my book. If it rains, one does fundraisers to off set the problem, they don't rely on the efforts of others to cover for them. Others in this case are former scouts and leaders in the troop. I've been trying to wrap my head around a rainy day that would cost $25K and can't come up with one. Any ideas out there?

@@David CO to a certain extent you are correct, but one must realize that there are some troops out there that do nice trips, work extra hard on fundraisers, keep finances under control, exist in a depressed area of town and still offer a good program for some financially less fortunate kids. Yes, we are in hand-me-down uniforms, but they are in full uniform and make the best of it. So far fundraising has been successful enough that any boy wanting to go to summer camp pays $50 for the week. Doesn't sound like much, but for a couple of our families that's a stretch. I have participated in more affluent troops and while the trips were better, equipment was better, the program wasn't.

Sonic screwdriver?

Experimental Aircraft Association fly in has places to camp and more airplane stuff to see than you can imagine. The weekend of the fly-in Oshkosh is the busiest airport in the world. They also have a year around museum as well.

I don't always adhere to the 300' rule (can't always pull it off) but I do make it far enough that it is really obvious that people aren't "accidentally" in the wrong area. It should be far enough for it to be inconvenient.

@@frankpalazzi Welcome to the forum... I like you already.

Saturday, travel by train, train, ferry, bus, bus, short walk, arrive on site and set up. No way on God's green earth will one see a US troop travelling like this. Love it!

I'm thinking that if the boy plans out the hike FOR THE FAMILY it should count as well. "Well, Little Johnny, what do you want to do this weekend?" "I think we should go hiking at XXXXX State Park and see the XXXXX and have a picnic, and I get to plan it all out for everyone." Okay, that isn't going to count? Just because he's going with his family and not his buddies? Doesn't make sense to me.

@ Oooh, oooh, oooh, I gotta remember that. The moderators don't like certain words so from now on if I think something is not Scottish, I can say so! Thanks!

Yes, I do wear my uniform out in public....

When I was recruiting for Venturing, I did a number of presentations in the high schools. No one joined. Picked up most of my crew from home-schooling contacts.