Kahuna

There seems to be a perception arising somewhere that patches for Direct Service Council, BSA, particularly CSPs, are ceasing to exist. I realize that Direct Service Council itself is somewhat ephemeral, but there were patches as recently as the last National Jamboree. Can anyone clarify this for a friend in Australia who is about to make a big investment in these patches? Bottom line question is: has anything changed as to the status of Direct Service over the last couple of years? Thanks in advance!

Sounds like things haven't changed a bit since I was a DE in the 1970s. I also left because of impossible goals set by National for local councils. I've thoroughly enjoyed being a volunteer ever since and seldom have had to call on "council" for any help.

Well, you can't fight it but you can't win. The smartphones will assimilate us, Resistance is futile. Best bet, as the man says, is to find sensible rules that can work in your troop environment. They just have too many features that are useful to rule them out because they cause some problems with game playing an texting.

Thanks for posting that, armcomm. I wasn't aware of the museum and some of the details on the museum page.

Both Taoism and Buddhism emphasize unity with the forces of the Universe. As a Buddhist, I see "God" as the spirit that guides the Universe. It's not hard for most kids to make that connection. Both groups try to avoid defining God. In fact, one of the prime tenets of Taoism is that the Tao that can be described is not really the Tao. Much of it is beyond human definition. If Scouts are making an effort to understand the spirit of the Universe, they are (IMHO) doing their "duty to God."

Having lived in Florida for many years, I've had the opportunity to see HOAs and Condo Associations in action. The leaders of those receive no remuneration in most cases and are doing it only for power. Some of the worst battles I've seen came at association meetings. It also helps to understand why, under Communism, the only reward you can earn is power and privilege. The extent to which people are motivated by those are indicative of how unlikely we are to see successful societies based on the assumption that power will ever be surrendered or used in the best interest of all.

I don't know if anyone has actually read this, but yesterday at the Sunshine Trade-O-Ree, I got this answered. Two expert patch dealers recommended not selling these as a set. Only two of the patches are worth anything: Denmark and England. They suggested putting one of those on eBay with no reserve and let the bidding begin! I'll follow up if he decides to sell them.

From a fellow attorney: Well said!

I would take exception. You can argue socialism, but Communism is just plain BAD! It has never worked anywhere it has been tried and in the Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea, it has resulted in catastrophe after catastrophe. I confess to being a capitalist pig, but I've just not seen any case of good coming from Communism, whatever dictionary definitions you care to use.

This is the reason I always had a non-profit 501©(3) corporation to specifically own the unit gear. By law, such a corporation can only dispose of property by giving it to another non-profit, which is what we did when we finally closed down our unit. Several Scout units benefitted. We also always provided our own storage space for the gear. It's nice if the CO has a place and many do, but I liked to have it under my control. I had a garage full of troop gear for about a year.

Interesting! I've never heard that before, but it would be typical of a guy like Seeger. He was a lover of the outdoors and simple living. However, I don't think Seton was a Communist. There's a big difference between appreciating the American Indian way of communal living (which can be described as tribal communism) and the ideals of the Communist Party, which Seeger embraced at one time. And during that time, the Communist Party was represented by the Soviet Union under Stalin. I'm not dissing Seeger or standing up for Seton, just making an observation.

The whole purpose of Scouting since 1907 has been building character, citizenship, and fitness. We accomplish that essentially with outdoors, advancement, ideals, patrols, uniform, association with adults, leadership development, and personal growth. Sadly we must also follow a lot of guidelines in the interest of safety and liability, but the purpose hasn't changed. Anything else said that appears to confuse or contradict those goals is irrelevant. Baden-Powell and many others have and do wish for world peace and other things, but we as Scouters can only do what's in front of us to do.

Several States are moving in that direction. Of course, the main stream media is oblivious to the whole thing. I guess it's going to be up to me to write an op-ed to my local mullet wrapper about the process and send out emails to my state legislators.

I don't think I would want Scouts following me on Facebook, but FB, instant message and email are all trackable media. If you are carrying on a one-on-one conversation with a Scout, the records will back up what you talked about. Texting is not retrievable (or at least not easily), so I would avoid that unless necessary in an emergency. Seems to me that Troop websites or FB pages would be the place to communicate directly with Scouts. I don't really see the point in the requirement to copy another adult on an email directly to a Scout, but it can't hurt.

Merlin, the amendments are proposed at the convention, but the convention is called only for the purpose of voting on amendments which are proposed by the states.

Eagles can always be expected to excel at whatever they decide to do.

I assure you that it not only can be limited to those amendments, but it would have to be that way. The Convention of States can only be called to vote on specific proposals. The convention could not rewrite the Constitution. This is a big misunderstanding that many people have. And remember, 3/4 of the state legislatures must ratify any amendments passed.

I'm not so sure. People are really pretty fed up with the status quo in D.C. Since this does not involve inside the Beltway action at all, I think there is a chance. Just a chance, that's all.

I recently read Mark Levin's new book, The Liberty Amendments, Restoring the American Republic. If you haven't read the book, or at least fully understand his proposal, this probably won't make a lot of sense. Levin proposes calling a Convention of the States under Article V, which allows 2/3 of the legislatures of the states to call a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments. Levin proposes eleven specific amendments, although the Convention could add or remove any or all. The amendments would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states before they become part of the Constitution. This completely bypasses the president and Congress. The amendments proposed include: term limits for members of Congress, restoration of the power of state legislatures to elect Senators (as the original Constitution did), term limits for members of the Supreme Court, amendments limiting the federal power to tax and spend, an amendment that would put limits on the powers of the federal bureaucracy, one to limit the reach of the Interstate Commerce Clause to matters that truly cross state lines, one to prevent confiscation of private property for purposes of increasing the tax base, and power for the states to check the actions of both Congress and the Supreme Court. Levin does a good job of explaining the purpose of each one. There has long been a perception that a Constitutional Convention could run amuck and rewrite the Constitution to favor Liberal or Conservative principles. Levin explains why this is not the case. Only specific amendments could be proposed and have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. There has already been a gathering at Mount Vernon of politicians who support the idea and several state legislatures have some action moving through to call for such a convention. My feeling is that we are losing the Republic and without getting into a blame game (there is plenty to go around for all sides), the government IS the problem. Something truly drastic is going to be needed to restore it and it's my feeling, both as a citizen and an attorney, that these proposed amendments might be the answer. I encourage everyone to read Mark Levin's book and try to understand the intent. You don't have to be a constitutional law professor to get the message.

Sea Scouts and leaders often got to a shop and just have the wording embroidered on the shirt (since there is no BSA official shirt). It costs about the same as paying to have it sewed on.

One of my old troop members from the Sixties later worked in the TAC office at Heidelberg and bought some sets of TAC R/W CSPs from every country they had at the time (ca. 1972). Twenty-three of them then. I see the individual patches selling on eBay, but haven't seen any sets. Anybody have an idea of what something like that would be likely to bring? He would be likely to put some kind of reserve on it, but we don't really know just how much.

It's not really a question of how to register him. It seems to me that a Scout should be registered until he receives approval for everything and approval comes back from Irving, just for CYA purposes. If he registers, he must register as an adult if he's over 18.

Have you checked YouTube lately? There seem to be large numbers of preteen males posting videos of God knows what on there. I really believe that electronic media in all its forms is consuming large amounts of their time.

I am entirely on the side of "the Scout uniform is too ugly to wear at ceremonial functions" and the "no Scout or parent will ever know you aren't wearing official stuff" side of this. I would never appear in public in those baggy things they sell at scoutstuff.org, much less at a COH. I would also have no problem as a leader with adults wearing the new or old canvas shorts (not the zipoff, baggy stuff) at COHs. The uniform police would have to deal with Killer, my 12 pound miniature schnauzer, who would shred their official Scout socks. I congratulate you on having good taste! And, I'm heading for J.C. Penny. Of course, I am also the former SM who had a Scottish ceremonial team of four kilted Scouts (MacLaren, of course) who were quite popular in the day and praised by Green Bar Bill. He shared my view of proper dress!

In the 1970's and 1980's we had a very large troop in a growing suburb. It split three times, twice amicably and once not amicably. In the amicable cases, the men had already formed a basis for leadership in the new troop, gotten a sponsor and came to the Scoutmaster with their plan. It was strictly up to the boys and parents as to which unit they chose. In the third case, two leaders left the troop, found a sponsor and meeting place and started recruiting. No boys from the old troop were allowed to join for two months, then it was up to them and the parents. Some boys chose the new troop while others remained where they were. It was done in an adult way with no open hostility and strictly for reasons that had to do with program, not personalities. In that case, one of the leaders who started the new troop was a former professional and knew the ropes for a start-up. Not everyone could easily do it without the help of their DE.