New to the Forum?
Tell us a bit about yourself so we can welcome you to the Virtual Roundtable
1248 topics in this forum
-
- 11 replies
- 3.4k views
-
- 34 replies
- 29.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 3.9k views
-
- 8 replies
- 7.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 4.2k views
-
- 5 replies
- 8.8k views
-
- 3 replies
- 4.2k views
-
- 7 replies
- 5k views
-
- 4 replies
- 4.3k views
-
- 3 replies
- 4.9k views
-
- 5 replies
- 4.4k views
-
- 5 replies
- 4.9k views
-
- 29 replies
- 13.1k views
-
- 16 replies
- 7.8k views
-
- 5 replies
- 5.3k views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
I think Erie Shores is the chartering organization for that pack. There were also prior incidents with the older child attacking the younger child. -
Our school district was celebrating a couple of years ago that in a student high school survey, only 50% of the respondents identified as heterosexual. Now the same people are professing surprise that the number of students in the district is collapsing and claim to have no idea why. -
That's not how garrisons work. Just not. I guess another non-military non-veteran thought on something this week. The West Point camporee presents a unique situation where cadre and cadets put so much into it because so many have a connection to scouting back home and get to invite their home troop. Not even GSUSA can replicate that network and process. No other scouting organization will have that relationship, it took half a century and literally millions of past members of BSA to create that network and connection to the academy. If Scouting America gets kicked out of the West Point camporee it means the camporee is dead. I highly doubt any other scouting organization will have a relationship with the military like Scouting America. Congress no longer issues charters for some reason; I've seen how this affects newer veterans groups, too late to the table and unable to fill the same space as the older groups like AL or VFW; those groups become niche organizations that are mostly filled by politically hungry people unwilling to put their time in to get district or state level leadership positions in the older groups. Trail Life in itself has some other issues that will keep it on the outside, Right now the political arm of the military is VERY protestant and pushing a very protestant position towards things; however, most of the military historically doesn't practice religion outside of boot camp (lots of "no-religion" people suddenly become "Non-denominational Christian" in boot camp when they realize the church goers go to mass on Sunday while the non-church goers scrub floors and garbage cans). Then toss in that the overwhelming largest religious group in the military is Catholic and you have a big problem (The Catholic church endorses Scouting America as it's partner group through NCCS, and Trail Life is anti-Magisterium). -
I have also heard that there are a large number of councils under conditional charter; that came out of last years NAM and was related to some sort of discussion related to the financial health meeting. I believe the number was somewhere between 20 and 50 councils left the NAM being told that they might be placed on conditional charter before the end of the year. As I understand things national is looking at a handful of metrics: rolling 90 day cash-on-hand, unrestricted endowment contributions/growth, membership in relation to total-area-youth, and an amalgam of safety. Based on the councils that got merged out last year and so far this year the trend seems to be that if a council is surviving off of their endowment national puts them on transitional or if a councils membership shrinks below some ratio they are put on transitional. A good example of the financial is Suffolk Council in Long Island and their financial situation. A good example of the membership was Ohio River Valley (who had everything going good except the whole council was basically a district in membership).
-
In our society, that is the United States of America, the legal systme is so twisted that it does not protect most of us and can be rigged or leveraged to generally put the onus on those with the least ability to fight it. And personal responsibility too often is brushed aside by the "corporate", especially the insurance industry. Meanwhile, ridiculous payments continue to be made when someone can leverage the system effectively. And, when the insurance is forced to pay, it is likely the insured will be priced out of future insurance of dropped all together. Even small claims can lead to increased cost to the insured, whether or not they have had others. If somebody has no claim for ten years, yet pays on time and fulfills that obligation, why is it legal or seen as acceptable for the company to then drop them or raise their rates drastically? It is a Catch 22.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)
- There are no registered users currently online