Stosh

According to the Flag Code adopted June 14, 1923, males "salute" the flag by standing at attention. IF they are wearing a hat they remove the hat with their right hand and hold the hat over their heart (not their hand). IF it is inclement weather the man removes his hat and holds it above his head. Females stand at attention and hold their right hand over their heart. As long as everyone does their own thing, it really don't make much difference what the scouts do when not in uniform. Stosh

Any boy that has not advanced for a year, has sufficient partial merit badges that should have finished them and anyone who has been hit or miss with their attendance are all candidates for SM conferences. Some of them are also given a Board of Reviews and a little heart-to-heart with some of the adults does go a long way in resolving why the boys are acting the way they are. Sometimes what is said to BOR people is different than what is expressed to a SM. As the ASM in charge of advancement, I'm always monitoring the progress of the boys and not only address the issue with them, but will also schedule the SM conference and BOR as needed. Stosh

My troop has done high adventure activities with other troops that haven't and needed some help getting it going. My troop has "shared" leadership with another troop that was short leadership at summer camp. I have personally helped out with other units that needed that second person. I would think that a scout is a friend/brother to all other scouts and that wouldn't end once someone sewed a numeral on your shirt sleeve. John's right, if your troop as 8 adults going and this other troop can't go because they lack a second person, I'd excuse myself for the weekend and help out the boys who need it the most. I would probably enjoy the activity with the extra work that 2 leaders would face than the boredom and sitting around that would occur if there were 8 other adults hanging around, but that's my personal opinion.

Stosh Does your woggle represent service with no end? >>>> Yep, pretty much that's what it means. To have skills and training and then not use them to the best of your ability runs pretty much against the principles of Scouting. I think "Do Your Best" from Cubbing pretty much sums it up. Of course the unit gets something for nothing! That's why you're called a volunteer. >>>> Unfortunately, that's not the definition of volunteerism. You're called a volunteer because you're not getting paid. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course the unit gets my time and presence for nothing. I can be a body to fill the two-deep leadership just by showing up and sitting around. If they want more than that, they need to invest in assets, i.e. canoes, trailers, cook equipment, training for the adults, etc. if they wish to ever get more than just people showing up, i.e. volunteering. Stosh

The old adage goes: "You get what you pay for." If the unit is going to derive benefit from sending their leaders to WB, they need to be paying for it. Otherwise the message is: we as a unit are getting something for nothing. The leadership of a troop already donates time and talent, the least the unit can do is cover their expenses. The money a unit invests in WB training for it's leadership is better spent than what they put into a nice paint job on their troop trailer. When I took WB I paid for it out of my own pocket, the troop reimbursed me when I completed it. I was not expected to take the course but did it on my own. Now 15 years later, I'm thinking hopefully the troop has gotten their money back in their investment in me. Our unit has three WB trained leaders and we all took the training 15 years ago. I think it's one reason why our troop has been so successful over the years, we're all still together running the same troop. Stosh

By definition, the Flag is a flag only when it is allowed to be as such. Anything else, any other representation, or even a facsimile are inappropriate. Abuse over the years has basically redefined the flag to mean anything. Remember that the next time your scout tosses his scout shirt with the "flag" on the ground changing into his class B's. We no longer have any definition of flag, thus it becomes less and less meaningful as time passes. At one time the US Postal Service petitioned Congress to allow them to put the flag on postage stamps. After much debate, it was allowed, but reluctantly. As far as I know that's the only time the Flag can be used other than as a flag. Which of course is encouraging what when we cavalierly toss those stamps in the garbage without a thought. Flag courtesy is an oxymoron in today's US culture. If people want to salute a patch -- fine, but it would be a lot easier to just get a flag stamp out of the garbage and tape it to a pencil and hold it up in a "respectful" manner so the boys will learn "true" respect for the "flag". In many cases, I would prefer no Flag ceremony rather than have to be exposed to some of the practices of today's culture when it comes to some sort of "respect" attempts for the Flag.

Ok, I'll be the wet blanket. Whenever we have an Eagle project, it is not required that all the boys from the troop be required to help on the workforce. Granted this is a noble project, but if people can't afford to go, they stay home. If I can't foot the bill for this year's vacation, I stay home. If I can't pay for gas to get to the grocery store, I walk. It's nice to have scouts thinking about the welfare of people far away, but one must remember there just might be eagle scouts there already that could help. Somehow I get the feeling this is more of a troop trip rather than an Eagle project.

Had the first incident been reported to the authorities, I wonder if this behavior would have continued on into other situations. Sometimes we "protect" such people in the interest of getting them some help, but this boy was expelled from the Ship, the Troop and after another incident school. No one seems at all interested in getting this boy help and thus an official report to authorities would have curtailed the problem from the get-go and possibly forced some sort of counseling.

I like your approach, but there is one snag. Your Scouts that age up can only serve as ASM's until they turn 21 (MBC also). Then they can opt for a CM position. So what does the SM do when one of these Scouts wants to stay in the Troop? You can't necesarily make them adult chaperones, ie: leaders in training. >>> When I was responding, I was referring more to parents of Webelos cross-overs coming into the troop when we have no idea how these people work with the youth. In your scenerio of 18 year olds, having come up in the ranks we would have knowledge of the leadership qualities of these boys. As a matter of fact, all our Eagle receipients are carried for 4 years beyond their 18th birthday while they are in school or in the military. The troop pays for their registration so they keep the continuity of membership in BSA. Once they are done with school/military they are free to find their own troops or return back to ours. They are all registered as ASM during this period. They come back for the fun activities and keep their pulse on our troop so to speak. Those that don't stick around or keep in touch are still carried out of respect for their accomplishments with the troop. How do you two handle the 18 y/o's that want to stay in your respective troops? Do you just assign them as ASM's? Do you place them under the wing of an experienced ASM for a certain time period? Just curious how you do it? >>> Usually these young men are away at school or military duties. When they come back for an activity, it is more of a homecoming feeling rather than a serious leadership development opportunity. >>> I did have one boy age out of my crew and because he was over 21 became a CM. The problem doesn't occur as much on the crew level. >>> Boys that do not Eagle but age out are not carried on the books, but if they wish to stay on as an adult leader, they may do so. Here again, however, we would know the background of the boys and would offer adult leadership based on that knowledge. Stosh

I am having difficulty in understanding the logic. Boys watch trick shooting and then emulate their behavior. Boys get the Whittlin' City and then..... ??? Boy learn fire building and then..... ??? We teach our boys dangerous activities. We teach them under the must safest of conditions with the highest level of precaution taken, showing the utmost responsibility that goes along with that knowledge. The trick shooters, if requested, will go to great lengths to emphasize this same respect for safety with young impressionable minds present. If we are worried about such activities, archery and BB guns should not be allowed in the Cub Scout program. All fire should be under the exclustive domain of adults and no boy should be allowed under any circumstances to have a bladed tool in his hands.

If this group doing the demonstration are associated with the national organization for cowboy trick shooters you shouldn't have any problem. These people are highly trained, skilled and extremely!!! safety conscious. They put on a good program, and compete on their own when not in front of a crowd. I have attended many events where these people have been featured performers and have wowed the crowds. If they are all nationally registered trick shooters and they are offering to do this for free or a nominal fee, get them! The boys and adults will have a great time. These people do not shoot wax bullets! The flame discharge of a handgun will pop a baloon at 15-20' and the low-load shotgun loads will break the standard clay pigeon but not travel much beyond 100 yds. I have seen these people put on public displays in a crowd situation where they carefully move the crowd into safe areas before they do their "High Noon Shootout" in the middle of a congested, no fences, no spectator areas kinds of setting and did so very safely. My venture crew is Civil War reenacting and we do this type of thing all the time without any danger to the spectators at all. If these trick shooters are all nationally registered shooters, you will have a safe and exciting program for the boys. I'm sure these people will be more than happy to hang around and work with the boys on gun safety and spectator interaction following their performance. This is not an activity for the boys to participate, it is a program they attend. There is not any G2GS problem with it. We take our boys to the Ducks Unlimited Festival and there's guns, and bows, and all sorts of things for the boys to watch. Watching and participating are two different things. The national trick-shooter people will know how to set up their safety perameters and will provide all the know-how needed to insure the safety of all spectators. If you attempt to set up safety perameters, don't be surprised if they change them, they know more about safety and those weapons/horses than you do. Stosh

It is my opinion that size is relevant to program, area of serivce, and adult leadership. For many years we were considered a premier, high-adventure type of troop. We have our own canoes, and canoe trailers, we have a troop trailer, we take weekend trips that some other troops take all year to plan for, we take multiple teams to Philmont when we go, and when we go to BWCA we've always had to have multiple entry permits. This has always been what we do because it's what we know best how to do it. In the past couple of years we have had a large influx of Webelos cross-overs and our numbers have swelled to almost 30 boys. Needless to say, many of our programs do not work well with that many boys and we've had to restrict attendence at some of them which does not set well with either the boys or the adults. If a patrol wants to go, we as adults are mandated to making it happen. Only the event's regulations ever restrict our boys. We could never have 30+ boys and be anywhere near as effective as we have been in the past. This year we're taking 21 boys to summer camp, which may be no big deal to most troops, but it's going to be 1,000 miles from home. The adult support logistics of such a trip is a major commitment from parents/leaders and strains our resources to the limit. Because of the distance of travel involved with this year's summer camp, we're having only one other high adventure trip this year. There is no way with the program we have, will ever be able to handle a troop size much over 30 boys. Can we grow our troop? Sure, but we would need to alter much in how we function as a whole. Stosh

I sure hope usetobeafox isn't my SM. :^) Anyway, if he's going to be replacing me, this is how he would do it: All of the leadership of our troop is first given a trial period as an adult chaperone, see if they hang around the troop meetings, offer to help with projects, etc. etc. for a number of months prior to being invited to sign up as a leader. This gives us an opportunity to see how the person works with the boys and other adults. Last year, for example, I took the boys to summer camp and I had two "parent chaperones" to "assist me". Since that time, one of their boys has quit scouting and the other is in uniform, working quite nicely with the troop. This summer camp (major trip) has SM, ASM, 2 CM (one from last summer camp) and 2 "adult chaperones" i.e. leaders-in-training. Leadership in the troop is by consensus of all the other adults, including everyone who will be working with them and the Committee. As far as asking someone to leave, we've never had that problem. Maybe it's because of the way we recruit and observe prior to asking that has never given occasion to regret our decisions. Of course if usedtobeafox is my SM and I'm the one being kicked out, then please ignore this post. Stosh

If the program isn't working, one can have all the recruiting efforts they wish and as soon as the boys find out the program isn't there, they're gone. If one has a good program, the boys will seek the program out. I have a program where I presently have people from 3 different councils involved in. Our recruiting is minimal, but once the person checks us out, they generally will stick around. Adult leadership must support the program of the boys. It's the key to boy retention. If they find ownership in the program, they'll stick around, if they don't, they're gone. Stosh

Just because you put a uniform on doesn't mean you cease to be a caring human being. You put the uniform on because you ARE a caring human being. :^) Stosh

It may not be the answer one wishes to receive, but if the patrol method is being used, why not use it as it was intended. We've had support people, i.e. SM and SPL's interfere in the operations of the patrols when discipline is necessary and basically it always works out with one or more boy either being removed from scouting or they quit. Neither outcome all that efficient to the program. If left in the hands of the boys and then support their efforts, things have worked out better. "Empowering" the SPL seems to indicate he is powerless in the process. How about empowering the PL of the patrol in question? Start at the root and work from there. In all this discussion the PL and the APL have been omitted. Whatever happened to empowering them? or are they insignificant in the process formerly known as the "patrol method"? For those who many not have like the suggestion previously, look at the conversation. The SPL is involved, the SM is involved the CC and CM's are all involved and just where is the role of the PL ever discussed. This is the Patrol Method, is it not? That's why I think the 12-guage approach is a useless process and not recommended by the Patrol Method approach. Stosh

With this being an adult-led troop, I'm sure it was not appropriate for the SPL to comandeer the procedings and make changes unilaterally. However, had the patrol method been followed, the PL of the patrol would have had the opportunity to float by the supportive SPL and SM their ideas as to what they think might be a solution to the patrol's problem. The boys could then have taken these suggestions into their own discussion and possibly resolved the issue from within, with little or no problems bleeding over into the other patrols. However, this is pie-in-the-sky thinking for most today so I guess the standard approach would be for someone from the outside to step in, usurp the authority of the patrol leaders, disrupt the problem patrol and a few others along the way and by the time the smoke settles evaluate how successful they were with killing the mosquito with a 12-guage shotgun method. Stosh

One must remember that not all registered members of BSA are Boy Scouts. I currently have registered crew members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of my boys has returned from Iraq 100% disabled. Our Crew has no Troop Flag to put any stars on, the young man didn't die, but come Memorial Day, I'll be thinking alot about him and his sacrifice and the other two crew members serving on active duty presently. Stosh

Barry: I didn't take it personal, I was just curious how one situation was worked one way and a similar situation differently. I must missed the connection, that's all. I didn't see the SPL's discussion for a change to be construed as the QM was being fired. The QM obviously was not fulfilling his obligations and a SM conference might be in order, or a change, whichever the SM and SPL deem as appropriate. I do not like, however, where a responsibility and authority is given to one boy and it's another boy's responsibility to insure his success. If a QM doesn't do his job, why is it the fault of the SPL or SM? This lack of taking responsibility for one's own choices has simply gone too far. If QM doesn't do his job, it's his fault. If he is trying to do his job and is struggling with it and need help and the SM and SPL don't support him, then yes, the responsibility is shared. The QM job is not shared, but the teaching of the QM is shared. If a boy has QM has a responsibility and refuses to do it because he's not going on the trip, just doesn't cut it with me. It's not a case of failure, it's a case of insubordination. There's a big difference here. If a boy accepts a responsibility, he should be trusted to fulfill it. If he refuses we are now into "A Scout is Trustworthy". What's really interesting in our situation is that the SPL and QM are very good friends. If the SPL and SM replace the current QM with another, the next person to be considered would not be in the circle of friends of the SPL, but instead a scout who has shown diligence in following through on his responsibilities. And if the SPL knew what was going on and didn't step in...he should be fired? Isn't this dynamic exactly what we are NOT trying to teach our scouts??? If I don't do my job, someone else will step in and do it for me. No where in BSA literature do I see this written down, suggested or recommended! The SPL's job is NOT to step in and do everyone else's responsibility any more than it's the SM's job, or ASM's job, or anyone else. If a boy accepts a POR, only he can and should fulfill the responsibility. If he struggles with it and needs help, no problem. If he refuses to do it after saying he would, he's replaced by another scout who would benefit by the opportunity. Stosh

"The SPL will be discussing a change of QM POR this Tuesday with the SM." "Very interesting. Does this mean the QM fired, or the SPL? Our Troop could not have even left the parking lot without the QM because he has the keys to the equipment and the trailer. I would be very disappointed if my SPL didnt know one of his officers wasnt going to show up and we are standing there waiting for equipment. And yes, this has happened." >> I do believe the comment said that the SPL will be discussing a change of QM. I don't believe that statement makes any jump to conclude someone is getting "fired". The SPL knew the QM wasn't going to be attending the outing and he also knew the QM didn't do anything to prepare the troop because he personally wasn't going to be in attendance. I guess in your troop if the QM can't be there, the whole troop doesn't go because they don't have a key for the trailer. None of our boys has that much control over the welfare of the troop and it's activities. "As for token responsibilities, I found that our newly elected SPLs were very good at getting rid of what they perceived as dead weight." >> Somehow I missed out on the point being made here. My SPL is not doing his job when he discusses the QM who's not doing his job and a change might be in order, and yet your SPL has no problem with jettising his dead weight and that's ok? Stosh

"We are constantly asking our POR people questions as to how things are going. This is not a nice little fire-side chat, it is a flat out question relative to their POR." It seems to me that this approach, along with the idea that the boy is "in trouble" if his answers are "not acceptable," reflects too much adult involvement in the operation of boy leadership. I don't understand, for example, why an adult leader would be asking the QM where the dutch oven is. Perhaps I don't really understand the context. >> There's always the thin line of where teaching goes too far and becomes doing. If in the course of instruction, the lack of a dutch oven by the patrol assigned to cook is expressed and the PL of that patrol doesn't know where the thing is, goes to the QM who doesn't know where it it, which ends up with the SPL involved and he surely doesn't know where it is. Such ripples amongst the boys usually catch the attention of adults in the support role. Now these adults can pitch in and help look for the dutch, or they can go to the POR who's responsibility it is to know where it is and ask a question. This in no way means the problem is being directed, lead, or involved beyond a training lesson on the part of the adult. Even better yet, ask the SPL to ask the question of the POR person. This past weekend we had a camporee. The QM didn't attend, nor did he inventory the trailer, inspect the equipment, or watch over the food supply situation. Even if he didn't go on the trip, his responsibility was to make sure the troop was ready before it left. Needless to say, at different times throughout the weekend, multiple adults asked the question, "Where's the QM?", all fully knowledgable he was not on the trip, when something wasn't right. It emphasized and reemphasized the fact that someone was not pulling their POR weight. The SPL will be discussing a change of QM POR this Tuesday with the SM. Because the adults asked the questions, it does not mean they are directing the leadership of the troop. What they are doing is constantly dumping it back into the laps of the boys to get their problem solving skills back into action. It wasn't very long before THEY had an answer to that question. They found the dutch after two other scouts went in and tore the trailer apart and cleaned it up a little. A third scout offered to get his patrol together and clean up the trailer this coming week, until a QM with some SS can be found in the troop. This is why we always phrase the issue in a question. A statement gives direction, a question seeks a resolution. The onus always falls back on the boys. One must always be aware that the question must be clear and specific. It cannot be just a frustrating challenge or that will be an interference of no value on the part of an adult. For example: "Where's the dutch oven?" Specific, to the point, no editorial commentary or blaming, identifies the problem and focuses the attention on the problem. It sets out the framework for conflict resolution and problem solving opportunities. On the other hand, "What's going on here?" is a vague, editorial comment suggesting someone's to blame for a problem, and offers no direction or definition. The closest thing to a directive with the initial response is the phraise "Not acceptable". This means the answer "I don't know" is not an acceptable solution to the problem facing the scout. When one gets to the training of the scout where he won't answer, "I don't know" or gives you the blank stare, he'll answer with a "I'll check it out" meaning, I'll take the responsibility of solving this problem. What is interesting in this whole process is the number of times my SPL and ASPL have followed along in this process with the various patrols. It works and works well with training the leadership skills of problem solving, responsibility taking and stepping up to the plate with ways to solve their own problems. If this process means adult interferences in the boy-led leadership, I guess I'm willing to accept a little bit of it along the way. Stosh

Just because one has been given the POR, they wear the patch and do the time, does not necessarily mean they get the credit. If one does not fulfill the responsibilities during the time period they will not get credit. If they do enough for a couple of weeks/months of work, they get credit, but if they do nothing, they get nothing. We are constantly asking our POR people questions as to how things are going. This is not a nice little fire-side chat, it is a flat out question relative to their POR. The only unacceptable answer to these kinds of questions is" "I don't know". If a PL is asked where so-and-so is and doesn't know, he's in trouble. If the QM is asked where the spatchula is and doesn't know, he's in trouble. The number of "I don't knows" gives a pretty good idea of who well a POR person is doing his job. If they do know the answer to your questions, you can be pretty sure they are fulfilling their responsibility. Also, asking these questions is a great way of teaching the boys what their POR is all about. If I ask the QM where the dutch oven is, he needs to know, and if the first time I ask and get the "I don't know" answer, usually the second time I ask, the dutch oven has been checked out and the QM is more apt to know where it is. Our PL's know when their people are not going to make a meeting in any given week. They know their church schedule, their sports schedule and their family schedule. It's not as hard as one may think. Just don't accept "I don't know" as an answer to anything. The progression in this process is very simple. It starts with 1) "I don't know", then moves on to 2) the deer-in-the-headlights look and a long awkward pause, then the 3) "I'll check it out right now!", and finally ends up with 4) a straight in the eye answer that you know the boy has already done what is expected of him. The adult response is 1) "Not acceptable", 2) Let the silence do the discipline, 3) "Very good" and 4) "Nice job, Thanks!" Stosh

Hey! Couple of researched posts! Love it. Thanks John and Scouter&Mom. And just when you think things are changing, I just got back from a camporee where the "color guard" was wearing blue jeans and sweatshirts, got the flag down off the staff and then proceeded to fold the blue into the middle before two adults came out and straightened them out. Members of my new scout patrol immediately asked where their uniforms were even before it could start and my SPL turned to him and said, "Don't worry about it, you have yours on." I surely don't want my boys growing up in scouting feeling elitist, but sometimes, the life lesson's just won't allow one not to be. Stosh

As a historian, one must always be prepared to back up one's finding with at least 2 if not 3 sources of support. Unfortunately, most uniform police only back up their ideas in most cases. The policies of uniforms changes from one year to the next with all kinds of different ideas being set down. Like the headgear change in 2007, it often times catches us off-guard and we need to back track a bit to make sure we are compliant. With that being said, no scout in our troop ever bought scout pants unless they were going to national jamboree and were required in order to participate. That makes them the exception to the "rule" and thus when they do it right they stand out as looking different, i.e. not "uniform" in appearance. However, when it comes to respect for one's flag, the "clothes don't make the man". If a scout is less than perfect in his uniform appearance and has his heart in the right place, how can we fault him? The major thing that bugs me is the people who find it necessary to point out the short-comings of others with often outdated or incorrect information. Last summer I was up in Calgary for vacation and noticed a number of young men and women all in civilian clothes, packs, etc. in a gift shop. They were all wearing a yellow neckerchiefs. I suspected and then asked if they were Scouts. They were. Sometimes, that's all it takes to let others know what you stand for. By the way, I had a nice talk with a very interesting young man that day and learned a lot about Canadian Scouts. I also had a nice visit from another gentleman who noticed the pin on my expedition hat (I was in civilian clothes) and again we had a nice chat about Scouting except this time it was Australian Scouts. And by the way, none of my Venturing Crew members owns a BSA uniform. They would never have an opportunity to ever wear it. The only "proof" of BSA membership is the card they carry in the liner band of their hats. And yes they salute, and by the way their color guard has been saluted by high ranking military officers even though it is in no way "official" in any sense of the word. Stosh

"Official uniform police follow the current official uniform rules, which may be found in the current official Boy Scout Handbook, and current official Insignia Guide. Its not fair to blame the official uniform police for technically incorrect uniform practices one might hear about or read on an internet discussion forum. A few factoids (ref the Insignia Guide or Uniform Inspection Sheet): The only official uniform headgear is the BSA red visor cap or the BSA campaign hat." >> And yet the uniform inspection sheet states: "Headgear: All troop members must wear the headgear chosen by vote of the troop/team." While it may not be an official hat, if the vote goes for a custom hat, then it's an appropriate part of the uniform according to national policy indicated on the Insignia Guide. "The expedition hat is not a uniform piece." >> It is if that be the choice of the troop. See the above quote. "Custom troop hats are not official headgear." >> They are not official but they are acceptable as part of an apporpriate uniform if it be the vote of the troop/team. "The first class pin may be worn only by youth." >> unless it is the First Class pin of silver and green color which Scoutmasters wear, or the First Class pin of gold and green which Assistant Scoutmasters wear. "The universal pin and the first class pin are the only pins that may be worn on official headgear." >> But any pins can be worn on unofficial headgear, such as the expedition hat, and non-BSA campaign hats. "Headgear (official) does not need to be removed during an indoor flag ceremony." >> If you are making reference to official literature of the BSA for that, please indicate your reference. I can't find the reference. According to US customs and most schools, churches, etc. I have ever seen, even today, expect that no male should be wearing a hat of any sort indoors in the first place. "Headgear is optional, by vote of the troop. All members of the troop abide by the troop decision." >> that includes the selection of headgear as well, as spelled out specifically in the Uniform Inspection Guide. "Of course individuals and troops deviate wildly from the standard." >> because it is an allowable practice per the uniform inspection sheet. And by the way, about 99% of the scouts in our council cannot pass the inspection given the state of their current unforming standards. "For an adult to wear youth insignia is not in keeping with the uniforming method. If you are wearing a non uniform hat you are not in "uniform". A troop can decide to wear official head gear or not but wearing non official head gear technically is not an option when speaking in terms of being in uniform for the purpose of saluting the flag.. One salutes the flag when in uniform and covers the heart with the hand when not in uniform. Wearing blue jeans means you cover your heart. Non uniform head gear should be removed out of respect for the flag and what it stands for. LongHaul" >> In our council only a couple dozen adult leaders would ever qualify according to your personal opinion, to salute at most flag ceremonies. With all the discussion floating around concerning the uniforms, BSA national remains rather vague, yet unform police policies seem to find very specific and undocumented references to support their claims. And yet when all is said and done, everyone thinks they know, but until they actually go back and read the official documents a lot of undocumented statements will continue to float around posing as the "truth". "During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the Flag, or when the Flag is passing in a parade, everyone present should face the Flag, stand at attention, and salute. Those in uniform should render the hand salute. When not in uniform, men should remove the headdress with the right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. In case of inclement weather the hat may be slightly raised and held above the head. Men without hats merely stand at attention, without saluting unless they belong to the naval or military service. Women should salute the Flag by placing the right hand over the heart. If the Flag is passing by, the salute is rendered when the Flag is five or six paces away and is held until it has passed. When "The Star-Spangled Banner" is played, everyone present should stand at attention and salute as described above. The salute is rendered at the first note of the anthem, and the position is retained until the last note." I could go on and on with this, but in order to indicate a point, one only has to make a couple of references to the National Flag Code adopted June 14, 1923, to know that most people haven't the foggiest idea of how to properly and respectfully give respect to the Flag. He who is without error, feel free to toss the first stone.... :^) Stosh