Rick_in_CA

I really like Mike Rowe. That NYT article is silly, and Mike's response is great.

But you have noticed that talk show hosts don't do that kind of advertising much anymore right? And why? Because it is considered problematic now days for various reasons. I don't have a real problem with the idea of sponsored posts as long as they are clearly marked, and not in "Bryan's voice". The hard part is how does Bryan make sure it's not in "his voice"? I'm not sure. The post in question I think is pretty clearly not in his voice, but not everyone agrees with that.

It's discussed in my area. Mostly at the cub scout level (at recruiting nights we often get parents asking, can I sign up my daughter too?). It's brought up at round table from time to time (my daughter really wishes she could join now instead of waiting until she is 14). But I agree that there isn't a huge hue-and-cry about it. The consensus appears to me to be "we will join the rest of the civilized world eventually and go coed, just not today". One of the interesting things I have observed is that there are a lot of scouters that don't realize that venturing is coed (they appear to be scouters that don't have much contact with venturing and don't know much about it). There is a coed venture crew that is a band that often play at scout events such as round table bbqs and Scout-O-Rama. I continually surprised when I hear scouters identify the female bad members as girl scouts. I encountered two scouters at Scout-O-Rama actually arguing over whether the female band members were girl scouts or AHG. When I explained too them that the girls were members of the venturing crew, they initially didn't believe me until we spoke to one of the crew leaders. Basically the fact that venturing is coed is below the radar for a lot of people. My fear is that if we went fully coed at all levels tomorrow, we would see some truly ridiculous YPT rules added as well to try and assuage the fearful.

True, a lot of the BSA's rules are actually safety theater. They are not designed to make the kids any safer (some even make kids less safe - like the new YPT electronic communication rules), but to show that the "BSA is serious about safety". Like so much in modern life, image trumps reality.

I'd love too wear one if I could find a semi-crushable one like the original hats. The original boy scout (and military) campaign hat had a softer brim then the modern versions made today. I understand the brim was almost as soft as the one on the modern BSA "Indiana Jones" hat. I feel that any item of uniform that can be damaged by the rain or needs a hat press doesn't belong as part of the uniform. I'm a scouter, not a Paris Island drill instructor. Plus a softer brim is more practical. If the hat brim gets bumped (such as by a backpack), a soft brim will simply bend while a stiff one will push the hat. But the campaign hat says "scout" to me in a way that none of the others do. Probably because of all the Norman Rockwell paintings, old movies and photos of BP wearing his.

My concern with the issue has less to do with the idea of "getting caught" (an IRS audit), than with doing the right thing. I know that my unit will probably get away with it, but it's still the wrong thing to do. What lesson do I want to teach the scouts? A Scout is Obedient - A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.

Taps is a bugle call traditionally played at military funerals (such as at Arlington). It's origins are the bugle call for the end of day. While it does have words, it is usually presented without singing. The most common form for memorials is the single bugle (or trumpet). If you have a bugler in your unit (not many do anymore), it's a pretty simple tune of 12 notes. Taps: Day is done, gone the sun From the lakes, from the hills, from the sky All is well, safely rest God is nigh. Fading light dims the sight And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright From afar, drawing near Falls the night. Thanks and praise for our days Neath the sun, 'neath the stars', 'neath the sky' As we go, this we know God is nigh.

Teflon for camping is a health hazard and should be avoided. Camping stoves tend to produce hot spots that push Teflon above the danger point. Though you can now get high-temp nonstick pans from some places, they tend to be expensive.

OMG. It quite literally makes me want to cry. Those poor kids. At least some parents are pushing back. I hope it's enough.

@@Stosh is correct. The US forces only fought for a few months in WW1 while the rest of Europe fought for years (total US military dead in WW1 is something like 53,000). Therefor it doesn't weigh in the public conscience as heavily as WW2 does. While it's true that WW1 was very bad, WW2 was worse (though different). You have to be careful when comparing "battles". The Battles of Verdun lasted for almost ten months. The Battle of the Somme was almost six months long. For WW2 you have to look at long duration battles for a better comparison. Such as: the Battle of Stalingrad (5 months long, 2 million casualties), Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine (6 months, 450,000 casualties), the Battle of the Bulge (6 weeks, 170,000 casualties), or the Siege of Leningrad (over 2 years long, 4 million casualties). Germany had almost twice as many military casualties in WW2 as it did in WW1. For the UK however it was reversed, they had significantly more casualties in WW1 than in WW2. Total worldwide deaths from all causes during WW1 is around 18 million. For WW2 that number is around 60 million. WW2 was fought on a scale that the world had never seen (and God willing, will never see again). I agree with this. Also as others have suggested, playing taps would be traditional.

I am very sorry for your loss. Moosetracker was a valuable member of our forum community. I always looked forward to reading her posts. She will be missed. Know that you and your family will be in my thoughts and prayers.

@@Stosh, Is it really this bad? If I am two days from help, and I have a drowning victim who isn't breathing, is it really hopeless? Obviously I'm going to try CPR anyway, but are the odds really that bad? I thought that sometimes the CPR can get a person's heart working again, and (at least in drowning incidents), rescue breathing is often successful? Is that just wishful thinking?

It's a game (an incredibly well studied one). Now I haven't taken Woodbadge, so I haven't played "The Game of Life", but it sounds like a version of The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. The mechanism of the game is the choice: cooperate or defect? Take out the choice, and you don't have a game. There are Prisoner's Dilemma tournaments, usually done entirely in software. You can find multiple papers about optimum strategies. This is from the Wikipedia article: As for what "winning means", it means you got the most points. At least when playing Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (Chess isn't really a points based game)

I don't get the abandoning integrity part. If you are playing poker, are you abandoning your integrity if you bluff? There are a lot of games where bluffing, trickery and other forms of dishonesty are part of the rules. In the Prisoners Dilemma, dishonesty is an important part of the game (without it, there isn't much of a game). It's wrong too present such a game and then too criticize a player for following the rules.

I just came across this article on the Psychology Today website about the importance of risky play for children's development: Risky Play: Why Children Love It and Need It. In the article, the author talks about how preventing children from taking risks actually causes harm. In another article, he also talks about how depriving kids of unstructured play time away from adult supervision is creating adults that are finding it hard to function on their own: Declining Student Resilience: A Serious Problem for Colleges. The information isn't really new, but it got me thinking. The GTSS (Guide to Safe Scouting) is full of rules that prevent scouts from taking risks (climbing trees, using a little red wagon, etc.) or being away from adult supervision, all in the name of "safety". It looks like many of these rules (not all) are actually causing more harm than good. The BSA used to be about teaching kids how to cope with risk and developing independence, no longer. Yes, this is not just a BSA problem. But instead of pandering to the fear culture like they do now, I believe that the BSA should be a champion of the "free range kids" movement (or something like it). It should be out front arguing that some risk is good, and that kids should be given opportunities to test themselves and learn independence (bring back patrol camping). It should be pushing back when politicians propose laws and regulations that increase the restrictions on kids based on fear. The point of this thread, is not to simply complain, but ask: What can we do about it? How do we push back against National's climate of "safety at all costs"? Write letters to national? Phone calls to the CE? How do we handle this with our own units? Do we start to ignore the parts of the GTSS and YPT that are ridiculous and just theater? And if we do, what kind of risks are we exposing ourselves too? How do we get the parents of our scouts to understand that some "risk" is good? It looks like the evidence is in, overprotecting our kids is causing real harm. What can we do?

Software Engineer.

Amen!

Look at the kind of camping you plan on doing, plus where you are going. In many cases, you don't need tents. In good weather, the scouts can sleep on the ground*. Or just create simple shelters with a cheap tarp, some sticks and some rope (the original 1911 edition of the Boy Scout Handbook had a section on making tents out of tarps. Plus you can find lots of examples on the internet.). You can even skip the sleeping bag and use a good old fashioned bed roll (just by folding a blanket or two and a bed sheet). Need sleeping pads? Just buy large sheets of closed cell foam and cut to size. Need cooking gear? Used aluminum or stainless pots and pans work just fine (especially with plop-camping). As @@Stosh said, look at surplus and thrift stores. Plus you can re-purpose lots of gear for cheap (I recently saw a scout troop that used Gatorade bottles for canteens. They wove nifty net holders out of string for the bottles so they could attach them to their belts or packs). A Scout is Thrifty. You don't need a huge budget to get started. Then you can improve things as you go along. Plus, you will end up with gear better suited too the kind of activities your scouts end up doing. *A friend of mine hiked a big chunk of the Pacific Crest Trail (he did something like 800 miles in 45 days), and he didn't carry a tent. He slept under the stars, and carried a light weight tarp in case of weather.

Aren't military veterans civilians?

For me, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. When I see a mistake in protocol, I assume that people are trying their best, and are not trying to be disrespectful. I would never chastise a stranger in public about their "disrespect" in such a case. Besides being rude, there may be facts that I am not aware of (and just because someone doesn't look like a vet, doesn't mean they are not. Vets come in all shapes and sizes*). When I see a man sitting a dinner with a hat on, I assume he has a good reason (I know he might not, but I try to give him the benefit of the doubt). He might have religious reasons, or a medical condition. Or it might be as simple as being in a restaurant and having no good place to put his expensive hat other than on his head (when was the last time you saw a hat rack at a restaurant?). Life is easier if you don't look for reasons to be offended and assume people are trying too do the right thing unless given a reason not too. A Scout is Kind. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to model and teach proper protocol. But we need to make sure we also teach tolerance of the "mistakes" of others. One, because it's kind, but also because sometimes it's us making the mistake and not the person "showing disrespect". * I had the privilege to meet an acquaintance's grandmother once. A tiny, sweet lady. She was a US Army nurse in WW2. If I remember correctly, she landed on the beach at Normandy on D+4, and a few days later earned the bronze star and a purple heart (all she would say was "we were helping some wounded and there was some artillery fire". You don't get a bronze star just for "some artillery fire"). I wish I remembered more about her, but it was some twenty years ago. She isn't what comes to mind for most people when they think "WW2 vet".

I'm thinking that this is one of those "ask three experts and get three answers" kind of thing. My IRS agent friend's advice was to simply stay away from anything like ISAs, but I know others have gotten different answers. My understanding is this comes under a "the cost of fundraising" and is reported to the IRS that way (it's like paying your fundraisers). I agree with this.

My understanding is that what you describe wouldn't pass the tax test. If money is allocated based on participation in the fund raiser, you are in trouble. As it was described to me (by an IRS agent), you have to have a process for allocating funds that MUST allow a scout that didn't participate in the fund raiser the possibility too receive funds to avoid the IRS issues. He said if you have a "no fundraising no funds rule", you will automatically fail.

Go Packers!

Actually whether you are in a BSA uniform has nothing to do with can you drink alcohol. From the GTSS: See? Nothing about wearing a uniform. If you go home after a BSA event, there are no BSA rules that prevent you from having a glass of wine with dinner, even if you haven't taken your uniform off yet. If you are at a troop camp out, you still can't have a beer even if you are not wearing a BSA uniform. I don't understand where the idea the "no alcohol rule" was somehow tied to being in uniform came from.

Very cool. I'll have to see if I can find some of his books. They sound like great reads.