HelpfulTracks

22 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

Is throwing bodies at the problem the answer? Or do they listen to DEs as to what their issues are and, maybe, make organizational changes to alleviate the problems?

I think this does fall under the dia of organizational change. And the professional I have spoken with love the help they are getting. 

23 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

I support the 2nd amendment and the rights therein. However, I believe the Founding Fathers would not have meant this right extends to such weaponry as we have now. I own firearms. I own firearms that have a practical purpose such as hunting or defending my family/property. I do NOT own firearms like an AR-15, sniper rifle or anything like that because I believe they have a military purpose.

I think if the Founding Fathers were alive today they would be appalled at the extremes on both sides of this debate. We do need arms and should have them. We don't need arms that can take out a company of citizens in less than 2 minutes.

 

If we want to curtail the Second Amendment based on what the framers could not have envisioned, then what do we do about the First Amendment?

Firearms of today would at least be recognizable. Many advances already existed, though not widespread, existed, like cartridges, multi-shot weapons, rifled barrels.  Even telescopic sites were being experimented with at the time. 

Free speech and press, on the other hand, would look alien to them. Telephones, television, cell phones, internet for example. It took 6-8 weeks for a message to go from London to New York, we can fly in a few hours, and have a video conference that is instantaneous.

I think it would have been far easier to envision where our firearms would be today than where our communication is now.  And these guys were pretty visionary, to say the least.

I am also not sure what you mean by firearms "like an AR-15 or sniper rifle."

The media and politicians have adulterated terminology of weapons to suit political purposes. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The definitions being used to call it an assault weapon also cover entire sets of weapons that many people are in support of maintaining.  When those terms become misused it muddies the debate and laws get passed that are too broad or ineffective.

22 minutes ago, David CO said:

The United States is not a signatory to that "law".  

I am not sure what law you refer, but the Continental Congress absolutely issued Letters of Marque to attack British ships. In fact, they did so before they even wrote the Declaration of Independence. Which is why British Captains considered any ship under Continental Flag as a pirate and subject to the worst forms of treatment, including hanging, conscription or what amounted to a death sentence on British prison ships. The British did not treat POW's well in many cases, but sailors were often treated worse because of them being considered pirates due to their Letters of Marque.

Just now, DuctTape said:

Re: private ships with cannons. At the time privateers were issued letters of marque (as permitted in the Constitution) to act on behalf of the us govt to attack and seize foreign ships which otherwise would be considered piracy under maritime law. The letters of marque legitimized the privateers as de facto navy ships. IIRC, current international maritime law prohibits issuance of letters of marque in the current times.

In addition, the initial field pieces used by Continental Army during the revolution were from the frontier militia.  The militia was supplied from numerous sources, the British, companies vested in the business of the frontier,  wealthy citizenry with a stake and even collective funds from the citizenry. The British eventually outlawed such guns, but not until there were significant tensions in the colonies.  But before that, there was no law preventing their manufacture or purchase by militia or the civilians that made them up.

Sabres were not uncommon among militia officers, who were often chosen as officers because of the financial standing in the community (and their ability to spend their own money on supplies for the militia).  Bayonets were not common, but certainly not outlawed. Most weapons the militia had were the personal weapons of those that served, and not made to handle bayonets (those some had them modified later) nor were bayonet used much in the style of fighting my militia.  Bayonet charges (along with canon and cavalry) were a major reason militia lines often broken in the face of British regulars. The militia was just not trained or equipped to deal with those tactics.  That too changed to some degree as the war continued.

2 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

Your right to keep and bear arms is meant to have an armed citizenry ready to come to the defense of the government (the State).  We've allowed the creation of a professional military to defend us.  In doing so, we have allowed ourselves to believe that we can leave the defense of our country to others while we go on with our lives.  This has allowed folks to twist the meaning of the second amendment to one of being able to defend themselves against their own government, and get away with it.  Those folks are deluding themselves in these modern times.  When you have a government with a standing army that can manipulate a silent drone from a thousand miles away to drop an explosive device on your home, there is no effective gun defense against your own government.

 

It has been a very long time since I studied the documents debating the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Remarks on the Federal Constitution and others), but as I recall, the concept of the potential need for the people defending themselves from our own government was absolutely part of the discussion and absolutely not far-fetched in the minds of the framers.

In the context of this discussion two things stand out about my own military training. We swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the government or any particular party or person. And we were drilled to question unlawful orders. If our own government were to become tyrannical, I have little doubt a significant portion of our military is both intelligent and patriotic enough to stand against such tyranny. I do believe that bar is extraordinarily high and would not be taken lightly, but there is a bar.  With that in mind, the concept of a civilian army standing against our professional military is plausible.

Also, there is a long history of civilian armies standing against professionals. Our own country (Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War), and others. The Soviet’s in Afghanistan, Britain in India, The French and U.S. In Viet Nam, and numerous South American conflicts come to mind.

I would add 3 points.

1. SM does not count against the 1/3 limit as long as he/she has been SM for at least the last 12 months.
2. The term is an "adult nomination", which means the Troop Committee nominates adults, they are not elected. Once they are nominated the nominee must be recommended to the Supreme Chief of the FIre (a fancy title for SE) by the Lodge Adult Selection Committee. If the SE approves then nominees become candidates for induction and must go through Ordeal to become members. Lodges vary on how strict they are on the recommendation/approval/process.  Some send all (or almost all) adults through, others control the number more tightly because of the naturally high percentage of Adults to youth and the Lodge's needs. (see #3 below)
3. Per OA bylaws, adults are recommeded based on their ability to server the Lodge/Council and should fulfill some purpose or meet some need (I ama paraphrasing). 

So as an adult, you are not on the ballot for election, there is a seperate nominating form for adults.

6 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

But they are only updating cloud (and it's different than suite), the CC files are a different format than suite, and the save down option from cloud to suite has been hit and miss in my shop.

The only difference with Creative Cloud (vs Creative Suite) is that you install the apps from the cloud rather than via CD or DVD.

There is no way to use them without installing them to your desktop. I have been using Adobe Tools since Photoshop 1.0 and Illustrator 88 (and Aldus Freehand). The formats are still the same (.psd, .ai, .esp) with a few new formats since then. 

I have not used them professionally in years, but I still maintain a license to freelance on the rare occasion and dabble a bit for fun. Functionally, they are basically the same tools they have always been, but with more bells and whistles (and more crossover). 

On 2/15/2018 at 4:43 PM, Back Pack said:

I don’t think so. Flagg has been pretty specific and you’ve been ignoring what he says. Pretty clear to me. It is almost like your trying to provoke something. How many times did he have to say what he said. 

Nah, they are just arguing two very different scenarios.

Col. Flagg is talking transmission. He is correct that without the transmission data doesn't do much good. If this tech is using NFC, then there MUST be an intermediary communication device, because unless things have changed recently, NFC is good for a max of a few inches. And then that device needs to be able to retransmit to the larger network.

Though I will say that during some FEMA training, the instructor said that most SAR actions take place in urban areas. FEMA even has an Urban SAR group. So data transmission may not be as much a factor in Urban areas with technology (assuming the victim has tech........and it's working........ and it is on....... and communicates useful data)

Schiff is talking data value. I believe he is saying that data provided by these type devices may improve search and rescue efforts.  He is right, more and better data are almost always a good thing if it is available

I guess I would ask another question, assuming your fancy new duds, tracked the right kind of data, and they were able to transmit that data, what would be the trigger for emergency response or SAR? I mean, did my heart rate tracking stop because a tree fell on my head or because my base layer malfunctioned?

Then, how do you bridge the communication gap? The SAR folks looking for me will likely not know who my clothing is talking too. The guy monitoring me in Mumbai probably won't know who to call to forward the data too. I mean, we can't get two different law enforcement agencies to talk to each other, I would be stunned if anyone could pull that trick off.

All this tech is cool, but there are still major limitations.

On 2/20/2018 at 1:42 PM, walk in the woods said:

A technology the vendor effectively abandon what, three years ago?

No, it is alive and well. The branding changed, the delivery model changed, pricing structure changed. But other than versioning upgrades. the products are the same and growing. 

Though I admit it is a strange app suite given the job, most of the tools are professional level design tools, overkill for those not in that industry. 

On 2/20/2018 at 12:28 PM, Gwaihir said:

Except that the 2nd Amendment as it's written, is blatantly clear that gun control legislation is in violation of the enumeration of rights.   If we said there should be heavy restrictions on who should and shouldn't be able to speak openly or publish news... there would be almost universal agreement this is in violation of the 1st Amendment, regardless of the merits of such a claim. Heck, Donald Trump even proposed such an idea in response to his "fake news" claims, and there was collective rejection of the premise out of hand, despite the technology advances since the amendment and the ability to disseminate vast amounts of fake and potentially harmful news to millions of people in seconds. 

I am not arguing that free speech should be against the law, in fact, I served to defend the Consitution and those rights.  Unfortunately, many people are in fact unwilling/unable to engage in civil debate, particularly among our elected officials who seem to think their primary purpose is to get elected/re-elected rather than serve. 

And as adamant as I am about defending all of the rights in the Consitution, you are incorrect that in the assertion that the 2nd amendment is a blanket protection against any legislation. 

3 hours ago, Rock Doc said:

Has anyone in Venturing completed the new YPT? I'm hearing that it's missing coed issues as well as older teen concerns. Seems like the one-size fits all may not adequately address the Venturing program...

I have, and is missing coed training. I called National thinking I had taken the wrong course (it also has same number as Boy Scout YPT, Y01). But that was the correct course as it now covers all programs. I don’t think there are any additional modules unless they decide the current set does serve their purpose. I was/am surprised the was such a difference between old Venturing YPT and new all encompassing version.

On 2/15/2018 at 6:19 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Pretty much. One of the challenges is that BSA changes policies and procedures so often, folks cannot keep up. Best example is the December 2016 Cub Scout advancement changes. We still have folks using the June 2015 - December 2016 advancement because that is in the book. Another example can be the various MB requirements. How many times did they change Cooking MB in a 5 year period?

Another challenge is old age, Memory goes as ya age  

OK I am using my 1987 printing of the 1977 ed. of the OA HB.

The Unit Election Procedure  starts on page 48. On page 51, procedure 6 is the following

6. The election team determines the maximum  number of names a voter may list on his ballot by reading the illustrated chart [ note chart is on page 53, E94],  as follows

* Find the number of eligible for election in the first column (Note: Boys who are already members of the Order of the Arrow must not be counted as eligible) [sic, E94]

* The maximum number of names a voter may list on his ballot is given by the number immediately to the right in the second column. Example" Voters in a unit with 9 boys eligible may list no more than 5 names on their ballots.

* If there are more than 20 eligible in the unit, one-half the number eligible may be listed on each ballot. If the number eligible is uneven, round the figure upward before dividing by 2. 

 

The chart on page 53 looks something like this

                                               ELECTION CHART

Number of Boys Eligible                 Maximum Names on Ballot

1 or 2                                                   1

3 or 4                                                   2

5 or 6                                                   3

7 or 8                                                   4 

9 or 10                                                 5

11 or 12                                               6

13 or 14                                                7

15 or 16                                                8

17 or 18                                                9

19 or 20                                                10

21 or more                                            Ratio of 1 to 2 (round up if number eligible is odd.)

Regarding blank ballots according to Procedure 7 on page 52  they count. Only way to not vote and not hurt anyone was to "abstain by not turning in a ballot at all, and this will not affect the final result."

The 1990 edition of the OA Guide for Officers and Advisers repeats the above verbatim on pages 38 through 41. I think I got the book in 1993, but no later than 1995 when I became a chapter adviser.

 

I apologize, you sir are correct. I even found the 1996 memo that canceled this policy.

It appears this rule was enacted sometime after 1980 and done away with in 1996, so I still fail to see how it is responsible, in whole or part, to any perceived downfall of the OA.

5 hours ago, David CO said:

Scouting isn't a competition. I don't think there is any such thing as a below average scout. 

Scouting is about having fun with your friends. It is not supposed to be like school or sports. Scouting doesn't have grades or class ranking. There is no above average or below average. There is no best of the best. There are no championships. There are no all-stars. There are no winners and losers. 

I am often annoyed by people who try to take the competition out of sports, but I am even more irritated by people who try to put competition into scouting. Not in my unit.

Mediocracy isn't about grades, ranking or competition. Mediocracy occurs because people settle for something less than what is capable. 

In Scouting, that bar is the oath and law. Not merit badges, or rank, or OA. There are those Scouts that exemplify the oath and law and there are those that do not.  There are Scouts that do not earn a sash full of merit badges or achieve Eagle or get into the OA, who absolutely exemplify the oath and law in their lives. And Eagles that do not.

But if an adult leader does not expect a Scout to live the oath and law, and lets him slide by when he is not, then the SM is settling for mediocrity and not doing that young man any favors. 

5 hours ago, qwazse said:

Don't worry HT, E94 has his bright moments.

But graft an corruption -- especially from volunteers and pros -- cause him to squeak.

 

Perhaps I am remembering the wrong poster, if so I apologize.

But the level of negativity on this board by so many toward Scouting is astounding.

I lost both of my parents when I was a teenager. Had my Scout leaders been as negative as many on this board, I wouldn't have stuck with scouting and no telling where I would have ended up. Scouting isn't perfect, but what is. 

5 hours ago, qwazse said:

We really emphasize this point with the boys. If they don't know a scout, abstain. (Yes, we have to teach them what the word means and how to spell it!)

Some first class scouts in a troop that's only been doing patrol-oriented activities may only be known to their patrol, SPL, and ASPL. For them, 6 honest votes (up or down) out of 10 is all that should matter ... unless between school and meetings other scouts know that he robs liquor stores to buy drugs.  The opposite could be true. A scout could be in a patrol full of bullies, and he's going against their current. The thugs don't notice it, but boys in other patrols do. Either way that's why you want as much of the troop as possible to weigh in and vote: yes, no, or abstain.

 

The is a very good approach.

Last year I was to oversee 2 different elections in one night, with different elections teams. We scheduled one for the first half of the meeting and the other for the second half.

When I arrived, the adult OA member who had brought several of the team, talked the troop onto go ahead and holding the election. Initially, I was fine with that. But after the meeting, as I was talking to the Scoutmaster, he told me the adult leader insisted that everyone turn in a ballot because they only had a little over 50% of their troop there, otherwise they couldn't hold the election. Although the adult OA member was wrong, the SM had no idea.

So all of his brand new crossovers turned in blank ballots. Out of 7 Scouts on the ballot, 2 were elected, 2 more would have been had the election been run properly. The SM was not happy. There were proposed bylaws changes to prevent this in the future.

6 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I think what OA represented is dead. OA used to recognize the above average scouts. They were experts with woods tools and felt very comfortable alone in the woods. They were givers of their time an represent Friendly, Courteous, and Kind to a fine art. Todays adults prefer mediocrity so that nobody feels bad being the below average scout. Advancement is more desired in groups and leadership is given so that each scout gets a turn. OA was a program that gave the above average scouts a bigger arena to expand dreams. Now it's just another boring program that is challenged to fit in a troop agenda.

Barry

I do not agree that what OA represent is dead.

I do agree with what you say about today's adults.  But that is, in fact, an opportunity for strong SM's to lead.

I make no bones that I believe Eagle Scout is NOT a participation Trophy and that I do not expect every Scout, or even very many, to achieve that distinction. I preach the same about OA, it is where hard work and service is not just the expectation, it is an obligation. And if you want to be part of it you better work your hardest to prove you are a first-rate Scout. 

I get some dirty looks from adults, and the occasional objection/argument, which always falls flat because there is no real argument against it.  The youth buy in almost universally to the concept.

Regardless of where you serve in Scouting, you have the opportunity to strengthen the whole. Hold the standard and others will eventually follow. Som will follow because they see the effects, some will follow out of embarrassment. But most follow or give up and get out.  We have a Scoutmaster in this area like that, he sets such a good example I have even heard the SE say we need to get this right because we don't want to get the stare from the SM.

5 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Prior to 1996 Scouts could vote for 1/2 of those eligible. If it was an odd number, you rounded up to the next even number. So if 2 Scouts were eligible, you could only vote for 1. If 3 or 4 Scouts were eligible, you could vote for 2. Etc.

 

From 1980 Handbook, pg. 49 under Unit Election Procedure

"There is no fixed quota. All eligible boys who receive votes from at least 50% of those who turn in ballots are elected."

I have never read anything that differed from that, from prior material or in the interim. I have never even heard anything materially different stated before.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Yes, the OA has lost its luster. Started back when you could vote for whomever you wanted instead of 50% of those eligible. When I found out a SM rigged an election so that everyone could get in, I was ticked. I don't know what happened after I became inactive with the OA due to Cubs Scouts, but my chapter is dead in the water. My oldest, who has been eligible for some time now, has no interest in the OA.

That is not the rule. A Scout can vote for everyone/anyone on the ballot. It has always been so. You need 50% of the Troop present in order to hold a vote, and you need 50% of the ballots cast to be elected.

Honestly, I cannot remember reading a single post of yours that is not negative towards Scouting. 

2 hours ago, mashmaster said:

Ours is still tap outs...  For youth fairly firm, for the adults they really pound hard....

🙈🙉🙊

I subscription to GTAYOP principle of advancement. 

1 hour ago, Back Pack said:

Actually it’s 50% of ballots cast. So if you have 51 scouts show and only 40 submit ballots your magic number is 21. So it’s not scouts in the room but ballots cast. 

You are indeed correct sir!

2 hours ago, mashmaster said:

Our tapout is held at a district wide camporee.  It is pretty cool.

In the true spirit of political correc........ I mean safety, it is now called Call Out, and no contact is allowed.

19 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

Interesting, I don't think that is in accordance with the national election guide.

Question for everyone, does your troop announce the elected nominees that night or wait for tapout?   We wait for tapout. 

Announcing immediately, doing their own Call out or waiting for a district/council Call Out ceremony is at the discretion of the Scoutmaster. As is who he informs. Most SM's share the info with their OA Rep and his Adviser, but it is his call. The OA Rep and Adviser often assist the election team, but may or may not be involved in counting the vote.

The 50% rule is a national rule. It is designed for fairness. Believe it or not, not all Scouts are trustworthy. Is it an arbitrary percentage? Probably, but the idea is that if you have half the troop you will get a somewhat representative vote. It is also to prevent small groups from dominating the process in order to ensure certain Scouts get elected and certain Scouts don't.  

The is no national rule against emailing troops to remind/urge them to request an election. In fact, National encourages  those emails go out. The OA are invited to conduct elections,  we are guest and do not show up uninvited, not to mention we want to show up when the troop is prepared.