Me: Mid‑career professional in a research/knowledge‑services role at a public institution. PhD (public policy). 20+ years in. Salary: $114k. I stayed because the schedule was good, the work was meaningful, and I got to be present for my kids’ lives. I don’t regret that trade‑off.

But the last two weeks have made me realize I may need to future‑proof myself.

1. We aren’t backfilling a junior position; the remaining staff is expected to absorb the workload. When I started, our team was much larger. Now it’s down to two of us.
2. My institution just posted a Data Scientist position with a $100k–$125k starting range.

Qualifications for the DS role:

• Bachelor’s degree in a quantitative field
• 5+ years of data‑analysis experience
• Applied statistics (regression, hypothesis testing, research design)
• NLP/LLM experience
• Python + R
• SQL
• Tableau/Power BI
• Ability to explain technical methods to non‑technical audiences

So someone with a bachelor’s degree (plus experience) is going to walk in and make almost what I make or more.

I’m late to the game, but I’m trying to catch up. This fall I enrolled in:

• Intro to Applied Data Science Techniques
• Machine Learning I
• Artificial Intelligence Awareness

I’m stumbling through Python (my background is BASIC from high school), and a lot of the coursework feels like Canvas discussion‑board busywork. I don’t feel like this is getting me where I need to be fast enough.

I’m not worried about losing my job tomorrow, but I’m 49, and I’m trying to figure out the last 20 years of my career. I see the writing on the wall, and I’m probably 2–3 years late to this party.

Any advice would be appreciated.

No one's names are being posted / no dox rule. Any attempt to dox will get you banned from this subreddit. Not joking.

But this is from Scouting America's latest IRS 990 tax filing.

And this does not even factor in the millions council execs are bringing in.

Surely, we can get people committed to Scouting to take this on for like $1 salaries.

https://preview.redd.it/1e6ohnqf2osh1.png?width=1255&format=png&auto=webp&s=6c0f33e989a0b1bbf4ce56e216c8d22a5f8c7c15

No.	Name	Title / Position	Hours / Week	Comp. from Organization ($)	Comp. from Related Orgs ($)
1	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	President (thru 1/3/2024)	0	666,473	12,404
2	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	President and Chief Executive Officer	40	594,817	18,503
3	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	Secretary and General Counsel	40	481,925	32,554
4	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	ACSE EVP Chief Youth Pgrm Ofc * ACSE-Outdoor Adventure	40	400,264	58,259
5	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	EVP Development & Chief Dev Officer	40	403,888	38,082
6	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	ACSE EVP Chief Admin Officer * EVP Admin & Chief of Staff	40	404,658	25,663
7	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	ACSE EVP Chief Operations Ofc * Council Service Territories	40	367,522	45,580
8	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	Treasurer and CFO (2023)	0	399,195	1,587
9	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	SVP Chief Investment Officer * BSAAM Operations-Reimbursable	40	318,460	47,961
10	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	SVP Program * SVP Program	40	306,591	46,859
11	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	SVP Supply Chain * Supply Administration	40	318,080	32,163
12	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	SVP & Chief Safeguarding Offcr * Youth Protection	40	314,094	33,590
13	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	VP Controller & Risk Mgmt * Controller	40	329,272	13,820
14	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	NFO - Secretary	40	263,832	16,672
15	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	VP & General Mgr * Summit Support	40	258,262	9,009
16	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	SVP Communications & Marketing * National Experience	40	233,197	22,090
17	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	SVP Development * DEV-Fundraising Operation	40	226,884	16,653
18	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	Treasurer and CFO (Apr - May 2024)	40	208,909	600
19	REDACTED/NO DOX RULE	Treasurer and CFO (Aug 2024 - present)	40	143,333	18,911

Separate from any question about a self‑pardon (which is a distinct but related issue that deserves to be examined separately), what will the reaction be if Trump issues blanket or mass pardons for everyone in his orbit in 2029?

And what should that reaction be? And please, let's be realistic. Not fantastical notions. Concrete, realistic actions.

For the "will", I think:

As to the pardons themselves, nothing will be done, because nothing can be done. Congress cannot reverse pardons. The president’s pardon power is effectively absolute, and no credible legal argument has ever suggested otherwise. For those claiming there is a credible legal argument:

1. Name a single court case supporting the basis for such a claim.
2. Consider that this particular Supreme Court is pro-Trump; it is incredibly, unbelievably unlikely they would overturn any Trump pardons.

That leaves state‑level charges against individuals in Trump’s orbit. This would simply perpetuate a tit‑for‑tat dynamic in which the party out of power runs to friendly state courts and prosecutors to obtain indictments, regardless of the underlying merits. Will those charges ultimately stick? It may not matter, because the process itself (time, money, and effort to defend against them) becomes the punishment.

What that leaves is: what should happen? Congressional hearings? Sure, but what else?

Curious to hear your thoughts on both the realistic fallout and what the appropriate institutional response should be.

Assuming the Democrats take control of the U.S. House in November (with or without the Senate), it’s likely that very little will be accomplished. Unlike past split‑government situations, including Trump’s first administration, there appears to be virtually no common ground on which Democrats would be willing to agree with Trump. The number and percentage of bills passed this Congress is the lowest in at least fifty years.

Let’s dispense with this now: yes, Democrats can pass articles of impeachment in the House with a simple majority. The Senate, however, will never reach the sixty‑seven votes required for conviction. Even the most optimistic projections give Democrats fifty‑one seats in the Senate—nowhere close to the sixty‑seven needed to remove Trump. And replacing Trump with Vance could backfire politically, potentially strengthening Vance’s position heading into 2028.

With impeachment and removal off the table, that leaves ordinary legislation. Even if Democrats were to pass a bill that Trump is willing to sign, there is a vocal faction within the party that would likely condemn its leadership as traitorous to the cause. And any bill Democrats strongly support is likely to face a veto, with no realistic path to an override.

As a result, even mundane tasks, such as naming a post office, could be framed by some Democrats as a form of betrayal or cooperation with the Trump administration, making Democratic leadership reluctant to advance them. On the other side, with a debt‑ceiling confrontation expected in mid‑2027, along with the usual appropriations battles and related deadlines, it is likely that Trump would veto anything and everything.

Finally, Trump’s administration has made it abundantly clear that it will not comply with congressional requests or subpoenas, potentially dragging out legal battles for the next two years until the political landscape shifts in January 2029 and Trump issues his inevitable pardons of everyone.

So, is there any hope for, literally, and I mean literally, any legislation to pass and be enacted next year? If so, under what conditions?

Assuming the Democrats take control of the U.S. House in November (with or without the Senate), it’s likely that very little will be accomplished. Unlike past split‑government situations, including Trump’s first administration, there appears to be virtually no common ground on which Democrats would be willing to agree with Trump. The number and percentage of bills passed this Congress is the lowest in at least fifty years.

Let’s dispense with this now: yes, Democrats can pass articles of impeachment in the House with a simple majority. The Senate, however, will never reach the sixty‑seven votes required for conviction. Even the most optimistic projections give Democrats fifty‑one seats in the Senate—nowhere close to the sixty‑seven needed to remove Trump. And replacing Trump with Vance could backfire politically, potentially strengthening Vance’s position heading into 2028.

With impeachment and removal off the table, that leaves ordinary legislation. Even if Democrats were to pass a bill that Trump is willing to sign, there is a vocal faction within the party that would likely condemn its leadership as traitorous to the cause. And any bill Democrats strongly support is likely to face a veto, with no realistic path to an override.

As a result, even mundane tasks, such as naming a post office, could be framed by some Democrats as a form of betrayal or cooperation with the Trump administration, making Democratic leadership reluctant to advance them. On the other side, with a debt‑ceiling confrontation expected in mid‑2027, along with the usual appropriations battles and related deadlines, it is likely that Trump would veto anything and everything.

Finally, Trump’s administration has made it abundantly clear that it will not comply with congressional requests or subpoenas, potentially dragging out legal battles for the next two years until the political landscape shifts in January 2029 and Trump issues his inevitable pardons of everyone.

So, is there any hope for, literally, and I mean literally, any legislation to pass and be enacted next year? If so, under what conditions?

just copying something here that I also posted over in r/cubscouts

I'm writing this as a frustrated pack parent and the husband of a Cubmaster.

We just went through a whole ordeal where Scouting America connected with a social media influencer and hired them to join our pack and post online about "an authentic Scout experience." They were to be allowed to attend our meetings, held inside a school, and film their experiences with their family.

I have no umbrage with any child wanting to join Scouts. Every child deserves to have a wonderful experience and should feel welcome and included. However, we weren't even given an option.

Pack leadership was simply sent an email from our council saying this person had signed up, that they were to be given an "A+ experience," and that they would be allowed to film what can be very personal moments. Leadership was told this was an exciting opportunity and that they should be excited about how much exposure the pack would receive.

Come to find out, the influencer's manager had found the opportunity with Scouts. Once they signed the deal, they were told what to sign up for and purchase. The child had no real interest in Scouts. It was simply a joint marketing and influencer campaign between the child's parents and the council.

Nobody asked if it was okay for our children to be filmed. Nobody asked if it was okay for an unvetted film crew to be at our Scout meetings, let alone inside the school where those meetings are held.

Up front, we as parents were told that if we didn't want our children to appear in the videos, we had to make sure they stayed out of view of the camera.

That was the biggest issue for me. There was no choice. Just send out a message and expect everyone to get in line.

This is a small pack in a rural community. We parent volunteers didn't sign up to become unpaid participants in an influencer's job making money. We didn't sign up to have our children posted online for millions of followers.

I take my child's privacy online extremely seriously. Every social media post I make involving my child is private or shared only with direct family. My child wasn't even given a choice about whether they wanted their image posted online.

I can't believe our regional council could take such an abhorrent position when it comes to disregarding the online safety and privacy of Scouts.

Scouting is supposed to be about children learning and growing through honesty, responsibility, self-reliance, service, and stewardship of our planet. It isn't supposed to be about using children as props for online marketing and making money.

There is a reason Scouting America has guidance regarding social media and online safety, and that guidance is both direct and strict.

I have no intention of saying which influencer or which council was involved. I don't want to badmouth anyone specifically because that helps no one.

The only reason I'm posting this is so that other parents and Scout leaders don't find themselves in a similar position.

If you feel as I do, advocate for your Scouts. Their privacy, safety, and ability to simply be kids should matter, regardless of what your council or Scouting America thinks is best for them.

Video: https://x.com/Acyn/status/2088314053093728562

Better source (thanks TittysForScience ): https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/14/politics/trump-uss-abraham-lincoln-deployment