packsaddle

Let's see....the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Pesticide Control Act of 1972, the Ocean Dumping Act of 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Clean Air Act of 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Marine Mammal Protection Act....and more...all signed or supported by the most infamous bunch of Democrats and communists in our nation's history....the Richard Nixon Administration. They would have been envied by that much earlier, ahead-of-his-time environmental activist and infamous Democrat, Teddy Roosevelt.

Let's see....I could jump on the 'cycle and go for a road trip...or I could babysit all day. H'mmmmm....wife says babysit.

"Name one world leader you would want the world to follow morally the rest of you life." Huh? Well DUH,...NO!! I think that was in my original observation, that part about being dictated to. Why do YOU advocate having to FOLLOW someone else's dictates? You're a smart person. Do you not trust your own ability to reason? Why would anyone advocate the thoughtless option if they're capable of thinking for themselves? You do understand that this is a 'libertarian' approach? As for that never-changing part: re-read Leviticus and get back to me on those never-changing morals.

I agree with Merlyn on the source of our morality. I have long wondered why we would want something like 'morality' to be dictated to us, as opposed to thinking it through and understanding morality for ourselves. Edit: I just took a quick look through this and also noted the various opinions on the whole 'God' thing: from clouds to sum total of whatever to invisible supernatural spirits. People....separated by a (an) (in common?) belief.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

A couple of days ago I posed this request with regard to the experience that OGE described receiving during a so-called 'snipe hunt': "You can call the behavior whatever you like but the hurt and humiliation that he felt and which I have seen others in his situation feel...was not necessary. If it was a positive addition to their scouting experience I'd like someone to explain how." And I still haven't seen it answered. So I'll pose it directly as a question. Exactly how does the hurt and humiliation of a scout, whether intended or not, make a positive addition to his scouting experience?

Scoutfish, Just what, exactly, IS a dumpcake?

Stop selling the wretched stuff.

Tampa Turtle, I learned a different lesson and it works with adults as well. You don't just pop someone in the mouth. If you are going to do something, first there can be absolutely no threats up front. Second, you can give absolutely no warning that something is about to happen. And finally, if you really ARE going to do this, you cannot hesitate or think twice - no measured response. You have to 'unload the entire clip', so-to-speak, and leave the person unable to respond. Make sure that in the future they will wonder if and when something like that could happen again. And as a followup, most persons who do get bullied or picked on have trouble dealing with the guilt, afterwards, for what they have done to a fellow human being. You have to be ready to deal with this and as well to prepare for whatever further consequences are going to occur. Remember, in taking this action you have decided that there are no other alternatives and this is a last resort. You'll only get one chance to 'express' yourself. Do it as completely and devastatingly as possible. Or don't do it at all. But I guess you learned that already.

Sorry. I guess it's that empathy thing in my personality. I have so much empathy and guilt potential I could make a great Catholic or Jew (actually both present in family history). And probably why I failed so miserably at being a Presbyterian. It's the thing that just kills me when I have to assign grades to students. My exams are 'grim reapers' and I feel it personally when a student, no matter how much they deserve it, makes a bad grade. I assign the grades nevertheless...and then anguish over them for months. So I'm one of those people who seems to try to take up for the underdog, the bullied, the picked on. It may be why I went against the tide with respect to racial integration and why I defend gays and atheists today. And at this age, I guess I'm probably not going to change.

Yes, OGE was told something by persons who were supposed to be friends and then they betrayed him and left him in the woods. Then they laughed at him. That is not a trivial deception for a sensitive person. It is a terrible betrayal. I get that you minimize this and I am having difficulty reconciling it with your usual approach to interactions with other persons with what often seems to be a sense of humanity. I'd like you to help me with that. But OGE learned that he could not trust persons who otherwise claimed to be 'Trustworthy'. I call that deception.

FLAVOR AID!!!!! You guys just can't get this right. It was Flavor Aid that Jim Jones convinced his flock to drink. Sheesh.

I've never seen pages pile onto a topic this quickly before...wow. I agree with and sympathize with OGE. You can call the behavior whatever you like but the hurt and humiliation that he felt and which I have seen others in his situation feel...was not necessary. If it was a positive addition to their scouting experience I'd like someone to explain how. Now I do understand that some of us have taken this kind of thing in a different way. I'm glad for them. I'm glad that they didn't feel that shame or humiliation and I'm really glad they didn't entertain thoughts of quitting scouts because of it. But not all of us react the same way. Some of us do not have the innate ability to deceive or to accept deception as something that is normal or expected, even good and fun. Some of us are truly sincere persons. We must learn how to humiliate from others, how funny it is to do it. Perhaps scouting is not the place for us? I am saddened if scouting is the place where we learn these deceptive ways...and also learn the moral that deception is a good skill to acquire, good and harmless fun.

"Microwave ovens were inwented in Russia" just a little Chekov humor there, apologies to Startrek.

It would be interesting to have Augustine alive today, to see how people decided not to follow his advice, and the results. Interesting.

I guess we'll have to wait for the 20-20 hindsight. Things sure did change with regard to race. But the suggestion that selective pressures favor a certain political view? I'm not so sure I'd want to have to defend those assumptions. The average age of the US is increasing at the same time that attitudes towards gays are becoming more accepting. And you have noticed that Italy, the most Catholic of all European nations, also has the lowest fertility rate? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I agree, Beavah. Moreover, that would provide a more effective incentive for the MARKET to support development of alternatives, or an increase in the efficiency of energy use, as well as more incentive to restore production of many goods to our shores, not to mention decentralization of some of the production we still have...returning even more wealth to local enterprise. But that idea has been suggested many times over the years. Too bad it can't get traction.

Shortridge, let's face it, no one is telling you where it is because they can't. It isn't there. Beavah, if what you say is true about the image and brand, then Trevorum's prediction has greater validity. In time, BSA will be susceptible to the changing public views and in time, membership policy will follow that trend as a way to preserve the brand and image in that changing public eye. Perhaps the market is working after all.

Before I was a forum member but while I was a CM, almost no person, parent or leader, in the pack knew about this until a DE decided to give us fire and brimstone instead of Blue and Gold. Everyone in the room was stunned into silence...and then they began to leave. I had no idea how homophobic the organization was until that moment. Of course, if you subscribe to this forum, you get beat over the head with it fairly frequently.

"So, if a 13 year old asked you "Why should I be reverent towards God?" what would you tell him." The answer is easy for me, "IF there is an all-present, invisible, supernatural being out there that can blink the entire universe in or out of existence, what more do you want?" "Can YOU think of something that WOULD command reverence if THAT doesn't?"(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I joined this forum a while back in order to get pointers on the program and ideas for the unit. But I didn't really get involved until I became aware of this issue. While I agree that the OP has a good question, I suggest that the question has always been there and that an answer of sorts can be found in the behavior of BSA with respect to this issue. BSA has not explicitly stated this policy. Instead, in a sort of passive aggressive way, they have reacted to specific situations, sometimes through legal venues. So in addition to the question in the OP, it might be illuminating to review the time series of the individual events regarding gay membership...and I'm not sure I can even remember all of them. But BSA established its legal status as a private religious organization as a result of one of those legal decisions. And there have been a sequence of consequences since that decision, including one that caught my attention early on - the decision that affected the boys who have earned the UUA religious award. If we are searching for the written words on this issue, the place to find the originals is a position statement that was made during the BSA v Dale case. And YES, I understand that this is not advertised in either the recruiting literature or the program literature for us volunteers. That's the point. BSA, through it's actions or lack thereof has sent a message of sorts to all of us. They have both confirmed their original position statement AND they have confirmed, apparently, Trevorum's observation a while back that "the times, they are a-changing". BSA said and is saying that BSA sets membership policy, period. Moreover, through their failure to articulate this policy clearly, they have sent a message that they can apply it any way they see fit. The inevitable situation which Basementdweller described (and evidently is weary of) is symptomatic of the reality that BSA is taking this on a case-by-case basis and if we are left with the impression that in some cases they might allow a CO to keep a gay member, or not, depending on the wishes of the CO, that impression may be getting close to the truth. It's still ultimately a BSA decision...if the CO wants to take it that far. The claim by BSA that "it's not about the numbers" reminds me of the observation by Mencken that when a politician whose decisions under critical scrutiny claims that "it's not about the money", Mencken says, it IS about the money. Applied to BSA, when we think about the loss of revenue from what had been traditional sources, when we think about the loss of membership, when we think about the loss of public CO's, it's hard not to think that the up-front claim that "it's not about the numbers" is disingenuous. It's about the numbers. When you think about this issue which has festered for decades now, combined with what some of us view as banal interests by professional scouters (cash flow, covering salaries, membership, donations), the flow of the history suggests that Trevorum is correct. The practical outcome of the original position is being felt enough that the unstated and capriciously-applied policy IS changing to something more along the lines of 'local option'. But be careful what you wish for. If we, through our criticism of this history, demand a firm written policy that clearly articulates the ban on gay membership, we might get it. Would that really be an improvement? I'm not so sure.

I continue to be reminded..."The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together."

"But they would never, ever, make the same claims about other groups - that blacks have done thus and so, that Jews have done thus and so, that Arabs are all this that or the other, that communism or capitalism or monarchy or democracy have done all these bad things." C'mon, do you WANT them to make those kinds of statements about the other groups? Could be you don't hear it about those other groups because my Tea Party supporting, homophobic, fundamentalist and openly racist minister and neighbor down the street who continues to fly the Confederate Flag above the American Flag...already does that for everyone. I have never heard him utter anything hateful about religion..oops, except for Jews...um...and Catholics, come to think of it, and Mormons. I have to admit, I've never really understood the thing about Catholics. Why not Presbyterians? Lutherans? Why Catholics? I'll probably never understand.

H'mmmm, I suspect that many of my friends and acquaintances could be labeled 'bigots' by someone who viewed them that way. Keep in mind that application of a label which is so loaded with personal subjectivity is almost meaningless. The real message in application of a label like that is an intent to close a dialogue. So, my Tea Party supporting, homophobic, fundamentalist and openly racist minister and neighbor down the street who continues to fly the Confederate Flag above the American Flag, probably could be called a bigot by someone. I still talk to the guy. In fact, my willingness to hear him out seems to be welcomed by him because he sure does unload when we do talk. The quickest way for me to shut down what little connection there is IS for me to label him a bigot. He'll get the message: that I'm unwilling to listen to him, that I consider his thoughts to have no value. He might even extend that to himself and conclude that I think HE has no value. This might actually be what some people who apply the label, 'bigot', think about those to whom they apply the label. By labeling him a bigot, I will have done little harm to him. I will have done harm to the 'neighborliness' of our interaction, however. And I will have done harm to myself because in so shutting down the dialogue, I will have been the cause of the loss of communication. It will have been MY responsibility, not his. He will correctly understand that whatever connection there might have been is now severed. That gap can now be filled with even greater distrust and lack of understanding than existed before. All for a label....which has almost no meaning. Nice.

Great story, great object lesson! I hope he remembers this for later in life when dealing with attorneys and the IRS, etc.

I have a similar Katadyn with a ceramic filter. I like it but I only use it while in areas that have fairly clear water. The kind of stuff the OP mentions would clog the filter very quickly. I do like being able to clean the filter though and it really does only require a good scrub. One thing to remember, for the purpose of cooking, say, grits, as long as it's been filtered to remove the worst of the suspended solids, that cloudiness is irrelevant as are the microbes...because you're going to cook it anyway. I don't even bother filtering cooking water if it looks reasonably clear. If you confine the ultrafiltration to drinking water only you might get by. Beavah, think about the differences between your region and the region mentioned in the OP...with respect to pollutant regulation. I've done some of the work on source tracking and I've been amazed at what we sometimes found in streams and springs that looked 'pristine'. I hope your luck holds out. Viruses and bacteria aside, I'd really hate to hear that you're being literally eaten alive by some eukaryotic parasite.