packsaddle

Hard to improve on the list I've seen so far. I would add most everything by Jules Verne. To balance Treasure Island I would add Robinson Crusoe, maybe Swiss Family Robinson. Almost any of the true stories about survival are good (some have already been mentioned). I'm not sure how age-appropriate this would be for the younger scouts but the older ones could probably enjoy Buchheim's "Das Boot" (later made into a successful movie that missed a lot of what is in the book). Kind of gruesome in places. If there's a budding scientist out there, The Double Helix is a possibility but it will bore anyone who's not interested. There is a really nice book that is about a young woman but really is a true-life adventure story that is hard to beat: Two in the Far North by Margaret Murie. OK.. well, I liked it at least! Fact is, as long as they are READING rather than pouring their creativity into the video game and television toilet, I'm good with it. Doesn't really matter what they're reading whether classic literature or comic books (not that some of those aren't classics in their own right). It helps build (or retain) attention span and sets their minds free. OK, I know I come across as negative about video games and television and I know that Satan doesn't really exist, but if he did...video games and television would be evidence of it. H'mm I guess that's still kind of negative isn't it? Oh well.

I can remember a few nights when, during really severe thunderstorms, both my children (and the dog and cats, for that matter) would all pile into our bed. It was almost like a family outing and we'd usually end up laughing ourselves to sleep. Or else, once the storm was over I'd run everyone back to their rooms with, let us say, a loud sound - not from my voice. I sense that kind of interaction is not what's happening here though...but I'm not a psychologist either and if anyone tried to make even the sketchiest diagnosis from this it would probably have the same character as Bill Frist making his diagnosis from a video (that is to say, completely wrong). But I do want to slightly modify my first impression...these parents are wacko! That said, Gonzo, if I were you, I'd just maintain my friendly interaction and continue to offer the kid whatever opportunities Mason's friendship affords. But I'd thank my lucky stars I wasn't trapped in a similar situation. Wow!

100 years ago, the majority of the population was rural, today the vast majority is urban, mostly in coastal areas. There have been vast changes in most aspects of society: communications, transportation, commerce, just for instance. The kinds of opportunities that come with those changes were, I think, unforeseen 100 years ago...at least the technologies certainly were. And not all of those new things are bad. In fact, because we've embraced them so strongly as a society, it could be considered evidence for the degree to which we value them. At the same time, with the move to urban life comes less access to the outdoors and the wild. Let's face it, wild places have been greatly diminished. Even in the suburbs, camping in some patch of nearby woods is great but when you hear the police siren or loud noise off the highway, the experience is somewhat different. The ability to pursue the BP ideal in the way he originally thought has changed. But the ideal remains the same. So I was wondering if that ideal couldn't be met through those other kinds of opportunities? For me the problem is how do we do it? And does it really meet the ideal? I'm uncertain about the answer.

Councils are a collective. Recently I was able to intercept one of their transmissions...it was revealing: "We are BSA, existence as you have known it is over, you have been assimilated, your future is over, your past never existed, resistance is futile, from this time forward you will serve...us."

Kudu, what you say makes sense ideally. As a practical matter, Baden Powell formed his ideas before certain aspect of our habitat attained their current status. This brought fewer opportunities of some kinds and greater opportunities of other kinds. If we take to heart BP's intentions, is it not fair to provide access to new opportunities for boys, ones that didn't exist before, IF we still meet the spirit of BP's vision (and I'm not arguing that BSA necessarily does today, just hypothetically). That said, perhaps even if we were using a program like Kudu describes, prospective leaders should go through the process of qualifying for First Class (every part of it) before they get leadership status. Anyone up for that idea? I've done it before, I can do it again.

Beavah, Sauce for the goose - exactly! You know, thinking about it some...I like it more and more. I wonder how we could start an initiative to make something like this part of the requirements for leadership. The age-appropriate part might need some study, maybe by an exercise physiologist or something, but I really like it. For that matter, I think 1/4 mile ought to be within the ability almost without regard to age, with exceptions for disabilities, of course (out-of-shape doesn't count). Any pros out there listening? You guys interested in giving it a try as well?

You can talk to the dad (family) and make sure they are aware of the role that the scout is supposed to take. And then you can open to door to opportunities for the scout. If he has THAT much initiative, I say "Good for HIM!"...and good for everyone else as well. But if his leadership skills need some work, then the training certainly is one way to help. It may be that he needs to be more mature....but jumping into the position may be just the thing that brings that maturity. Working with people is always difficult and he will need to develop coping skills as well as decision-making and problem-resolution skills. It may take time. though, and the interactions with the other boys will make a big difference. Give him a chance, though, and he might come through just fine.

Hey, I like that idea about the pint but it's going to take a while to come up with two squids. So.....anyone like my idea about leaders meeting the same requirements? H'mmmm?

I hesitate to mention this but...'1' is a always a whole number whether it is applied to minutes, seconds, or hours. A whole number is a whole number and if you apply it to fathoms, klicks, cubits, or furlongs, I don't give a farthing.

To follow up on that thought, I'd support a requirement that EVERY leader meet those same requirements, whatever they were, every year. Now THAT would just be delicious! Sorry, couldn't resist.

Lisabob, like I often mention to my wife..... OCD! OCD! yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk Who cares, the point's made. But to your OTHER previous response, did you notice the very next post by Ed? I nearly fell out of my chair in laughter...SOME of us might think in terms of reconciliation...but those OTHERS are the sticking point. The thing is, even if Ed isn't bristling with IEDs and sneaking around blowing up other churches, there is no reconciliation of the ideas in his mind. That, I think, was the point I was trying to make. Even if we decide NOT to subject those who disagree with us to utter destruction, the conflict between the ideas remains unreconciled...and fully available should, at some future time, one side or the other gain the political or military advantage needed to eliminate those evil infidels who don't share our faith.

I rest my case. Edited part: In answer to the question that OGE just followed with, 'honor' is absent from every aspect of such actions. They are merely tragic displays of our basest weaknesses and should be viewed with sorrow, sadness. The ideas that people use to justify them should be viewed with contempt.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Wow,....all misty-eyed, sniff, sniff, quivering chin....someone does care..sniff..afterall.

It is entirely possible for a very fit person to remain just as fit during those early years and yet able to do progressively fewer pull-ups. This happened to me. The reason is that muscle mass often does not increase as rapidly as the length of certain bones. That is why I was able to do 10-12 pull-ups as a tenderfoot and then, for many years, I was a tall and gangly, clumsy person who was unable to do even a couple of pull-ups. In contrast, NOW, of course, I'm an OLD, tall and gangly, clumsy person, still unable to do a lot of pull-ups...and no one cares, thank goodness.

I know a scout who has been a tenderfoot for maybe 4 years now, precisely because of his dislike of the water. He can actually swim but because of his dislike he simply won't do it. He is active in every other way in the unit and he has a raft of merit badges but when it comes to that requirement, he just shrugs. And he seems content enough not to have made a single request or complaint. I've talked with him about this many times. In the end I leave the conversation scratching my head. Go figure.

Lisabob, heh, heh, don't you think that the name of your example, "the 100 years war", sort of automatically disqualifies it as a reconciliation? I mean, the two sides really decided that they weren't sure, after killing each other as hard as they could, which side would be left standing. They were sort of resigned to admitting they just couldn't be sure of completing the genocide (is that the wrong term?) more effectively than the other side. I suppose I should have added, "without trying to kill off the other side." but I sort of didn't consider that as part of any true reconciliation really...I guess I thought that would have been understood without saying. Am I wrong? Edited part: OGE, I think I was focused on 'religious' views, not political ones. I admit that a person's faith may be reflected in their view of such issues as capital punishment (a bit more trouble with the democracy/monarchy thing), but the question is with regard to the fundamental religous idea at the base, and not the political or social outcome that is expressed in legislation or in a legal process.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

One more try. Perhaps the answer to the question of reconciliation can be answered historically. Can anyone identify examples where sharply-opposed religious beliefs have been reconciled? So far the silence has been very revealing. Ed knows that homosexuality is a sin in God's view. Another person knows homosexuality is NOT a sin in God's view. Reconcile THAT! Unless I've missed something, such reconciliation never really occurs and, looking back on history, conflict resolution eventually involves violence or death.

kb6jra, thanks for the good words. Believe it or not, he is the new guy but with the old view. However, in spite of appearances we get along fine. Almost like a game of tag. He's a big guy (literally) but he knows I can outrun him. We both know that we're both interested in what's best for the boys so when we argue, it is pointed in the direction of contructive interactions. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother trying and neither would he. This particular boy in question will be OK this time around. He may have to do an extra dance this time, but who doesn't from time to time? Hopefully the process of the two of us advocating for each of our views will somehow continue to move toward optimization. Wow, that's a 'glass half-full' outlook isn't it?

I confess, I have mixed feelings regarding the searches of my mother-in-law. On one hand I do love her dearly (she's a great cook) and I have contempt for thoughtless wastes of time that I observe at airport security. She actually HAS legal documents that are supposed to allow her to go through security without these searches (metallic joint replacements). The oafs in TSA either can't read or else they can't think...either way they do ignore the documents that TSA itself issued for her. On the other hand, she IS a mother-in-law and so I have just a twinge of delight when, to her consternation and with documents in hand, those mindless oafs send her to the pat-down area. Along with all the other blue-haired ladies that also seem to get 'the treatment'. I mean you never know what they might have squirreled away in those support hose...yeah, I think maybe a cavity search just might be in order too.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OK, OGE, if no one else will, I'll address your question. Perhaps the answer to the question of reconciliation can be answered historically. Can you identify examples where sharply-opposed religious beliefs have been reconciled? Maybe those could be used as models for this conflict.

"...it isn't hard to say that half a pull-up is more than no pull-up" and I agree too.

Gonzo1, you may be right but the thought that goes through my mind after a career with the feds is, how much of this stuff is anything more than 'make-work' crap that politicians and bureaucrats think will sell well with the public? And how much of it really substantially increases our security? As LongHaul says, his prints are already on record. So are mine. Yet, for any (or no) reason, if we want to carry on our lives, because the bureaucracy is too incompetent for one office to communicate with another, we'll have to jump through the same hoops again and again. The real measure of security, in my mind, would be how well really competent security personnel can access and share all that existing data, rather than waste time and resources making redundant unused copies. This administration, in it's tenure, has doubled the size of the federal government. I'd like to hear anyone argue that none of that increase is just bureaucratic bloat, driven by power politics or plain old cronyism. You know, I get really warm and fuzzy every time I watch my 80-something mother-in-law get the full treatment...every time she flies somewhere, without exception. HEY, threat elminated there! The only threat she poses has something to do with a weight limit. But the TSA people chew their cud and give her a good feel every time, dutifully and mindlessly doing their dutiful and mindless routine. I'm with LongHaul regarding the Patriot Act. It is a loss of personal freedom and I seriously doubt that when Dubya reads my email (you can kiss it where the sun don't shine, George) any significant boost of national security results. The ongoing examination of our crooked attorney general is sad, given the unbridled power he has been given. But that's who's tapping into our private lives, thank you very much. He's demonstrating daily how all of them are above the law. Another example of this thing is the call for a national identity card. What a load! We have and always have had a national identity card. It's called a passport and we've demonstrated quite nicely, thank you, how incompetent we are at supplying those to legitimate citizens in a timely manner. I doubt that any greater competence can be found around TSA...we're just lucky that the terrorists are so incredibly stupid so far. But making ANOTHER national identity card is definitely going to reduce our immigration and security risks...RIIIIIIGHT! I guess it's the presumption that you expressed that bothers me the most. That any thought to the contrary is automatically incriminating. That's a legacy that might be the most damaging of all. LongHaul, Ben Franklin would be apoplectic at what we're handing away. Great quote, I've thought of it often.

What a great question! The requirements do not specify a full pull-up. To me the question would be, can you objectively quantify improvement in a fractional pull-up? If you can, then no problem. If not, I'd say the full pull-up differential is the way to go. The requirement leaves 'improvement' up to the examiner. BTW, the boys in this unit were grousing loudly about the physical fitness stuff, especially the pull-ups. I was almost at a loss as to how to get them motivated. Then, I lucked into a solution: I sent my daughter (a couple of years younger than any of them but full of spirit) to show them what a little girl could do. She did one, then two, then....6 pull-ups. The boys' jaws dropped. Man, you should have seen them working on it after that! I didn't bother to explain anything about arm length and leverage and such.... No need, really.

Heh, heh, Gern, I'll address this to you because you're closer than anyone else in the thread right now. Oops, sorry, you too, Skeptic. I've posed something like this in the past. If, say, I decided in my middle age that a change of life was in order...or perhaps that I was attracted to men but only in the role as a woman...and I went through the full monte to become a complete (sort of ) transexual...(and let me tell you, I'd be a good one too! Oh baby, I'd turn heads!), would that pesky Y chromosome kill my chances with BSA? Or would simply the choice to be a transexual kill my chances, say, to be a den mother? After all, physically at least, my attractions AND my actions, if any, would still be heterosexual, right? Should be OK unless I read BSA policy wrong. What's that? Moral absolutism was just run over by a train? I mean, if I did the operations and the hormone treatments and the counseling and training, and I never did anything with anyone - but Ed found me attractive.....? Which one of us would be, you know, immoral? Why? or Why not? It really comes back to the essence of the orignal topic of this thread. BSA's policies on these things are SENSATIONAL. Think about it, SEX and the SUPERNATURAL! I'm hard-pressed to think of a juicier combination (OK, maybe the Bible) and BSA plays right into those grimy journalistic hands every time they press their thumbs down on private lives. Moreover, a little more detail is in order. Is this whole BSA pre-occupation with sex and sexual orientation merely a matter of which parts are mated, or given my sex-change are we going to need a karyotype as well to make sure of the truth in advertising for those parts? And how are you going to know WHO to test, I mean I'm going to be goooood! Fact is, it's none of anyones d*** business, including BSA's, Ed's, Brent's, and mine for that matter, as long as lovely packsachet doesn't favor them with her charms (although, let me tell you it'd be worth it if she did! ). As a matter of fact, I believe that once in the not too distant past I WAS 'outed' in these forums...what can I say, the operation must have been a hack job. But what if it had been true? Or maybe it was and I pulled it off successfully! Actually, none of you can ever really be quite certain one way or the other, can you? About ANY of us, really. Why is it that so many of us seem to take some kind of sexually-repressed, WASP-like, pleasure in judging other people to be immoral, or inferior just because of some difference? Ignorance and fear are the only answers I can think of. Any others? XOXOXOXO Edited part: Hey Trevorum! Top THAT!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

LongHaul, the evidence being considered today is better than it was back in the '50s but it is not conclusive. The question remains. But I agree with you, as you mention, "Why is it so hard for us sometimes to separate the discussion from whether we think sexual orientation is biological or learned behavior, and what we think about people being able to choose with whom they associate?", that the question should not be germane to this issue. If someone (Ed, for example) demands unequivocal evidence for a biological basis, and if such subsequently becomes available, how likely is it that such a person, confronted with precisely the evidence they demand...will change their view regarding morality? I suggest that it is quite unlikely. (Or am I wrong, Ed?) If they DID change their moral code as a result of biological reality they would have to abandon certain matters of faith (which have NO biological basis) and adopt a more 'naturalistic' approach to morality. Indeed this could open the door to all sorts of rational approaches to morality (and life in general) further marginalizing the supernatural as a basis for anything. For this reason, when I hear someone with strong faith-based views regarding the moral status of gays, and when they ask for the objective evidence for a biological basis, I have to wonder if they have thought about this at all carefully. OGE, I haven't read much from TheScout recently but his general advocacy for decentralization for government is persuasive to me in the case of BSA. However, I suspect that the top of the hierarchy (theocracy?) in BSA would consider any such decentralization as a threat to their status quo. Alternatively, they may actually be allowing such local choices quietly and discreetly...already. Seems like something like that already happens in LDS units for other regulatory matters, so why not membership issues as well? Lisabob, I was typing at the same time, I think. I agree with your assessment.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)