packsaddle

The old town is nice. Also Bandelier National Monument is not too far and adjacent to Los Alamos (also interesting). http://www.nps.gov/band/ If you continue on Hwy 4 the Valles Caldera National Preserve is good too. Have a great trip!

Pennywise: "BEEP BEEP Richie! They ALL float down here. When you're down here with us, you'll float too!"

An easy 50-miler....any bike on the Outer Banks with the wind at your back - just an all-day coast. Pikes Peak...Gern, I'm in awe. For cycling we sometimes pack equipment into a chase (safety) vehicle and go for 20 miles across the hills to camp at some park. Bedtime is usually very early those evenings.

"Lots of "policy" happens because it's a poor substitute for knowin' what you're doin' and working hard to do the right thing." Man, you got THAT right! However, I'd say it's an 'Easy' substitute.

Does anyone think this might be an issue for no reason other than there are only 7 blanks on the form? http://www.scouting.org/forms/34405.pdf

Welcome to the forums Kbandit. This unit has had boys who are excellent swimmers but simply don't like cold water or dirty water or fish or whatever. They grudgingly pass the swim test and then go no further. Once they've gotten the canoing or rowing badges they don't visit the waterfront ever again. On the other hand they really like cycling and hiking and opt for those. If Swimming MB is done correctly the correctness of the STROKE is as important as the distance covered during the MB. Also some of the other activities go well beyond the rank swim tests. It takes the scout beyond mere ability to swim and on to real swimming skills that are aside from mere endurance. Such skills are mostly absent from hiking and cycling and the relative efficiency of travel for those two activities causes distance to be more of a factor in the requirements. One note, I may be wrong in this interpretation but when engaging in a hike, there is no overnight backpack component. That is a backpacking trip. If we are taking a hike of some length, we do it with no overnight camping but rather with the entire trip started and completed with only food and rest breaks. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this but it is the way we distinguish the activities for Backpacking MB from Hiking MB.

I think Lisabob and Scoutldr have answered the questions very well. I only add that the reason I lament the absence of such a robust MB program is that I SEE the shortcomings of 'in-house' MB programs where various parents within a troop shoulder multiple badges. The boys are not given the benefit of expanding their range of experience and they don't have the benefit, as Scoutldr says, of experiencing the excitement of specialists or experts in each topic. Instead, the risk is that the boys experience their MB program and possibly view it as little more than a 'check-off' program required for advancement. The risk is that they will see the RANK as the goal, and NOT the knowledge and experience.

I have said it many times, I really miss the cubs.

In brief, and assuming we're straight on the Connecticut and 3/5 compromises: The question of the slave trade was important because three Southern states (NC, SC, and GA) saw the potential to import their way to greater representation (and political power) using the international slave trade. Most non-slave states supported an outright ban as did VA and MD. Those two slave states supported the ban because they had invested in non-international trade and were in the business of breeding for market within the states. They saw the international trade as a threat to their political power in slightly different terms because if the international trade was banned, THEY would be the dominant force in the slave market (think of it as Reagans 'magic of the free market'). BUT, all of the states understood that they needed ALL of the states to ratify the Constitution and NC, SC, and GA successfully held the rest to a compromise. Another part of the compromise was to end taxes on the trade as well (those crafty Southerners really knew how to drive a hard bargain;)). And as a result of all of these compromises, all the states ratified the Constitution. The wording of the Constitution was such as to establish a time, before which such a ban on international slave trade could not be enacted. Such ban could not occur before 1808. All the states agreed to these terms and it was clear to all the states that there was intent to ban the international slave trade once the requisite 20 years had passed. And they did. So....the Constitution did NOT ban the international slave trade, the states DID but only after the limit placed by the Constitution had passed. The INTERNAL slave trade continued up until the Civil War. And we got here from the atheist thing again...how?

OK, I've read the whole thread. I WISH we had this problem. It would mean that we actually HAD a district or council-wide MB program. I would be delighted to have the limits placed on the counselors especially if we actually had a program with actual registered counselors. As it is, we don't have the benefit of any of this. It is, I suppose, a matter of perspective...at least our butts aren't burned by the limits.

Hi, welcome to the forums! Where in NY? I have many relatives up there. And yes, this is a great resource...be sure to thank Scouter Terry when you get the chance.

David, regarding something you wrote in the last paragraph, I have often noted and I think others will agree...adults are far more difficult to work with than the boys are. As long as you're in a leadership role, might as well get used to it because at times you'll work with a great group of parents that volunteer for everything. At other times you almost think they're like recalcitrant children.

And you see a contradiction? The Constitution DIDN'T ban the international slave trade but it set a limit. The states DID ban it...at the time agreed in the compromise.

While you are correct in your statement, "The Constitution did not ban the slave trade after 1808", again you have misrepresented what I wrote. I did not write that the Constitution banned the international slave trade after 1808. Rather, I wrote that as part of another compromise, the states agreed to ban it, but not before 1808. And on 1 January 1808, ban it they did. If you will read the discussions between the delegates regarding all these issues you will realize that there was linkage among all the issues for each and every one of these compromises. All of these issues were discussed simultaneously even if the individual agreements (that we call compromises) were voted on in sequence. It was with the understanding, for example, that the slave issues would be resolved that allowed other compromises to be agreed on. Otherwise the Great Compromise might have failed, indeed it passed by only one vote. And the Constitution might not have been ratified, at least not by three of the Southern states. With respect to the specific compromise regarding the international slave trade, some southern states were in favor of banning it (Virginia and Maryland for example) and others (three in particular) were against. Most of the non-slave states were in favor of banning it as well. All of the delegates knew the implications for representation in the Legislative branch and these discussions can hardly be separated from one another in any meaningful way. In order to understand the end result, one must understand, simultaneously, all of the issues as well as the chronology of their discussion.

If the P.R.A.Y. awards are the subject of this topic, they can be earned by ANYONE, male or female, and they are earned through their particular faith, not through BSA. Therefore, as it was for me decades ago when I earned mine, around here the boy or girl receives it during a church-related service. I received the award during a regular Sunday church service. Just a note: I also received my Eagle in a nearly identical service, not a court of honor. Interesting.

Back when I was a CM and DL I took the boys and parents on hikes to waterfalls, hike to clean up lake shores, hikes up to a mountaintop. I think the distance is less important than the shared experiences on the way, the things we do to interact and learn from each other...kind of like life...which is exactly the way I view every trek I take.

And you are being a little unfair in yours. The Great Compromise, also called the Connecticut compromise, or Sherman's Compromise did establish the bicameral system we have today. But it left a problem of how to count slaves and the southern colonies' concerns were answered with a subsidiary compromise exactly the way SSScout mentioned. Some historians include this 3/5 compromise as part of the Great Compromise because they were both related to concerns over representation. In yet another compromise, the states agreed that importation of slaves would stop in 1808. There was much political and economic intrigue regarding these issues. The slave issue would return many times, eventually culminating in war. Edited part: change in wording.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'm sensing that the thread is about to go down a path we've already taken. So in order to head that off, I invite anyone interested in revisiting the myth that the Civil War was not about slavery - to regurgitate the old thread and continue there. My first post on it was: RE: Was Robert E. Lee Morally Straight? Posted: Friday, 9/2/2005: 7:24:26 AM But there were a couple of pages prior to that, discussing whether Robert E. Lee would have met the membership criteria. It was fun. I just hope someone comes up with something new if we restart it.

Frank6160, Welcome to the forums! Thanks for that pointer, I may take a drive over there sometime to see. By the way (BTW), if you are wading around other areas of the forums, you may want to put on some tall boots. **It gets pretty deep at times. But it's fun.

Hi, saw your post in another thread. Welcome to the forums!

The Scout, Just because you think you know something - doesn't mean EVERYONE knows it the way you think they do. If someone sincerely worships in a particular way (to a god or to a rock or a spaghetti monster), you (as someone not sharing that faith) are not competent to know it is not a religion nor that it is in any other way inferior to your equally unsubstantiated beliefs. You are free to exercise whatever prejudice you like but if so, you should be honest enough to admit it. If you view someone's faith as "a joke" then that may be nothing more than your baseless opinion, or worse, it may be based on prejudice...unless you can provide a cogent explanation for that view so the rest of us can see the "joke" in understandable terms. In my post regarding confidence, faith, and ignorance, I did not say "that anyone with strong convictions is considered ignorant". You chose to interpret it in that manner. Rather, I posited that ignorance can often lead to or accompany great confidence or strong convictions. I think you are smart enough to know the difference. Do you? But you chose to interpret it in a manner that assumed that I stated something that I didn't. I gave you a chance NOT to respond in this manner, but you did anyway. Why? Trevorum, I read this study a while back and felt less equivocal about my assessment of any number of administrators. ...Also the current administration, and for that matter, several others in the past. It isn't necessarily cause for optimism. Edited part: Oops, typo(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

LongHaul, I have tested this empirically on many occasions and that time limit is closer to an hour, I think that is how long we have to edit. The Scout "And I think it does affect our whole organization. If we allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster Emblem, the BSA becomes a joke. I do not think any of us want that." That is, indeed, your 'opinion'. Now I'd be interested in an explanation of why you think it would make BSA a joke. Dan, "I am particularly struck by the USNews article that GernBlasten posted a link to in the atheist thread about the ignorance about the Bible of many Americans who profess Christianity. I find it very sad to think that I've studied their holy book more than they have. Personally, I think comparative religion study from a historical perspective should be manditory study in all religious ed classes. After all, how can you know that something is not for you if you don't know what it is?" Just a comment: Freud said that ignorance is a poor basis for belief. My observations (not contradicted, by the way, in these threads;)) have been that ignorance seems to provide fine support for a wide variety of beliefs. Indeed, it seems that those with the greatest ignorance are the most confident of their convictions. And BTW, I've always liked the following quote: "It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871) But a recent study by Dunning is a real gem, "Among the Inept, Researchers Discover, Ignorance Is Bliss": http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E03EFD61E3AF93BA25752C0A9669C8B63 But we all knew this already, h'mmmmm? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

My rabbit still won't lay those eggs no matter what I do. But congratulations, Eamonn, to everyone and especially OJ on earning Eagle. I hope the celebration will be a wonderful memory for everyone.

I earned my religious award and I would say 'Welcome' to a Flying Spaghetti Monster equivalent award. How does its existence diminish my award or anyone else's for that matter. What business is it of anyone who's faith it isn't, what award another faith grants? If you don't share their faith, THAT should be sufficient reason to keep your nose out of the faith held by someone else. I don't understand this need to try to judge, to run, or to limit, the lives of other people if they aren't affecting us. To me it goes against the golden rule.

I see the conflict because people have used chapter and verse to identify it to me. The conflict is not on the 'science side' as Collins notes. With regard to the supernatural, science is and should be - indifferent. This is because science simply cannot address the supernatural. However, the conflict has been and IS very much alive on the 'religion side'. It is a matter of perspective and as long as people are ignorant of science and feel that science contradicts their belief, they will know a conflict between religion and science. I think this conflict was identified implicitly by St. Augustine, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." To me this indicates a fairly clear sense of conflict. There are plenty of clear examples of revealed 'truths', based on scripture and faith, that have been rejected by objective evidence. Among these are geocentrism (still held in strong belief by a few persons), the age of the earth (or the universe for that matter), not to mention the causes and cures for numerous diseases. And, of course, there are the things that neither scripture nor faith had ever addressed, such as genetics, molecular biology, modern physics, etc. Those of us who feel threatened by science, either personally or on behalf of some articles of faith that seem contradicted by modern science, find the conflict easy to see. And I can easily understand why they feel this way, it makes perfect sense. That said, as the Taliban demonstrated quite nicely, if a majority takes control, composed of ignorant people who want to plunge their nation into darkness, they might just be capable of it. Perhaps someone's god wants it that way.