packsaddle

Exactly!

Velcro.

There may be other parallels to this as well. I see similar comparisons in the education realm. I'm with Moosetracker in this sense. Many of us seem so protective of fertilized eggs, but once they're born society just seems to turn away. I'd guess that there's another layer to this as well...that of the rural society. There you probably have lower economic status as well but I'm not sure about how family structure compares and some of the other factors. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that access to the woods is easier for the rural folks than for suburbia and much more so than for urban populations. There may also be greater latent 'life' knowledge about the woods as well. We really do live in very different worlds don't we?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I see no harm in adding one more self-congratulatory mechanism to the ones that are already there. If nothing else it prevents people who think this stuff is important from doing real mischief to something that IS important.

I know teens (boys and girls both) who spend weeks in the middle of winter in the high desert out west, packing up and moving at least 5 miles each day no matter how deep the snow is, to a new camp, with nothing more than a good sleeping bag, a blue plastic tarp, a pack frame made of dead tree branches strapped together with leather straps, and whose group had to make fire by friction - no matches. No toilet paper. Moreover they cooked directly on the fire because they had no cooking utensils other than the occasional discarded can they could find. Now THAT's camping.

That sounds like a great trip you have planned. In fairness, I was on the AT for only a short segment and I always try to tent way away from the trail somewhere. I spent a good bit of time on the connector trails in Coweeta Hydrologic Lab and then moved up the AT from Mooney's Gap (I think that's what it's called) and then off to the west to find a secluded clearing I know about to camp. I'm not sure if other people get the same feeling or not but I often have a 'sense' of 'goodness' or 'badness' about certain places I'm traveling. If I stumble across a 'good' place I may just stop and stay a while to reflect, then after a day or so, move on to find another...kind of like life.

I heard about the Scopes trial from my parents. My father was fascinated by the story. That was back around 1960-61 or so, it's hard to place the year. I have no idea why he knew about that stuff. They guy was full of surprises like that. When I brought it up in high school later on, the history teacher spent about 15 minutes on it and then returned to the subject. My most powerful memory was of my fellow students making monkey sounds and annoying the heck out of the teacher. That could be a clue as to why it's neglected I suppose. It is completely irrelevant to science courses. I guess I should ask some of my K-12 contacts about history curricula these days. I HAVE discussed the teaching of evolution with them but Scopes never came up. As far as current students being uneducated, I guess if knowledge of the Scopes trial is the criterion, then they must be uneducated. On the other hand, as I've mentioned previously in these forums, I was incredibly proud of them when during a lecture by an MIT-educated nuclear engineer, my students had to correct some of the mistakes in his equations, basic physics at that. The guy was supposed to be a big shot in the nuclear power industry and the stunned look of embarrassment on his face was priceless. But that didn't answer my question, AZMike. What was the basis for your claim? If there is a study out there somewhere that I've missed, I would like to know about it.

Southern NC section, the part that goes over Albert Mtn. Had lunch at the fire tower. I could hear cars approaching as I left the area and headed north.

My wife says I'm in a fog ALL the time. She's probably right.

It's not cabins and it's not Adirondacks. It IS a fabric roof at best and eating food you cooked yourself after you backpacked your gear to your campsite. I add: this past weekend was just great for the AT. It was cool, getting crisp, and for some reason I didn't see a single other person on the trail. Wow. The only thing that would make it better would be for the leaves to be down and cold enough to freeze all the mud solid.

Moosetracker, On the written survey, the questions were, "What was the Scopes Trial?" Who was Clarence Darrow? Explain his position. Who was William Jennings Bryan? Explain his position. The term, 'monkey' was not mentioned. They were allowed to answer that they did not know and it's entirely possible that some of them answered like that simply because they didn't feel like spending the time to provide a better answer. There's no way to know. In my survey this morning, I asked the ones who raised their hands indicating they'd heard of either Darrow or Bryan if they understood what idea those men supported. Then I asked if they had ever heard of either of the men referred to as a 'redneck hick' or a 'civil libertarian'. Mostly they just know something happened in Tennessee and it had to do with teaching evolution. That's about all. As far as most of them are concerned it is no more relevant to their lives than Belisarius's siege of Sisauranum, or the Howdy Doody show. Just have to maintain a sense of humor.

"Most kids are taught about the Scopes Monkey Trial, with the idea that the noble civil libertarian Clarence Darrow represented "Good" in supporting the teaching of evolution and redneck William Jennings Bryan represented "bad" in opposing the teaching of Darwinism." and later, "Bryan wasn't the redneck hick modern schools often depict him as." AZMike, I noticed the above from your post and it's not the first time I've heard those claims. So I took the opportunity to talk to our guy who teaches a course on Evolution and Religion. I asked him to let me see the results of his 'entry' surveys with regard to the Scopes trial. I also surveyed approximately 150 students this morning with regard to it. By combining both sets of results I am able to construct a sample size of greater than 1000 observations, after the international students are removed from the sample (interestingly, some of them have heard of the Scopes trial, I didn't ask further). Out of all of them, only about 47% have even heard of the Scopes trial, much less formed any strong opinions about it. Out of the total of over 1000 responses, 43 students could identify who Bryan was but could not articulate clearly what his argument was (a few actually had the two guys reversed). Only 37 of the respondents had ever heard of Darrow, much less knew what his argument was. Not a single response from my survey had ever thought about either guy in terms of being a 'redneck hick'. Not a single student in my survey identified either guy as a civil libertarian. Now these students are college students ranging from freshmen through seniors. They come from nearly every state of the union and like I mentioned, other countries as well. So I think my informal study is a fair characterization, or at least a first cut at one, for what students who go on to college get from school. I'd like to think that the college-bound students are more likely to remember school lessons like this as well. I could be wrong about that but it makes sense at least to me. The sentence, "Most kids are taught about the Scopes Monkey Trial." does have some ambiguity. It could mean that a majority of students are confronted with something about the Scopes trial and immediately forget it or it could mean that they actually LEARN something about the trial. I am willing to concede that the first option might be true but if so, if my survey is correct, whatever it was that was taught was not effective, at least if the intent was to portray Bryan as a 'redneck hick' and Darrow as the civil libertarian. I am willing to consider that some of these students are not from what you term, 'modern' schools, whatever those are. However, given that the students from NJ, NY, MA, MN, IL, and the west coast seemed to be as clueless about this as the Southern students, I'm inclined to wonder if ANY of them are products of a 'modern' school system, at least based on your claim. I could be wrong. So, where do you get your evidence for the claims you made? Do you have some citations in support of those claims? I'd like to know where I went wrong.

You're welcome and I did mean it. While we haven't always agreed on some things I've always had great admiration for you and known that, as with your post above, we agree on a lot more.

If I had to pick the most faithful long-standing forum member my vote would be for OGE. OneHour that is quite some troop you just described. I think what this thread is really describing is a clash of cultures. There are more traditional approaches (and I'm aware that 'traditional' has many connotations here) and then there are the 'new' approaches (I hesitate to assign terms like innovative or experimental). For those of us who continually advocate for local option in other aspects of scouting, this is one of those aspects where we already have local option and all I can say is that if it works, it works. In another thread I see some resistance to a 'utilitarian' outlook so let me call this a 'pragmatic' outlook. Pragmatism is a uniquely American invention, or so I've read, so I hope there will be less emotional response to its use. But it is very possible that in the marketplace of scout units and different communities, many different approaches will be successful and that in this aspect at least, local option might be working well. It's only when these approaches meet that some of us may react in different ways. And THAT is where we move to primate social behavior...which, as I've mentioned many times, I explain in my simplistic way using only three words: "We Are Monkeys". Works for me at least, in my uniquely American pragmatic outlook.

Lisa, as you imply, I think that the 'awareness' factor is important. That's why I'm going to make sure everyone in the CO knows about the policy. The only other time I've noticed anything like the OP was back when I was CM. I had three families leave after a DE went on a rant about the policy at the B&G, this was right after Dale. The ones I spoke to after they quit said they were disgusted with the DE and with BSA. But we haven't asked any questions about why people leave since and people don't necessarily come to you with their reasons.

Good question. I'll send an email out to all the families in the CO and inform them of the issue. I'll get back to you if I hear anything from them.

Peregrinator, I do have quite a good understanding of the distinction. What I'm saying is that the simple-minded approach I read from politicians of all stripes, including the pro-life people, does not, at its basis, make a meaningful distinction. Beavah's 'heartbeat' approach is one that is simple, defined in legal terms, and has an obvious legal grey area that should keep courts busy. But at least it's defined in operational terms, not some stupid arbitrary date. The Catholic Church, IMHO, has the clearest approach in that they also forbid birth control (not many Catholics seem to abide by it though). I don't agree with them but I give them credit for at least being consistent and honest about it. SeattlePioneer, there may be some scientists and there certainly lots of 'people' who have many things to answer for. But 'science' has nothing to answer for. I do note your anti-intellectual sympathies but I don't agree with them. Moosetracker, the technologies are essentially ready for application - for people to be able to privately make these decisions and take action at home without involving the medical profession or anyone else. All that is needed is a market incentive and the pro-life forces, if successful, will provide all the incentive needed. Don't worry, technology will take care of things.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Moosetracker, I understand what you mean regarding the contradiction. But scientific evidence is 100% in agreement that a human fetus at any stage is 'human life'. There's no way to deny that unless you employ a definition of 'life' or 'human' that just now is inconceivable to me. Even a fetus which is developing with no brain at all is still human and alive, at least until it dies. I simply maintain that even gametes technically qualify under the very loose criteria that 'pro-life' persons seem to want to apply. I criticize them partly for their ignorance and partly for their willingness, despite that ignorance (and perhaps based on it), to limit freedoms. One of those two things is lamentable. The other is just dishonest as well as intellectually bankrupt.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

My response has been to quietly devote my time to this unit and not to worry about other units. I no longer attend roundtables, partly because of what you observed.

Peregrinator, although it would be tough for you to make the argument to my mother, she (and my father before her for that matter) pleaded for long months and years to give her a way to end her own life because of her suffering. She made it clear, almost constantly actually, as did my father before her, that she did not want to live under that kind of pain and suffering. Like I said though, she's dead. So you'll have a tough time arguing with her on that point.

"...an unwanted fertilized egg that some religions would call human. But science will not at least within the first trimester." Moosetracker, this kind of thing is wrong on many levels no matter who it comes from (and here I want to make sure you know that although I'm writing this to you, I address my criticism and comments broadly to everyone engaged in these arguments, not just to you). I just wish people would stop invoking science to try to support their stupid political or whatever prejudices. Science hasn't issued pronouncements about humanity beginning at the end of the first trimester. PEOPLE have used scientific observations to make their own judgments about the status of a fetus at the end of the first trimester and then applied their judgments in the form of guidelines or legislation. A fertilized egg is neither the beginning of life nor of 'humanity', depending on what your definition of 'humanity' is. There is no evidence that our haploid gametes contain 'non-human' codes. There is ample evidence, in fact, that those codes are indeed 'human'. Those haploid cells are just as deserving of protection as the diploid one as far as I'm concerned. They are no less living. Fertilization is merely a convenient place for the prolife people to draw THEIR line in the sand. It does little or nothing to clarify the moral questions or to arrive at solutions (I sense that you may understand this already). My criticism of this line of pro-life nonsense is that if they want to make the argument to protect fertilized eggs, then show me a clear statement of how they would do that. They haven't. They won't. They can't. But I'm OK with allowing stupid people their place to argue over their stupid ideas. I just wish they'd stop invoking science to make those arguments.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"qwase - "That said, if your profession is not one where you'd bring your kid, you probably have some thinking to do" " DeanRx, Yeah, I caught that one too. It wasn't exactly the most thoughtful comment was it? That comment works if you're surrounded by convenience store operators or store clerks something but there are plenty of occupations involving risks to which no one should consider exposing their child. As for frogs, I was wondering about that one too. I thought it was ME, or maybe NJ, it WAS confusing. Tampa Turtle, IMHO, was on the edge of offering TMI, lol. One of those cases where you'd kind of like to know more but aren't perhaps ready to take on that kind of risk, lol. The two teenaged boys: The only thing she knew was that there were two boys there and they walked out doing something with their pants. All other conclusions were prejudice. They could have just changed clothes, or swapped pants. They might have merely relieved themselves against the fence or perhaps pulled an unsavory joke or something. She knew they were 'high risk' and had a preconceived idea about their character and her prejudices conveniently filled in the blanks. DeanRx, you don't have any choice but to put up with the hypocrisy. It's not just in BSA. It's cross-cultural and available everywhere. Sorry fella, you're not going to be able to get away from it.

I've seen plenty of examples where intense use has created long-term impacts to those areas. So if I'm going into an area that gets intense use, I know to expect restrictions and I follow them. If I want to 'get away from it all', I go to an area that doesn't get heavy use and then I go off trail on my own. There are places where we can still do this. But even then, especially if it's really dry, it may be dangerous or illegal to build a campfire. I'm good with a stove, or maybe not even that. If it's cold, add another layer. I don't go into the wilderness for the cuisine or the comfort. That's what hotels are for.

Yes, the entire event lasted as long as it takes for a person to walk past a van. We were still paying some fees and getting a receipt and the boys were loaded and waiting for us to get in. When we rounded the van we noticed all those faces pressed against the window and then, as she walked on into the crowds, we figured out what they were looking at. The effect was completely comical. It reminded me of restaurants in Shanghai in which aquariums full of turtles and frogs and other delicacies were beside the entrance and once you were inside and ready to order, all those turtles and frogs would be piled on top of each other staring at you through the glass in unison, all those eyes, perhaps thinking, "what did that guy order, am I next?" Completely comical. Laughter was irresistible.

Most of the time if you go around looking for something to condemn or criticize, you'll find it. Even if you don't know anything about it. Peregrinator, by the time we noticed what was going on, it was over. 5-10 seconds tops for the whole event. If laughter which came naturally for us offends you, sorry. OGE, it's completely subjective. Eye of the beholder and all that. I guess the court continues to struggle with the idea. Edit to add: I kind of like this artist: http://www.patriciapiccinini.net/ Google image: "The Young Family" Cool!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)