packsaddle

JoeBob's right, I think. On the other hand, I regularly take scores of students out on lakes in canoes and I often have students who openly admit that 1) they're afraid of the water and 2) they can't swim at all. I just require them to wear a life jacket at all times and even when they capsize, we've never had a problem. The outfitters who take groups down local whitewater rivers don't require a swim test, they just require everyone to wear life jackets. When the Corps of Engineers has their boating-safety-for-kids course in which the children are operating little electric boats alone on a lake, there is no swim test, only a requirement to wear a life jacket. Conversely, I regularly see scout groups on official outings on large lakes in power boats in which the scouts are following the examples set by their leaders and are NOT wearing life jackets. To me the major safety problem in all this has less to do with swimming ability (unless it's swimming merit badge) and more to do with wearing the life jacket (or not).

Also remember that the iodine treatments don't work well if the water is colder than approximately 68 degrees F. Instead of ascorbic acid pills, an even-more-pleasant option is merely to add 'Tang'. The ascorbic acid in the drink (you can probably use any powdered drink with vitamin C) will do the same thing as the pills. I use a filter but I often boil it after I filter it. I can tell you with great confidence that there is no perfect solution and if you slack off even a little bit with the wrong water source, you risk a really nasty parasite or a bacterial infection or a permanent resident virus, all of which will cause you to get down on your knees and worship your immune system as well as porcelain gods, etc. Don't rely on just one method. I don't even trust boiling the water, alone. I'm slowly coming around to the steri-pen technology but I'm still not convinced yet. This fall we'll be doing more lab trials and if and when I feel confident, I'll report that here.

Scoutfish, is there a question in there someplace? I think the tutu would have 'broken the ice'. I'd probably have paid to see it. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Lisa, that is a great film about a great true story. Kind of long but if the boy is mature enough, it has so many good lessons. I'm glad you mentioned his ineffectiveness. Sad, for such a man to be such a failure. Clearly the lesson is that while peaceful diplomacy works for a while, guns and thugs ultimately rule in our society and any 'rights' that a minority might be allowed will be at the indulgence of the guns and thugs.

"Local briars grow to 6 foot tall....." I guess they do around here too..well not up to eye level but maybe 5 ft. I just don't worry about briars that much...you know, me and old Brer Rabbit....

Yes, dead falls occur everywhere. Those are just temporary inconveniences and then you're back on the regular trail. And if briars are catching on your pack frame, you must be a LOT shorter than average. All that stuff is normal expectations, no big deal for any frame design...just part of the experience. But the AT, Bartram, Foothills, Pacific Crest, almost everything in the mid-west, and countless other trails in national forests and parks just don't tend to have the overgrown, virtual bushwhacking character that would cause me to choose the internal frame...for that reason alone. If you are going to have one pack only, and you want to backpack on those remote, seldom-used and overgrown trails, then I agree, the internal frame may be the way to go. Given what Scoutfish wrote in the OP, I didn't see that kind of trip in his future, at least not any time soon. Edit: Just remembered that hobo remark. Unless you live in the Stepford community, I've observed that 'looking like hobos' seems inevitable for most scouts (and scouters for that matter). (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I still have my old Camp Trails Astral Cruiser frame and a couple of (no-longer-waterproof) Camp Trails packs (Skyline and Horizon). The external frame is cooler. That's important for summers here in the South. And like Scoutfish notes, you can strap stuff to the frame, although there are so many places to tie onto the internal frame packs that this is a minor difference. My internal frame packs (I have several) are ones I use for longer trips and winter. When I'm strapped into one of them, the pack fits almost like I'm wearing a cast and its much warmer (winter, remember?). But this aspect might be better for Scoutfish's back concerns. The internal frame designs tend to 'hug' your body and fit you more closely and this, I think, would help provide more 'back' comfort. I really like the way the internal frame designs fit and feel. I also like the airy openness of the external frame. It's all about the context. As far as tree limbs go, I've never worried much about that. If you're on a decent trail it's not that much of a problem.

The Fact Check discussion is a good one. I was already aware of the difference between the 'effective rate' estimates. To me the concept is the most important thing and the numbers are something that will 'evolve' as the details are examined more and more carefully. The numbers are always going to be constrained by the need to collect enough revenue to cover the costs of doing government business. I agree with the comment about politicians, it's a primary reason I'm not optimistic about the Fair Tax ever happening. As far as the numbers go, I think we all realize that those numbers will change if something like this gains a serious chance of happening. Actually, they're supposed to change periodically in order to balance budgets while remaining revenue-neutral. But, spin aside, the concept is a good one. To me, the prospect of ending tax returns and reducing or eliminating the IRS are among the most attractive features...regaining the time that is currently wasted in keeping records, navigating the tax forms or tax software that must be purchased, or paying tax preparers to do it for us. Such a waste. Here's the problem that Fact Check has NOT addressed. The Achilles Heel of the Fair Tax is: How to implement it. There is no way to gradually make this the law. Any attempt to gradually move toward the Fair Tax and away from the current status would just provide too much opportunity for those 'politicians' to do what Beavah and I know they would do. The effort would either likely fail or produce something even worse than the current status. No, the only way to do this is to go 'cold turkey' and do the complete switch on April 15 of whatever year. And I think we all know that THAT would be an upheaval of proportions that few of us can comprehend. I know I can't. So my support of the Fair Tax is dampened by my awareness of the realities of life. For the time being, I'll plan to continue my purchases of TurboTax.

Scoutingagain, the flat tax approach you advocate leaves the IRS intact. Moreover, there would still be incentive (and opportunity) for tax fraud and evasion. Under the Fair Tax, a family living check-to-check would actually have a GREATER take home pay because there would be nothing withheld from the check. Yes, purchases would cost more. But at worst they would see no change (See Prebate: http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PrebateExplained2012.pdf). Under the prebate which is built into the Fair Tax for everyone, a family of four with an income of $30K would see no tax at all. It would be progressive after that up to a rate of 23% of all expenditures. A family with an income of only $15K would see an effective increase to that income of 23%. Best of all, they would have an incentive to spend less, same as the rest of us. Plus, the IRS would be greatly diminished or else go away completely, saving even more. Under the Fair Tax, because of the way it is built into the cost of goods and services, it would be much more difficult to evade the tax or to commit fraud. Actually, best of all, on April 15 each year, we can all sleep soundly because there will be no returns to file, no tax audits, no fees to pay or software to buy in order to make sense out of over 3 million words of unintelligible tax code. Everyone should read about the Fair Tax in detail before they reject it. (Unless, of course, you're one of those 'cash-only' persons who evades taxes and wants to keep the status quo)

I tend to agree with KC9DDI. Scouting is not a religion, nor is it some kind of Communistic cult in which the collective shares the 'glory' of individual initiative and achievement, or alternatively shares the 'shame' of individual 'minimal' performance. The minimum requirements are there and the word 'minimum' should not denigrate someone who meets them. A boy either meets them or not. If units want to 'interpret' the subjective parts to their liking, or even add to them if they think it's necessary...they are free to do that. Such an outcome is a logical result of 'local option' at work. But for everyone to wet our pants over these differences or continuously whine about it is just primate social behavior at work. It might be 'Fun' for us, but it's unlikely to resolve anything...I suppose thusly ensuring perpetual 'fun'. Play on.

There is a solution for the tax system, the Fair Tax (fairtax.org). As for the national debt and deficit, there is a solution for that as well which I have suggested numerous times: end Social Security - now - for everyone; End Medicare - now - for everyone; End Medicaid - now - for everyone. I could add to this list but this is the way to do it. I wish everyone weren't too cowardly to take the measures needed to do it.

SpencerCheatham, what I see is that despite your opinion that the boy should not have been awarded the rank, you signed off anyway. If you feel this strongly, I think you were dishonest to yourself when you signed off. There's nothing anyone in these forums can do to help you reconcile the conflict that you seem to feel as I read your communications. You have to do that for yourself. I certainly don't encourage you to 'push the boys' in the future. I'd rather see boys 'doing for themselves' and the troop becoming boy led. Scouting is not a cult - at least I don't think it's supposed to be, some here seem to think so. SpencerCheatham, I'll give you the same challenge that I've made before in answer to your contention that Eagle should only be awarded to boys who place a "place a priority on Scouting." For the time being let's just pretend that it's just fine to make additional requirements. Write a clear, unambiguous statement which can apply ALL the boys as the new requirement which must be met to show they have placed "a priority on Scouting." Write this so that it can be applied in a way that avoids subjective bias and be applied equally and fairly to every boy. Write it in a way that they and their parents can clearly understand. I'd like to read that statement from you, SpencerCheatham. (I apologize for seeming to single you out in such an overt way, there is a tendency for some other forum members to jump in at this point and make the attempt for you...which just takes away the free opportunity that you have to do this for yourself...I'd like to see what you write without 'prompting' from other forum members. It's your conflict, and your idea, so I'd like to see your attempt at the statement.)

I agree with Fred. I too was surprised to see the words, "He is a polite, intelligent, reverent, hard working young man who lives the Scout spirit outside of Scouting" while completing the written requirements... and yet you still opposed awarding the rank. Wow. What the heck do you want if that's not a pretty good package that you just described in your own words? If the boy found his way to those qualities without the 'benefit' of your input, I'd say more power to him. If character is the mission of scouting then what you just described sounds like "mission accomplished". Better yet, he did it on his own. Just because you don't get to hoist the banner over your own ship hardly diminishes his accomplishment.

Yes, if he did the minimum requirements and if the application was duly signed and approved, he earned Eagle. Don't look back unless it's in order to improve the look forward.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I've done this with this unit as well. But the course I used wasn't nearly as physically challenging as described in the OP, I think that one sounds wonderful. I too would have done the ice cream thing at the event, not later. To do it at a later time just kills the element of immediate recognition for the job well-done as well as allowing comments like that committee member made. But I'd just chalk it up and try a different approach next time. The course and event sound just great.

Welcome to the forums. The cubs are the best ever, enjoy it while you can...soon they'll grow up to become boy scouts, lol. Chances are that anything you do for recognition will work for this boy. At that age, for a non-family member to offer recognition is a life-confirming event. Their eyes are constantly darting to adults, especially leaders, looking for approval and recognition. You know the boy far better than any of us in these forums. Go with your best judgment and I suspect it will be good. The most important thing is that you have to 'MEAN' whatever you decide to do and make sure he knows that you mean it. I don't know enough about the situation to suggest what to call it. But most likely it won't have to be something he wears on his uniform. I won't have to be a public ceremony if that doesn't work well. Just coming from you will mean a lot if you present it to him on a formal, but personal, level, perhaps at a den meeting. Your judgment is going to be the best for this. Many years ago when I was CM I had access to one of the first high-quality color laser printers. I used it to make certificates recognizing all sorts of achievements by the cubs, personalized with their name and unique things like their photo, maybe a couple of words about something that they did. To make it even more personal, an inexpensive frame makes it 'official'. Wish you the best of success. The cubs are the best of all.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'm just reporting what a priest told me and that the history isn't as one-sided as YOU guys are attempting to make it. I'll grant that the Catholic Church did what you say. But it was a reversal of a history that was far from pure, IMHO, and AFTER atrocities that were condoned by them here and elsewhere in the New World. The priest seemed to want to reconcile the whole past. No reason why you guys can't do the same.

Again I am reminded of the statement by The Scout, "the purpose of religion is not to bring people together." Back to some earlier comments: Since I am in a place where slavery and slaves defined both society and economy, I just today had the opportunity to speak to a black priest about this. He reminded me that his church, the Catholic Church, promoted slavery in this and other places. In the mid-15th century, the Dum Diversas was used as authority to enslave any enemy of Christianity and to take all of the property of said enemies. While this was primarily aimed at Moslems, it included ALL pagans and unbelievers and condemned them to "perpetual slavery". In 1493, coincidental with the second voyage of Columbus, Pope Alexander VI specifically authorized the King of Spain to enslave non-Christians of the Americas. And then Spain did a fabulous job of it. The priest seemed very sad about all this but he said that it is important to remember the 'truth' about these things because to forget them is to invite their return. I quite agree. Just a few corrections to the revisionist history I read earlier. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Golf. It figures. One more thing that I'm profoundly ignorant of. Thanks, NJ

Sorry sailingpj, my comment was directed to Beavah, not you. I evidently didn't make that clear enough. He still hasn't answered my question. But since you attempted, I'll respond. To you, sailingpj. Just because YOU think that the concept of betrayal would not apply to YOU in those situations, does not mean that another person would not feel betrayed. Even if, as you say, high school students commonly practice these things on each other, how are you so certain about what exists in the minds of others? How do you know with such certainty that there are none of them who feel badly from these interactions but who take efforts not to show it because they know it would only invite more such interactions? You don't. You can't know for sure what is in the mind of another. I can show you sincere people who do not do these things to each other. They live full lives. But they don't 'get' things like sarcasm, for example. In fact when outsiders use sarcasm they merely become confused, possibly hurt because they are confused. I call these people 'happy' and full of peace. SSScouter, I think I can go with what you say about the first and second types. If you know 'up front', then it may not be the same level of deception, or at least not an unexpected one. I'll take it up to the top and on this day at Soul's Midnight, call on the ultimate standard of human life for comparison. I will take the challenge if anyone cares to make it: Make me a list of pranks pulled by Jesus on other persons, and I will show you the deceptions in them. All of them. List the pranks and tell me who was pranked and what Jesus did to do it. Make me the list.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

When my wife first moved to the South, it was fairly common for us to chat with neighbors and then later for her to ask me what they said. In some cases, it's tough for ME to understand the other person especially people around the coast. This is also true up North of the coasts of Virginia and elsewhere.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. I've answered yours but you seem to think those are the only ones that are important. I've played Risk and poker. Risk is boring and I don't particularly like the way that the rules of the game allow players to 'gang up' on others. I don't play poker because I just don't see the fun in that either. It's a waste of time, IMHO. But in both cases, if someone chooses to play, they probably are advised 'up front' of the rules and how the GAME is played. But this is about scouting. And if you think games like Risk or poker are exemplary of scouting method, and instructive of the way scouts should help each other (helpful) I guess you really DO think that deception should be a part of the program and that scouting is where boys should learn how to refine their deceptive tendencies (trustworthy, loyal). I admit, I could be wrong. Perhaps it IS just fine for an unsuspecting boy to learn from personal experience how betrayal can be a source of fun and enjoyment so that he can enjoy doing it to others in the future, perhaps as examples for a full and productive life. Perhaps this IS rightly a part of scouting culture.

Wow, I just got back to this thread and holy smokes, I'm not sure what to say. NJ, my 'hard day at work' was hardly that. Bragging rights coming next...I breakfasted on as many mangoes as I could eat and washed them down with fresh guava juice. Spent the morning wading and surveying remote streams surrounded by absolute splendor. It rained...hard...nearly all day and we were soaked to the bone so we spent the last couple of hours soaking in a hot spring beneath a 200' waterfall. Dined this evening on callaloo soup, fresh bread, jerked beef, dasheen and rice, and a wonderful salad of tropical greens. Dessert was red banana mousse. The evening was spent attending a lecture on avian diversity and the influence of European colonization and other invasive exotics, lol. I'm thinking that if I could just get all the 'warring factions' to join me here....h'mmmm....maybe not. So not to worry about my day. You should have it as good. Reading through the Scouter equivalent of a Jerry Springer episode just makes me appreciate my plight more. FWIW, I've been called a 'hick' many times, even by my future mother-in-law. My sister-in-law still refers to me as 'Jed Clampett'. No problem. They're probably right. But that 'ignorant' part, in some sense we're all ignorant, I think. Some of us are more likely to admit it...kind of like being able to admit that we made a mistake...some of us can, some can't. Oh well, batteries running low...the 'net is about to go down. Only sounds are the river, the rain on the metal roof, gazillions of frogs, and the thud of more mangoes for breakfast. :)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

SR540Beaver, Little Italy, Chinatown....I think your observation has been stated for almost every wave of immigrants in the past. Is it wrong to be in a community in which you feel comfortable?

Sailingpj, it was YOUR request: "I would like to see your explanation as to how any of the pranks listed in this thread violate that point of the scout law." Moreover, YOU suggested the 'prop wash' example so I went with that one. I answered your question using your example. And from your response I think you understand how that violates point 1 of the law, at least. You didn't ask me to address ALL of the examples. You asked me to respond to "any". I did. OGE, yeah, I know. See you at therapy...