GernBlansten

Good comment bluegoose.

I got to remember to replace my son's medic alert wrist tag. Seems he can't keep one for more than a few weeks.

I have found the medical staff very flexible and accommodating regarding diabetics. They also give a big sigh of relief when they find out I'm staying there with my son.

I guess the biggest advice I can give is start working with your son to read how he feels. But boys will be zipper-heads and ignore what their bodies are telling them. After 8 years of managing my son's condition, its almost a sixth sense to me to know when he needs attention. Too many sleepless nights to count.

I've spent the past two summer camps with my Type 1 diabetic son (diagnosed at age 4). The first summer camp, he was a new scout, 11 years old and not fully self managed. I went solely to support him, but the scouting bug bit me. The second year, I attend again but as an adult leader. I tried to leave my son to manage his own diabetes as much as I could. During that week, we both did the OA ordeal. That was a bit challenging as we couldn't speak to each other and the limited food was made insulin management tough. Needless to say we both made it although I didn't sleep at all the night of the ordeal. We plan on going to Northern Tiers this summer and Philmont next year. I'm confident as he matures, he will become very competent on his diabetes management. Until then I get to tag along.

The challenge is to give your son enough freedom to enjoy camp like the rest of the boys, but do so without risking him going into diabetic shock.

Now for your son's first summer camp as a diabetic. His patrol and all adult leadership should be aware of his condition and identify the signs of hypoglycemia. They should be asking him every hour or so how he feels. If he feels low or isn't "acting right", he should take a juice bag. Make sure you send plenty of juice bags. He must have one with him at all times. Get two blood sugar test kits. One should always be in his daypack, the other with an adult leader. He should test more frequently during the first few days to get a feel for how camp is affecting his diabetes (his numbers will be very low!). Glucagon also goes in this day pack and his day pack doesn't leave his side. A second glucagon kit should be in the scoutmasters pack. If he's a pumper, work with the medical staff to store backup infusion sets and keep the insulin refrigerated. Program an insulin scenario into the pump that drops the insulin by 50%, but check this with your doctor first. My son is a pumper and we have "ski mode" that he switches to during camp outs. Amazing how much sugar your body naturally uses up without insulin just camping.

If he injects, send twice as many syringes as he normally would use, half for him, half for the leaders/medics to stow. I took a handful of syringes just as a backup.

Being he is 14, this should be pretty easy for him, but since he's newly diagnosed, he has some adjustments to make to his new condition, especially if you aren't going.

We have decided that when we go to Northern Tiers this summer, we are leaving the pump and going back to syringes. We feel we have more options with that while in the wilderness. We also don't have to worry about getting the pump submerged.

Adios Rooster, in the end I think we agreed about more than we disagreed about.

I for one often think I spend way too much time on this board, but then again, I'm the best read scouter in my troop on issues brought up here. Other committee members say "How do you know so much about this?" The diverse opinions and comments from all corners really helps put things in perspective. I think my time spent here pays dividends in the troop.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. "

Albert Einstein

I think the search for God is not an easy one is not because God is hiding from us, but because we are afraid to find Him.

Colorado Springs is quite a bit different than it was in 1960 and not for the better. About the only place that could handle it would be Fort Carson and it wouldn't resolve the military aid issue. Also a pretty dusty place. Which really brings up a good point. If the Jambo could not be held at a military installation, what venue could support it? Farmland in rural Kansas?

Rooster, you are scaring me. I keep checking the obits to make sure I didn't pass on recently and entered some sort of bizarro world. To think we might actually align on a religous thread just gives me the willies!

Now, my take is religion and reason usually don't align. Thats why religion requires faith. If it was just about reason, everyone would be in agreement. There are many aspects of organized religion that defies reason. That's what drove me from them and into a dis-organized religion of Diesm. My point is no matter what a person wants to believe, its their belief and I will not condemn them for that belief. They may feel they have the truth, I'm not so sure anybody does. But I will also not hold back on explaining why I find those aspects I do not agree upon. Consistancy is also important to me and I am the first to expose those for any hypocracy they might exibit.

So if someone believes that L. Ron Hubbard had some revelation or that Joseph Smith found the Book of Mormon under a tree in NY, I respect their right to believe it.

To mix things up on the real long drives, I wait for the boys to nod off the I slip my Don Edwards CD in. The look on their faces when he gets yodeling is priceless.

People believe what they want to believe. Who am I to say they are right or wrong. Scientologists, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists all believe things that I don't agree with. However, its their right to believe it.

"Sitting on a park bench. Eyeing little girls with bad intent."

I guess it could be scout appropriate.

Oh, just kidding. I love Tull.

Put some Floyd Wall in and turn it up real loud. That'll settle them down and most of the heroin references are over their heads anyway.

"We don't need no, education!"

"We don't need no, thought control!"

"Hey, teacher, leave those scouts alone!"

Really Ed!

Of all the cases that you think were decided not on interpreting the law but creating it, you agree with half of those cases. Would you be so kind as to expand on one of those cases where judicial activism was in agreement with your point of view?

WOW! I think the rapture may be upon us. I agree with Rooster on a religious thread.

Ed,

I do some of my best thinking while commuting to the office.

I got to thinking about your argument on judicial legislation or if you want/activism.

Take this simple test. I'm sure you have a long laundry list of cases that you think qualify as judicial activism.

Get two hats and some stones representing all those cases.

Now, put the number of stones in one hat that represent the number of cases of judicial activism that were decided against your opinion.

In the other hat, put all the stones that represent the cases decided in favor of your opinion.

How many stones are in each hat?

Ed,

When you state that "There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the government for chartering or aid in funding of the BSA." you (and many others) are interpreting the constitution to say that. On the other side of the argument, there are those who say the Constitution directly says the government cannot charter or aid a private discriminatory organization like the BSA.

Its up the the courts to decide who is right. Just be cause the judge comes down on against your argument, doesn't mean they are legislating from the bench. In fact, its really a silly statement to make. If that were true, new laws would be put on the books as a direct result of these courts. Can you name one law or statute that was originated from the bench? Legislating from the bench makes good talking points, but in reality cannot happen. I beg you to show me an example.

It may come down to the argument of equal access. Instead of arguing the church/state angle (of which I think the ACLU will lose), they go the route of equal access, then I think they will prevail. Using public resources to support an organization that not every American can enjoy could be a potent and valid position. I believe its the same argument used in the Balboa Park case.

Protestant Christians would generally accept as Christian anyone who agrees with the premise that redemption and accepting Jesus will gain you access to heaven. That's what being a Christian means to them. Mormons do not. Mormons believe that only those in the faith will gain access. Anyone outside the faith is an apostolate and damned to somewhere else. Although Mormons may consider themselves Christian, I doubt many protestants do. In fact, I know many protestants who consider Catholics the same way for the same reason. Us diests are damned univerally by all faiths. That's ok, I have thick skin.

As my momma always said, "The Mormons are either 100% right, or 100% wrong. No other way around it." I'll let you draw your own conclusions on how she came down on it.

Perceptions gentleman. Its all perceptions.

LH, the majority wanted to place religion in the schools (or in many cases, already did it), forcing it on the minority. The minority fought back and successfully won. You perceive that as the minority forcing its views, I see it as the majority twarted in forcing its views. Now if you had an example of say a minority group like the Muslims, passing a law in Pittburgh to require the reading of the Koran at high noon, you might have a point.

Ed,

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of your arguments, you call that interpreting the law. If they rule against your arguments, you call that legistlating from the bench. I can understand that. Because in our minds, our positions are well reasoned and based on our own understanding of the law. If someone, a judge, comes to a different conclusion, they aren't following the law, they are making new law. At least in our minds.

What you view as the minority dictating to the majority, I view as the majority frustrated that they cannot dictate to the minority. When has the minority forced their values? The only references you have made are when the majority are thwarted in their plans to force their views on the minority. That does not constitute the minority view being forced on the majority. It should be viewed as a celebration in the freedoms so many brave men and women have sacrificed their lives for.

LH,

I'm not understanding your position. However, I don't blame you, I'm sure its just my denseness.

You call for the ability of the majority to impose their values on the minority and if the minority doesn't like it, they can leave. I just can't understand how that follows American values, or the freedoms we enjoy. Just seems to me to be the antithesis of America.

LH, I'm trying real hard to follow you. On one hand your libertarian viewpoints of "Leave me alone to live my life as I see fit" on the other hand you want to give local authorities rule over your liberties and everyone else. Its a dichotomy that I find puzzling.

Now one thing that I might agree with you on (I think) is that if Monaghan wants to build his own town from the ground up and only invite those like minded people to come live, then I would be OK with that. Like buying a home near an airport, you got to expect to hear the planes. My problem is in existing communities where the majority decide they want to change the rules and expel all those who are already there.

Our constitution is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Anyone who disagrees with that notion is in my mind UnAmerican.

What I do personally and how I choose live my life does not dictate how others should be forced to live theirs. I should respect their views as I would have them respect mine.

That line is in direct conflict with your premise that states should be allowed to impose views on how to live your life.

Take for example your Amish situation. No law requires that the Amish open their business for the sabbath. However, if I lived in that area and wanted to keep my business open during the sabbath, they should have no right to impose their views on me. I wouldn't expect to be patronized by them. Nor would I expect a law that demanded their patronage or that they remain open for the sabbath.

Also, just how local do you think this should go? Should it be constrained at a state level or flow down to local governments? Could a home owners association be able to exclude blacks from their neighborhood? A county that accepts only Mormons as residents. A city that requires regular church attendance to serve on the council.

BTW, you might just get your utopia. Have you heard of this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11434439/site/newsweek/

Interesting perspective LongHaul.

Would your utopia of states rights also allow states to say that black people cannot live there (or alternatively, only over there)? Or homosexuals? Or invalids? or Non-Christians?

What would be the purpose of the US Constitution if each state can operate as its sovereign nation? The US Constitution provides all Americans with certain rights and protections that cannot be infringed on by the states. Currently, states rights or local laws cannot supercede the protections of the Constitution.

I'm a fan of internal frame packs. I've been using a Gregory for over 20 years. We got two packs for a wedding gift and my son has now commandeered my wife's pack. I like the comfort of the internal frame and keeping the weight a little closer to me than an external frame provides. This is important if you plan on doing any mountaineering with it. Negative thing is they get hot and don't provide as much room for stuff. One thing to look for is a very adjustable pack with a good waist belt. My pack can adjust so that when climbing, you can pull a few straps and put all the weight on your shoulders, and when descending, you can shift the weight to the belt. Also makes for pleasant hikes as you can shift the weight every 30 minutes to spread the load to different muscle groups.

Oren,

I found a bugle on http://www.scoutbugle.com/BAA.htm that was surprisingly pretty good quality for the price. You can also pick them up on ebay or at local music stores. I was told by a bugler to get one with a replacable mouthpiece not one with it molded into the bugle.

Now, if the scout doesn't know how to play and noone in the troop can instruct, I suggest going to a music store and asking about a few private lessons. He shouldn't need many. Once he can hit the notes, then its just practice, practice, practice to polish his tone and skill.

My son is the bugler in our troop. First one in many years. He even played revelle at our district Klondoree this year in 8 below zero. Needless to say, I recommended that he sleep with his bugle in his bag the night before.

I bought him a cheap bugle advertised on this site and he claims its easier to play than his $400 band trumpet. Now if I can just get him to play the rest of the calls.