AZMike

infoscouter, I really like the idea of using that Stanley rolling tool box, thanks. I see they have them for about $75 at Home Depot.

Like the other Arizonians, I favor shorts for as long as possible (111 degrees here some days), but don't like the long socks. They make me feel like I should be wearing a pith helmet and drinking quinine water and vermouth on a veranda in the Punjab (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

I have a friend, though, who went hiking through high grass around Gary, Indiana, in shorts, picked up a tick, and got full blown Lyme Disease which has made his life miserable. It makes me reconsider wearing long pants.

Yes, it's Martyrs Week here on Scouter Forum.

Remember also that tomorrow is not only Independence Day, but the Feast Day of the Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassatti, who not only was a world-class outdoor athlete (mountain climber, alpine skier) and celebrated good company, good wine, and good cigars, but also a child of wealth and privilege who gave much of his wealth to the poor of Italy and resisted Mussolini's fascists before dying young. Good guy to emulate even if you're not religious.

Black Bartholomew the Pirate? What was he doing in the Inquisition?

Actually, those who were investigated by the Inquisitions had a lot of legal protections that we lack today. Upon arrest, you were allowed to make a list of anyone you considered an enemy, or would be likely to provide false testimony against you, You could make the list as long as you liked. By the rules of the Inquisition, none of those people could provide witness against you.

Forced conversion, also, has always been outlawed by the Catholic Church, so I suspect the gladiator Demetrius is probably safe from the Grand Inquisitor, the Dread Pirate Black Bartholomew.

What the inquisitions (there were more than one) prosecuted was not simply unorthodox belief or heresy, it was the willful teaching of heresy, which was seen as fatal to the soul. As some of the inquisitions were run by kings (who also had an interest in supporting orthodoxy), the inquisitions were used to root out not simply religious heresy, but political subversion, particularly in cases such as the Cathars, who were a pretty scurvy lot (as Black Bartholomew would say). If anything, the Church had a strong moderating influence on the civil Inquisitions by introducing educated prosecutors and establishing judicial procedures (some still in place today in courtroom, BTW). By the 13th century, the Dominican and Franciscan orders refocused the inquisitions on the conversion of heretics, rather than the extermination which the secular leaders sought, and would use extended periods of discussion to try to explain to the (often uneducated) prisoner why what he held was heresy. Torture was rare. Punishments during this period were generally pretty mild, ranging from prayers of penance to taking a pilgrimage to a period of imprisonment. As Professor Dianne Moczar has remarked, the system of punishment at that time was almost lackadaisical - prisoners were allowed leave to go home and help with the crops, or to attend a funeral, or to go home and recover from an illness, and then return when possible.

Torture was used in later centuries due to the rise of the Albigensianism, (the Cathars)s, who were (probably correctly) seen as representing the sort of threat to society that terrorists did in America post 9-11. (And when we also adopted torture, BTW). In Catholic countries, torture could be used in interrogation (although it was frowned upon), but never as punishment. Torture was used as punishment, as well as for interrogation, for heresy in the later centuries in Protestant countries, although in the Inquisition it was allowed only one time for a prisoner and for a short duration (no more than 15 minutes). This really doesn't sound too different from the U.S. military's restrictions in Kandahar. Regrettable, but also common practice in all societies at that time.

The Spanish Inquisition, which gave rise to most of the myths (known colloquially as "The Black Legend") about the Inquisition as a whole, has been substantially reappraised by historians who have examined the original source material and documents. They found torture was rare and strictly limited in duration. Of the 7,000 people who were brought before the Inquisition in Valencia, only 2% were tortured, and for no more than the allowed 15 minutes. The horrible dungeons of the Inquisition that we see in Edgar Allen Poe were apparently fairly humane for the time, as prisoners would attempt to have their case in a secular court transferred to the Inquisition so they would receive better treatment and conditions (rather like state prisoners today who often prefer federal trial and imprisonment).

The Inquisition also introduced the novel legal theories of appeal and acquittal. It had no jurisdiction over non-Christians, although those who were converts who were believed to have falsely converted to spread sedition or act as spies could be tried. When you read of some of the genocidal atrocities that were committed by the Moors in their conquest of Spain, and as the Spanish were in the middle of a very real and vicious battle for their existence, and as they had to deal with the legitimate threat of third columnists, it is understandable why Ferdinand and Isabella were a little touchy on the subject.

Torture and excruciating punishment in non-Catholic Europe outside the Inquisition was also pretty violent during this period by comparison, and trial by ordeal, disemboweling, castration, gouging out the eyes, the rack, repeated hanging, drawing and quartering etc. were common to countries outside this realm, such as England after King Henry VIII. (Read what they did to St, Edmund Campion in England for the crime of celebrating the Mass, but don't read it on a full stomach).

Most of the punishments of the Inquisition celebrated in the penny dreadfuls were never used (such as the Iron Maiden, which was a German creation that the Spanish never had). The Inquisitions had little involvement with witchcraft, which was considered outside the scope of their authority and about which most priests were skeptical. Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition (for matters that were more personal than scientific, as many in the Church supported his heliocentric theory), but was treated more like a celebrity rock star at his trial than a heretic, he was never tortured, and his sentence was house arrest first in the Florentine Embassy and then in the papal estate, where he was provided with a servant, fine food, and the wine from the Pope's cellars. He was ordered to rest and rebuild his strength after the trial at his own home in Tuscany, where he spent the last 10 years of his life continuing his research, and where he did his best work.

Bottom Line, the Inquisition was probably not as bad as it has been portrayed, did serve some useful purposes (such as suppression of the Cathars and helping prevent the expansion of the Moors into Europe), did not convert people to another faith by force, and was no worse and arguably better in the way it was handled than in the secular courts of the time. Not religion's best hour, but few of us were at our best back then.

I too am trying to figure out what Black Bart the stagecoach robber (and PO8) was doing in a medieval torture chamber. Is this like one of those "What would happen if Wyatt Earp fought Charlemagne?" type of things?

Statistically, religion is among the LEAST common causes of war throughout the centuries, by the way. And in the 20th century, intolerance of religion created a much higher body count rather than religious intolerance. We can statistically predict that a sovereign's willingness to commit genocide in that century against his own countrymen is directly proportional to his own stated atheism. So, should we ban atheism or expressions of atheism as a preventative measure?

Honduras and El Salvador went to war over, allegedly over a football game in 1969 ("La guerra del ftbol"). Should we keep our kids from playing soccer on Saturday morning?

Obviously not. People will fight for any number of reasons (primarily over territory, resources, and population pressure), religion is just a pretext.

"AZMike, insurance is largely regulated at the state level, eh? So is medical practice and licensing. It's not easy to waive a magic wand and open up interstate commerce on the matter without federalizing a huge body of state law and practice (with a dubious constitutional basis for doin' it). "

Perhaps, Beavah. But the overhaul of the U.S health-care system that we are about to see will be so unprecedented that they might as well go all the way and create a federal oversight board for interstate policies. Maybe that is the way to go, I don't know for sure.

"About public prayer.. I am fine with someone doing a sunrise service in the park, or a ceremony of Hope and prayer at a public playground where a child went missing.. You announce the reason for the meeting will be religious and people can attend or not.. But, public prayer at a graduation or a town meeting I can see as being different.. People were told the gathering was for something else, and you will have a mix of people coming for the overall purpose of gathering, some who are fine with the prayer, some who are religious but not comfortable with YOUR type of prayer, some who are uncomfortable with any type of prayer..

...

Free speech does not mean you get to talk about what you want to talk about with a group of people your gathered by promoting it is for a different event. "

I'd agree with you on that point. But it is the nature of public civic events that some sort of invocation is usually offered. It's hardly unexpected by the crowd. It is why each session of Congress opens with a prayer.

As long as it is non-denominational OR different religions have a chance to offer the prayer, I see no harm or constitutional problem in public prayer. I've sat through invocations by Buddhists, Native American shamans, Mormons, Evangelicals, Jews, Catholics, Unitarians, Hindus, Muslims, even a Rosicrucian. I don't agree with the tenets of some of those faiths, but it was kind of them to care enough about the group to offer a prayer on their behalf. And, it can be interesting to hear what other people believe. Diversity, yes?

Although I am a Christian, I would agree also that in the scouts, it's not appropriate to include Christocentric ideas in public prayer unless you know the group is solely Christian. As that is common to the way many boys are raised in America, I don't think anyone should have a meltdown if a 12 year old boy slips and includes a reference to "My Lord" or "Jesus" when saying grace or closing a meeting with a prayer. People should lighten up.

"Can you cite the rulings from the cases you disagree with? I am unable to find any significant supreme court rulings on the establishment clause since 1997."

Really? Pretty much any SCOTUS ruling is significant.

Some of the post 1997 SCOTUS rulings re freedom of religion:

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) - Re school vouchers - issuance of vouchers to religious schools does not violate the estabishment clause.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) - "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance - SCOTUS held that the atheist non-custodial dad lacked standing to challenge on behalf of his daughter and didn't address the constitutionality due to the procedural issue, but worth reading the arguments and decisions to see where the individual justices' heads are at on this.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) - SCOTUS held allowing student-led prayer at a school football game violated the establishment clause.

Mitchell v. Helms (2000) - Government loans to religious schools do not violate establishment clause.

Agostini v. Felton (1997) - Not violation of clause for state to pay for public school teachers to provide secular instruction in religious schools.

Van Orden v. Perry (2005) - Okay for state to display 10 commandments in monuments at state capital in Austin, as they have both historical and religious tradition...

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) - but it is not okay to display it in Kentucky. This was actually issued the dame day as the above decision, you will have to read their reasoning for yourself.

I'm not the person to whom you are responding, but some I agree with, some I do not. The CHS contraception insurance policy mandate case which will work its way down the pike (assuming the ObamaCare tax isn't reconciled out of existence in January, 2013) will be huge.

"I think this idea of a new Scouting organization might not be such a bad thing. The BSA will, of course, be willing to share the name "Boy Scouts", so instead of the names that AZMike suggests, I would suggest "American Boy Scouts." Now, because many of the American Boy Scouts members and leaders have been members of the BSA, and have helped build up the BSA through the past 102 years through several generations (my family's BSA heritage goes back to at least 1938), it would be only fair to have some sharing of the assets as well. A poll would be taken, and let's say that 30 percent of the BSA membership said they planned to join the ABS. Now, we could divide this up several ways. The BSA councils could just transfer 30 percent of their camps, bank accounts, endowments, etc. etc. to the corresponding ABS councils, or with the camps there could be some kind of time-sharing arrangement where the ABS gets to use the camp 30 percent of the time. You'd have to do that with Philmont, Seabase, Summit etc. since there's only one of those each; ABS would get access 30 percent of the time. Of course, ABS gets 30 percent of the cash at HQ in Texas as well. Maybe someone would be willing to serve as CSE of the ABS for 30 percent of what Mr. Brock is going to make."

Perhaps Mr. Takei would!

Why would an organization voluntarily give 30% of its resources to a competitor, even if formed by those who were former members? At best, you might get the money from your kid's scout accounts...

Also, the "American: in "American Boy Scouts" is far too nationalistic and jingoistic, and would alienate the self-esteem of members who aren't American. It would also needlessly remind parents in enclaves such as San Francisco, whose city fathers demanded that their fire engines remove the American flag after 9/11 because "not everyone associates the United States with peace," of our involvement in wars of aggression.

In fact, we should probably eliminate "Boy" from the title, as it is both a term of racial opprobrium in some contexts, and also discriminatory to the girls - excuse me, young women - who would wish to join the organization. Although those youths and leaders whose sexual identification is still in a state of flux, and may be up in the air about what they will finally decide their gender to be.

And "Scouts" - really, this is a term that is primarily associated with a military unit, and the same parents who are our target audience for the new organization are probably those who also oppose allowing military recruiters on campus.

Your suggestion, though well intentioned, is needlessly divisive, NJCubScouter.

Perhaps a better title would be the World People Group. That is unlikely to offend.

I'd have no problem with that. Traditionally, health care programs have been one of the points prospective employees can weigh along with pay, title, location, and other fringe benefits. By requiring the same coverage be provided by every employer's underwriters, it creates this problem.

As many Catholic facilities are self-insured, it doesn't completely solve the problem.

Using marketplace incentives, like allowing the sale of policies across state lines, would drive down the cost if insurance, as would tort reform, but Obama has resisted those.

If our nation is that inconsistent and polarized, no one private organization will ever please anyone, and probably shouldn't even try.

If someone wants their kids to belong to an organization that promotes traditional (whatever that means) values, which include an orthodox religious view of homosexual behavior as a sin that is morally incongruous with the goals of scouting, and favors the expression of a general non-denominational theism, the Boy Scouts should probably fill that role.

If the marketplace of ideas demands an organization that does not express those values, it is probably the time for those parents who hold to secular and progressive values to establish a competing national service organization for boys (and girls, if they want) that will express values more congenial to their politics and aspirations. They could call them the Rainbow Warriors or The Secular Boys' League or the Red Guard or the LGBT-Friendly Rangers or whatever. It would allow and moreover, openly celebrate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered scouts and leaders, prohibit the expression of religious ideals such as the modern version of the Pledge of Allegiance, wear a uniform that is not militaristic in origin (that alone might win some converts), and create a series of Merit Awards that reflect the values they wish to promote - Diversity, Inclusion, Community Activism, Creative Voter Registration, and what have you. It would probably share many of the same goals as the old Scout movement (such as environmental protection), but would better reflect the goals of many parents who feel shut-out by traditional values.

The idea of a "gay-friendly" boy's organization that competes with the traditionalist Boy Scouts would attract a lot of favorable media attention, and the organization would get a boatload of grants and donations from celebrities in Hollywood and the music industry, who would probably do some benefit concerts, and the White House would honor the organization every year on May 1.

If those who would favor this model are correct, the "old" Boy Scout organization would lose most of its membership and whither away to irrelevance like the 4H or CYO, with just some cranky leaders and a small base of boys who go camping, tie knots, say prayers, and are probably home-schooled and, well, religious fanatics anyway.

Why not? As a great progressive thinker suggested, let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend!

It's also interesting that many liberal politicians (not only Obama) state that while they are personally opposed to abortion, they would never try to "push their morality on others" by voting for any bills that would restrict it in any way; yet they continually talk about how their Christian beliefs compel them to vote for more aid to the poor from tax dollars, restricting petroleum development, restricting gun ownership, opposing tort law reform, etc., all of which require infringing on the competing rights of others. Why should their religious beliefs be trumpeted if it is a liberal cause (especially one which leads to a significant level of campaign contributions from big pharma, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the trial lawyers associations, etc.) but become solely a personal issue if it is abortion?

Certainly, conservative politicians take similar stances. I am just curious why a rigorously "personal morality" religious stance should only apply on this particular issue.

"Christians cannot be trusted with the public square."

I would certainly agree with our president that he is a Christian, and as he uses explicitly Christian imagery to promote his agenda (as when he stated that Jesus would agree with him, and quoted from the Bible at the (gasp) National Prayer Breakfast):

"For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,"

Will you now feel yourself compelled to unplug his teleprompter?

"So, it comes down to this:

If everybody respected everyone else to follow their own beliefs ( which means not forcing yours or expecting others to follow them) then things would really be hunky dory!"

I couldn't agree with you more.

If Obama would just allow Catholic employers to pay for the insurance needs of their employees as they see fit, and not have to pay for abortifacients to kill the unborn or contraceptives, things really would be hunky dory.

Or, looked at from another angle:

If the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. would have stopped trying to impose his dang Christian fundamentalist religious beliefs on the people of America and let the bus owners and the lunch counter operators and the poll watchers make their own choices about how they wanted to live, things would have been hunky-dory. Why should he have thought that what he believes should be what the white population had to believe, right? (And what's with all that religious Bible-thumping language he threw into every speech? Didn't he realize that religion has no role in the marketplace of ideas?)

And Pope John Paul II? Don't even get me started about him. The duly constituted and elected government of the Soviet Empire (an Empire which REALLY respected the separation of Church and State, mind you!) didn't need some old white guy who wouldn't ordain women and was all opposed to gays thinking that what HE believed about the rights of man and the inherent human dignity granted by God to all people should be what THEY had to believe. Where did he get off speaking truth to power, inspiring the people of the conquered nations, and helping cause the breakup of an empire?

Or the Dalai Lama, some old celibate nut in a saffron robe and no shoes telling the world that the Chinese government shouldn't crack the heads of protestors in Beijing and Tibet.

Or those buttinksi abolitionists like the Catholic Abbe Guillaume Thomas Francois Raynal, or Quaker leaders George Fox and Levi Coffin, or Methodist founder John Wesley, or Methodist minister Calvin Fairbanks who was sentenced to 15 years hard labor and numerous floggings for the crime of preaching against slavery and helping escaped slaves on the underground railroad. Where did they get off trying to tell others what to believe?, and putting their lives and freedom on the line. Didn't they realize that slaves weren't considered fully human, and that the Supreme Court had declared slave-holding to be a constitutionally protected right?

I could go on and on here, but Bottom line? A world where no one expressed their beliefs about what others should believe, and never expressed their own sense of morality, would be a very gray and unfree and frightening place. You may agree or disagree with some of the religious principles espoused, depending on where you are on the political spectrum, but there's no doubt the world is a better place overall for people speaking them.

Let me get back to you on this issue.

Sorry, my last post was in reference to an earlier post: from johnponz: ""Romney says if elected he will repeal "Obamacare." Can one person do that? Doesn't he need to get the 60 votes in the senate to avoid filibuster of the repeal?"

I slept in a jungle hammock in an actual jungle but now that I live (and camp) in the desert, it would seem to be of less utility for me, as there are fewer sturdy trees to lash the ends to (unless up north). I like the idea of weight savings, but I also rotate all night long as I sleep. Any of you hammock users have a problem with this, or does your body adapt and keep you in one position as you sleep?

By your logic, someone who holds to a "progressive" ideology could argue that we should delete other sections of the Pledge to better conform to his or her beliefs.

One could argue that one should not pledge allegiance to a flag, as it is "only" a piece of cloth.

One could argue that "one nation" is inaccurate, as America holds both rich and poor communities.

One could argue that "with liberty and justice for all" is inaccurate, as liberty and justice are denied to many.

One could further argue that it is wrong to force any child to compromise his or her belief by publicly averring such sentiments, and that it is a violation of their right to free speech.

Perhaps you feel we should dump the whole Pledge. After all, why do we need any statement that encourages solidarity as members of the same nation? And really, why do we need to have a Scout Oath or Law?

Rather than trying to alter an American tradition to more fully conform to one's individual beliefs, it would be preferable that a child or the child's parents simply choose not to say the relevant phrase they find offensive, or choose not to say the Pledge at all. While progressives raise the issue that in so doing, some child may be harassed, or bullied, or have his self-esteem lowered for expressing his proto-atheistic beliefs, we should recognize that some religious denominations do not recite the Pledge, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not recite the Pledge, sing the National Anthem, run for Public Office, serve on jury duty, serve in the armed forces...or join the Boy Scouts. This may cause some hardship for individual JW kids, but you should we willing to stand up for your beliefs. Are you saying that atheist kids should be held to a different standard, or taught to be less courageous in standing up for their beliefs, than the JWs? If so, then why?

Would you argue that the Boy Scouts should be altered to better conform to the JW denomination, to avoid causing JWs a loss of self esteem or compromising their freedom of expression? If not, why then should we alter the Pledge of Allegiance to comport with an atheist's beliefs, or lack of same?

>>Eisenhower also stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Which is the antithesis of religious freedom.

>>I wouldn't mind if they removed "God" from the pledge. It was only added in the 1950's. The pledge has been modified four or five times during the 20th Century. During WWII, we said this:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We also used to not put our hands over our hearts the way we do today.

http://www.hlswatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/children-flag-salute-1930s.jpg

Things change over time. We changed it recently to have "under God" during the McCarthy era when godless atheist communists were all around us trying to undermine our capitalist way of life. We can probably let go of that now.

AZMike writes:

 

"I'd fill the time by listening to podcasts and music on my iPod....It was good training for the hikes with my troop. "

 

One of my Wood Badge buddies, a young and athletic District Commissioner, often backpacked with my Troop. I was shocked the first time I realized he was listening to an iPod on the trail!

Kudu, since you spun this thread off from my post on another thread about weight issues, you might want to mention that I was referring to hiking alone, on the sidewalks of my suburban neighborhood, in the wee hours of the morning, for conditioning, just as many do on the treadmill at the gym. I don't think it's a good idea to hike as part of a group setting, with scouts or others, while listening to an iPod. It kind of defeats the purpose of being able to experience the outdoors and the company of friends. It seals you off when you should be open to nature and others.

For safety's sake, I should probably mention that I use a single-ear pair headphone (that convert a stereo signal to a mono signal in one ear-bud - you can get them on Amazon) when rucking alone for conditioning, and a podcast is quite enough that I still can hear a jogger or cyclist coming up behind me, even with an ear-bud in 1 ear. I doubt a car is going to drive up on the sidewalk and hit me from behind before I could react, and I live in a pretty safe neighborhood, but it's probably best to be able to hear what is going on around you, whether in the suburbs or the Big Outdoors.

Some of the best scouters I know struggle with a weight problem. I generally work hard to stay in decent shape, as my job demands it and gives me the time and resources to do it, but the combination of advancing years and a slowing metabolism, the time demands of work, family, and avocation (such as scouting), and cumulative injuries (especially knee and ankle injuries) can make it hard to stay in shape as we get older. Many scouters, I've found, are excellent cooks (probably more so than the adult male population as a whole) and tend to enjoy eating their own meals.

But as someone else on this thread said, a scout leader with a weight problem is more useful than the gym rat who doesn't volunteer.

When my weight got a little more than I wanted it to be last winter, I started getting up an hour early to put on my hiking boots and some sweats and hike in my neighborhood before the sun rose, and before I ate. I would hike down the street for 30 minutes at a good pace, then turn around and go back. I'd usually bring a thermos mug of coffee with me. I'd fill the time by listening to podcasts and music on my iPod. I lost a fair amount of weight this way before I started hitting the gym again, and got to enjoy the time alone, walking through the dark streets. As pace and distance increased, I added a daypack and started adding some weight plates. It was good training for the hikes with my troop.

Another thing that helped me was looking at my caloric load from a weekly rather than a daily perspective, as I found trying to count calories essentially unmanageable. What worked very well for me was Intermittent Fasting, where you stop eating from after dinner one night until the dinner the next day, for a (roughly) 24 hour period. Coffee, diet soft drinks, black coffee, and sugarless gum are allowed during the fast. Do this on two non-consecutive days during the week, and you reduce a substantial amount of your total caloric load. It was hard the first few times I did it, then the body adjusted and I actually appreciated the added time on the job when I didn't have to break away to eat lunch. And then, I always got to eat dinner with the family. The fasts aren't hard, as much of it is at night while you sleep and you skip breakfast and a lunch. Vey importantly, you don't gorge yourself at the end of the fast, you just eat an normal-size meal.

Doing this over several months, and combined with hiking and some short weight workouts to preserve muscle mass, and I lost 1 to 2 pounds of fat a week. It's a very doable workout, and can be maintained for the long-term by switching to just 1 fast a week if weight starts to creep up. It's flexible, as you can switch to a different day if a business lunch or family function comes up.

All the dire predictions that my muscle would all waste away from catabolism if I didn't eat 6 meals a day failed to materialize. Instead, I lost about 30 pounds over the course since November and have maintained that weight. My weight lifts have continued to slowly increase, so I haven't lost any muscle mass (my wife says I look a lot better). And my LDL cholesterol and triglycerides have dropped enormously.

It's not for everyone - diabetics, especially, should NOT do it - but it's increasingly popular with people who would like a slow, steady, decrease in body fat. Google "intermittent fasting" to find more information on it, but essentially what I outlined is all that is necessary. Scouters who are looking for an achievable method to get in better shape may wish to consider it.

For backpacking, I like the Uncle Ben's rice pouch meals, available in the rice section of most grocery stores. They're pre-cooked, and you just need to add about a spoonful of water. I like to use the Spanish Rice packet, add a foil packet of chicken, a dash of chili-powder seasoning from my spice bomb and a packet of ground red chili-peppers saved from the pizza parlor. The Uncle Ben's Wild Rice packet goes well with a foil pouch of salmon and some dill seasoning. Heat 'em up in a pan. Good amount of carbs and protein with some fat.

I burnt out on dehydrated meals long ago, these taste better, don't need much water to reconstitute, and taste more like "real" food to my kids.

Hello everyone, first post and nice to be on the forum.

The ALPS Mountaineering XL Comfort Pad is more comfortable than my bed at home, whether on a cot or on the ground. It's strictly for base camping, but it's wonderful for that purpose. ALPS sells it to scouters at a deep discount on their scoutdirect.com website.