scoutingagain

Recommendations on Blue Ridge Council Scout Reservation and the High Knoll program.

Yah, I think Obama was also caught off guard. But keep in mind he had nothing to do with being nominated. Can't blame him for the failings of others.

I believe it was Monty Python that coined the phrase, "Stupid Vikings".

SA

I'm thinking the next time I'll cut and paste the text of the article and leave their appearance to everyone's imagination.

SA

Way to go!

Some good local press.

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/education/x1684966944/FLYING-HIGH-South-Shore-has-more-than-its-share-of-Eagle-Scouts

SA

"When was the last time anyone really needed to whip the end of a rope?"

As noted above, anyone in a maritime environment,especially a sailor uses whipped rope all the time for the reasons given as well as knots. It is the sign of a mariner, or maybe a former scout.

I have yet to be on a camping trip setting up a tent or fly that uses a line and not use knots. I find the little plastic slides, velcro etc. provided far less reliable.

As for burning wood, here in New England many homes have returned to wood burning stoves. The basic skills of cutting and splitting wood are practiced throughout the region and scouts and former scouts I'm sure do it better and safer than the average guy that goes to Home Depot and buys tools or even a log splitter.

Are there some outdated skills? I'm sure there are. First aid skills that have been updated with newer more effective skills come to mind. i.e. CPR instead of some of the older resusitation methods. The most useless skill I now posess is nowing how to use a card reader for inputing computer data comes to mind.

SA

If a scout does enough skiing or snowboarding on his own where he owns his own equipment he should also own a ski/boarding helmet. Like Gern, when I started my kids out skiing, I started them with helmets and they still wear them now that they're in college, as do most of their contemporaries. I also now where a helmut every time I ski.

For those that rent their gear and only ski or snowboard occaisionally, most ski areas offer helmets for rent at a relatively inexpensive rate. There really is no excuse. We do a ski/snowboard trip annually and all the scouts are required to wear helmets and we've had no problem doing it.

SA

Well the complete story can be found in the testimony provided by his sister to commerce committee.

The primary issue of the story is true. The man had his insurance cancelled based on a medical condition he was not aware of. If his sister had not been an attorney and willing to fight hard for her brother, it is questionable as to whether or not he would have gotten the procedure. But he apprently did not die, because the cancelled insurance was re-instated prior to the stem cell procedure after two appeals by the Illinois Attourney Generals office. Such a generous gesture. I guess this is the kind of health care insurance we can continue to look forward to.

Amazing what you can find on the internet.

For those that only want the part of the story that supports their opinion please feel free to edit this post as needed.

Yes it appears the President may have mispoken. If he did so knowingly, he lied. But I suspect he had information provided to him by a staffer that was in error. Kind of like the information provided to Colin Powell prior to addresseing the UN.

SA

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_raddatz.pdf

(This message has been edited by scoutingagain)

BP, I didn't say the government didn't have more information. They clearly do. I just don't accept the fact that I don't have right to criticize the government or judge their performance based on the information available to me as a private citizen. As a citizen in a free democratic society, I not only have right but a responsibility to do so. With a free press, hopefully somewhere out there with all the information available we can collect enough data to make an informed assessment. At times we collectively may make mistakes based on that information, but it's all we have to go on.

The alternative is to blindly follow the government, which is something I don't accept. Democratic or Republican.

SA

"No country can ever be completely safe from attack,so I think I will let those leaders on the frontlines make those decisions than critize them from a point of ignorance as some seem determined to do."

Sorry, BP but this is the same rational used by many to support Bush's decision to go into Iraq. They told us they "knew" there were weapons of mass destruction.

Nothing wrong with being critical of Presidential policy based on what we know from the media and what the government tells us. It's what makes us a free society. It's the only information we have acceess to and ultimately come election time we as citizens need to make decisions based on that information. We need to judicious in our interpretation of what we learn from the media because we know the media makes mistakes and publishes or transmits stuff that isn't true. So we need to constantly reassess our postions based on the best information we have when it becomes available. But don't suggest we should trust the government or administration, Republican or Democrat, just because they have access to more information.

SA

I agree this is a tough one. If there is enough time between the court date and the lad's 18th birthday, I'd withold the signature until after the lad has had his day in court. As Nike pointed out I've seen our local paper publish all kinds of things that simply were'nt true, including charges against youth in the unit I serve. Unless you have 1st hand knowledge of the events that led to the charges you only know what's been printed in the paper, and I'd hate to see a scout denied Eagle based on what's in the paper alone.

I'd have a heart to heart talk with the lad. Then make your own determination as to whether or not the boy is worthy of being an Eagle scout. Don't let the paper, or others influence your decision. Make them based on your assessment of the boy and his character as you perceive them to be. As Beavah said, it's your signature. If it turns out you believe the lad is worthy, and the paper publish's an article about how Troop so and so awarded Eagle to an youth that had been arrested, well so be it. You will know in your heart what you beleive and if the boy deserves the award or not. At the same time, if YOU come to the conclusion he is not deserving of the award, do not be influenced by his parents or others. You need to make the decision.

SA

Well Ex-Presidents are entitled to their opinion, but I agree given their status in society they should be judicious when they express them. However while I can find several articles that quote Carter as saying "many" of those opposed I can't find anywhere he is quoted as saying the "majority" of the opposition is due to race. If such a quote is available please post a link.

And I do think it would be very naive to think that there aren't "many" people opposed to the current President simple because of his race.

SA

From a Washington Post article on the initial issue:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/obama-seeks-patriot-act-extensions/

"Civil liberties groups immediately criticized both moves, which would extend Bush-era terrorism policies that have long been unpopular with Democrats. "

"The ACLU blasted the Obama administration Tuesday for a court filing that argued that the roughly 600 prisoners at Bagram air base in Afghanistan should not have access to courts in the United States. A landmark Supreme Court decision gave detainees at the naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, such access to the courts. "

Sounds like criticism to me.

SA

"Problem is, it seems we all ENJOY the controversy. What would we do without the other party/guy/group to point our fingers at?"

So true. Can't wait for the Palin/Wilson ticket in 2012.

SA

Sorry BA, apparently that article has been taken down. It's no secret though that the more civil elements of the Republican party were not happy with Wilson's outburst. Unfortunately the zeolots of the Republican party that seem to think what Wilson did was OK continue the dialog of shrillness drowning out any rationale opposition.

In the mean time the Democrats could focus on ironing out a Health Care bill that might pass and look like the bigger party tryin to solve real problems, but they'd rather continue to keep the focus on Wilson and nonsense.

Where was that Moderate Normal Person's Party?

SA

I'd agree Calico if a Presidential candidate were among his congregation. Every random nut that wants to say something doesn't necessarily deserve a segment on 60 minutes, or Fox news.

SA(This message has been edited by scoutingagain)

From Yahoo New Article: "While both Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) initially downplayed the matter, Clyburn pushed for some sanction against Wilson. Clyburn confronted Wilson on the floor Thursday, and later said that he asked Wilson three times to go to the well of House and apologize, but Wilson refused.

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and other Republicans also privately asked Wilson to make an apology on the floor, but he wouldnt comply, according to GOP insiders."

I agree though, the Democrats would be better served letting this dog lie and being the bigger party. It seems though it's his fellow South Carolinian, Majority Whip Clyburn, making the most noise though.

Otherwise they look just as petty and it's the ongoing DC circus and Representatives wonder why their treated like dirt when they go back to their districts.

Just as an analogy, how should a scout be disciplined if during a meeting with all scouts and parents, the SM is explaining an issue of a proposed change in troop policy that not all the scouts like, and a Patrol Leader, yells out "liar" while the SM is speaking?

SA

(This message has been edited by scoutingagain)

The less attention the kooks at both ends spectrum receive the better as far as I'm concerned.

SA

I have to wonder how many of the oposition party oppose health care reform simply because a Democrat is President. They don't want any legislative successes. Period.

I mean many of the reforms proposed are similar to those developed and enacted by Massachusetts Republican Governor, Mitt Romney, working with state Democrats. Would the roles be reversed if Mitt Romney had somehow won the Republican nomination and general election? Romney would likely have proposed very similar legislation, although the public option I'm certain would not be included. Would Democrats be having the same kind of hissy fit? To be honest I suspect some would. They would probably stonewall it because of a lack of a public option. But many Republican currently opposed to the plan would be completely supportive because it would have come from one of their own. Sad, Sad, Sad.

SA

From Fact Check:

OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.

THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them.

Hey lots of people have called Presidents liars. I can't recall ever hearing a President called a liar in the middle of a speech in the chambers of congress on national television before.

As I noted in the other thread. If one wanted to call Obama out on something it should have been on the cost of the programs and how it will be paid for.

SA

SA

"Can Obama force everyone to buy insurance? I don't see that power listed in the Constitution. Will it stand up to a challenge, which will surely come? I don't know."

Obama certainly can't by executive order but congress can legislate such a requirement just as they can require everyone to pay taxes, register for the draft or any of a number of other laws that require citizens to do something for the common good. Now it might be determined that it is outside the Federal govt's jurisdication to impose such a requirement and it would fall to the states. If that's the case the Federal Govt could withold funding for any one of a number of Federally funded healthcare initiatives for those states that did not require it's citizens to have health insurance. Done all the time for Federal highway funds, education funds etc.

In Massachusetts all adults are required to have health insurance. If you don't you are subject to a potential fine. When you file your state income tax return you must submit proof of insurance with the return. It is returned along with your W2.

This commi law was signed into law by another pinko liberal from Massachusetts Mitt Romney.

It can be done.

I'm not saying Massachusetts has a perfect system. But something like 95% of adults are covered by some form of health insurance. There is not a public option but there is choice available for anyone who is not employed or who's employer does not provide health insurance. Our experience has not been that businesses have abandoned their employees. However, just like Bush's perscription drug benefit, the cost has been more than was expected. There are lessons to be learned from Massachusett's experience, but it isn't to keep the current system.

If somone wanted to call Obama a liar, it should have been when he said the program won't increase the deficit, not when he said something that was pretty clearly true.(ie. his program does not cover illegal immigrants)

From FactCheck:

OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.

THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them.

FWIW I'm in a private insurance program through my employer. Pay approx 50% of the cost. Yes it's gone up quite a bit in the last 5 years, and I suspect if something isn't done it will continue to eat into my paycheck. But I have seen no difference in coverage or service since the Massachusetts laws requiring coverage were enacted.

As Beavah noted. Something must be done. The current system is too expensive, leaves out too many people and is crippling our ability to compete in the world economy.

SA

"Polling figures show that as many as 85% of americans with health insurance are happy with what they have"

So what % of Americans without coverage are satisfied with what they have?

SA

Did anyone happen to catch Newt Gingrich's(pinko socialist liberal that he is) opinion of the President's speech to school children on the Today show this morning?

He gave it his full support.

Actually the more I hear Mr. Gingrich, the more he sounds like a rational conservative. Something we could use a little more of. I'd like to see leaders like him and McCain take back the Republican party from the Becks, Coulters and other entertainer politicos that have no interest in the country other than increasing their own ratings and book sales by making up stuff to stir up controversy.

SA

I have to admit I've asked myself this question. Lately it seems the more extreme elements of both major political parties have taken over their respective agendas.

SA

Let's not forget the '69 Mets, Franco Harris's Immaculate Reception, the 1980 USA Hockey Team and the 2004 Red Sox 4 straight wins over the Yankees in the playoffs.

SA