SR540Beaver

Brent, I knew I shouldn't have bowed in to this thread and I am going to bow out. I am fully aware of how true-believer neocons view us independents. I doubt I can change your mind about us. Neither party fully represents my values and/or beliefs. I weigh each candidate and issue on their merits and vote in line with my values and beliefs. I try to be fair and balanced. I have voted for Dem, Repub and independent candidates. In many ways, I could be considered a paleo-con or liberterian. A good read of some of Pat Buchanan's columns concerning the war in Iraq would give you a fair understanding of my views on this war. In my estimation, there was little need for it. Hindsight is 20/20, but it appears that much of the push for this war was inaccurate. Being an independent, I can admit that. Hardcore Repub Bush supporters don't seem to be able to. From where I sit, the containment option was working. Saddam's military, weapons programs and infrastructure were in a shambles. He posed no threat. Spider-hole Saddam is a survivor. He wasn't about to cut his own throat by attacking the US. He knew his nation would be turned into a sea of glass if he attacked us. He may be crazy, but he isn't stupid. The run up to the war reminded me of a child asking a parent for something. If one reason or tactic doesn't work, try another. Bush wanted this war. PNAC wanted this war while Clinton was still in office. The fact that many of the PNAC folks were part of this admin wasn't lost on me. This war was going to happen one way or another. 9/11 provided the needed "justification" even though it has been proven to not be related. I suspect that the real reason for the war is a noble one of providing a seed of democracy in the region in the hopes that it will spread. It is a grand experiment with the potential of exploding in our faces. It is also a form of imperialism and as a conservative, I find it repugnant. I believe people should be able to live as they want and if they are under tyranny and don't like it, it is their job to do the dirty work of removing it. We should only engage in military action for defense. I was behind Bush 100% when he went after OBL and the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11. He lost me on Iraq. Is Bush a bad President? No. He isn't a great President either. Was Clinton a bad President? No. He wasn't a great President either. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. For many Repubs, they still can't quit blaming every ill in the world on Clinton after he has been out of office for 5 years. For many Dems, they blame it all on Bush. I just try to call a spade a spade and not follow any particular idelogy other than just being an American. Just my two cents.

Brent, Apples and oranges? First, let me say that I'm an independent. I don't carry water for either side of the aisle and I try to be fair, unbiased and objective when it comes to politics. Second, a little history....remember how I said people don't remember past yesterday? The story I quoted is from 1996. Monica didn't happen until 1998. You can check it out. Clinton spent a good deal of time dealing with Iraq and Saddam and had constant criticism from the Republicans. Two presidents dealing with a foreign threat to our nation and being criticized by the other side. Apples and apples.

I'm coming into this thread pretty late in the game. I'm hitting the age where I'm losing almost as many brain cells as I am hair. My rememberer seems to not function as well as it used to. But it does still function enough to remember some things. I always get amused at how little the American public remembers in this day and age of 24 hour cable news and talk radio chasing the latest news. We tend to forget things that happened yesterday. Less than a decade ago, the roles were reversed. Clinton was using military power against Saddam and guess who was criticizing him for it? This is why I always have a chuckle over the sanctimonious pundits who thrash their arms crying that Dem criticism of Repubs is unprecedented. Read on! http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/13/iraq.us/index.html Clinton to explain his goals for Iraq He'll use the media to reach American people September 13, 1996 Web posted at: 11:00 p.m. EDT (0300 GMT) From Correspondent Claire Shipman WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With a possible second strike against Iraq looming, and criticism from some corners mounting, the White House is launching a public relations offensive to spell out its Iraq strategy. President Bill Clinton will lay out his plans in his Saturday radio address. And the administration's top guns, including National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, will blanket television talk shows for the next few days. The media saturation comes in response to Republican criticism that Clinton has not consulted enough with the American people -- and with the majority-Republican Congress -- on his plans in the Persian Gulf. "Before we haul off and start escalating the bombing which we may need to do, we need to know what the president's end game is. And he has not come to Congress, and he has not consulted with the American people," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said Friday. Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp also criticized Clinton. "My hope would be that he would consult the bipartisan congressional leadership, consult the leadership that was put together, the tremendous coalition in the Persian Gulf under President Bush, and also consult very closely and carefully with all our allies," he said. The White House is defending itself against Republican complaints by claiming that they are seasonal. "We seem to be in a political season when there will be a variety of criticisms raised," said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry. "The president has been very clear about his objectives as we deal with the provocative behavior of Saddam Hussein." Complicated issues Deputy National Security Adviser Samuel Berger explained Clinton's objectives this way: "The President is determined to enforce an expanded no-fly zone in the south, which restricts Saddam's capacity to threaten his neighbors and our strategic interests." While Berger's synopsis is straightforward, the situation in Iraq is less so. Professional observers say the complicated situation partially accounts for the difficulty Clinton is having in explaining his actions and goals in Iraq. It was easier for the previous administration. "This is not as clear as saying, 'We are going to turn back the invasion of Kuwait.' The objectives here are a little bit more complex, a little bit more difficult for a president to explain, especially in the middle of a campaign. Bill Clinton really has his job cut out for him," presidential historian Michael Beschloss said. White House aides say they are well aware that they need to make a better public case for U.S. action, and that it won't be easy. While polls indicate the president is reaping a political gain right now by standing firm against Iraq, his aides worry that this is just the sort of unpredictable situation that could end up hurting Clinton before the November election.

Hunt, Well said. I listen to a good amount of talk radio. I recall when many of the conservative pundits were up in arms over Miers nomination to the court. I heard the same sentiment made by a number of pundits, but specifically recall Ann Coulter making a remark to Sean Hannity on his radio show. She basically said that conservatives had worked at the grassroots level for 30 years to get to this day where a conservative president could put people on the SCOTUS. They didn't want to see it sqaundered. They wanted to see the president put a person on the court who will "rule in line with our values". On one hand, she called for a strict constructionist, on the other hand she called for someone who will rule based on a certain ideology. Hasn't that been the complaint about activist judges legislating from the bench? I just want someone who will be fair.

Sad to say, I'm sure it happens more than it should. You were good thru the first half of the statement. Once the SM gives the boy a MBC name, it is up to the boy to contact the MBC and set things up. We have just transferred to a new troop. It is a good sized tropp with very active adults volunteers. Many leaders and parents are MBC's. There are some MB's such as Personal Manangement that are taught to multiple boys on a schedule. It is anounced that Mr. So and So will be holding this MB class from this date to this date if you want to sign up. However, the class is on a different night than troop meetings and is scheduled so it does not interfere with any other scouting activities. There seems to be too many troops who just don't know how to deliver the program and end up teaching MB's instead.

We really need to nail down the definition of "arms" before I purchase the enriched uranium I need to complete that baby nuke I'm building down in the basement.

My son just took this MB at an MB Fair. They watched "Pay it Forward" as a group. I've never actually watched the movie, but know the basic story line. It would seem appropriate.

I could be wrong....doubtful, but possible. I think the reason that council doesn't want to take the excess back from units is because they have to eat the cost. I remember taking back opened and unopened boxes from our old pack to council. We unloaded it in a big room already full of other unit's returned boxes. To my knowledge, they do not get to return it to Trail's End. Once it is ordered, it belongs to someone. It is easier and "less" costly to make each unit absorb the excess than to stick the council with it. Does anyone know different?

I'm willing to bet that 99% of the boys and adults in OA were involved in Cubs. I've done a fair amount of recruiting for Boy Scouts and it is my experience that it is darned near impossible to sign up a boy from off the street. The vast majority of Boy Scouts came from Cub Scouts. Put it to them this way, "If you don't tend the "garden", there will be no harvest".

My son and I were transitioning to a new troop right around popcorn time this year, so I'm not to up on how things were done. I do know from a roundtable meeting prior to popcorn sales starting that whatever you order for show and sell is yours, no returns. If you order 20 cases and only manage to sell 12, the unit is responsible for buying the other 8 cases. The council said they didn't have the room, funds or staff to handle all the returned popcorn. I think they were attempting to put the onus on the units to be realistic when ordering.

EMT, Welcome to the Thunder Thighs Tribe. I'm chief. I can attest that the crotch of scout uniform pants don't hold up well. You can get BDU's at a military surplus store. They make colors other than camo. I have a pair of olive green BDU's and they wear like iron. Also, take a look at www.cabelas.com at their 7 Pocket Hiker Pants and their Trailhiker pants. The 7 Pocket looks a lot like scout pants. They even have fairly small useless patch pockets on front. I've got a pair in olive and they are one tought pair of pants. While I don't have them, I like the looks of their Trailhiker pants. They have double knees sewn in and nice sized patch pockets. Both pants have nice wide belt loops, go all the way up to 52 inch waists and are both priced at $29.95. They will outlast 10 pairs of scout pants.

Neckerchiefs are the one thing that can be custom to a troop to set it apart from the rest of the crowd. There is no "standard". Our troop has two sizes of neckers, one for the boys and one for the adults. I am so hot natured, that I prefer not to wear them at all. When I participated in the forced death march (3 miles one way from our subcamp to the arena) at Jamboree, it didn't take long before I had my uniform shirt and neckerchief stripped off.

AK-Eagle, Perhaps you didn't notice that this thread is in the "Issues & Politics" forum. The forum exists because users requested such a forum to occasionally discuss issues and politics. I believe the admin has stated that it will stay unless people were not able to keep it civil. Scout oath and law still applies. It is kind of like TV.....no one forced you to click on the thread and read it. All of the rest of the forums are strictly scouting related.

They can have my red shirt/jac when they can pry it from my cold dead body. Seriously, while I appreciate, practice and endorse LNT, they are at times rather overboard in their approach.

Ask those folks who think he has to move to another pack to give you evidence of such a rule. They won't....because they can't. My son and I just moved to a new troop in another district. Our old troop was a mile from the house and roundtable was 2 miles away. The troop we are in now is across town and it is over 20 miles one way. Same town, different district. Unless a charter organization has some membership restrictions, you can join any unit you want regardless of it's location. If you are close to a council border, you could join a pack in the neighboring council if desired.

I could be mistaken, but I believe Bob gets on his hands and knees, places his trusty camp mug open end down on the ground, snugs his ear up to the other end and listens to the vibrations rumbling thru the ground.

Welllll, I could share my copy of the classified memo with you, but then the uniform police would have to come and kill me.

I'd say their quality is comparable to Coleman and I think that is who they are trying to compete with. I've known a couple of Scouters who have bought their tents and cots. One of the guys experienced a leak thru his rain fly the first time he used it, the other guy did not. Half the tents you buy tell you to seal them yourself anyway. Might have been a fluke. They both seemed to like the tents and cot. I borrowed one of their cots (40 inches wide) to take to Jamboree and was comfortable on it. One word of warning, sit down in the middle and not on the end if there is the slightest unlevel ground. At 40 inches wide, the cot stands very tall. You don't get to pick your spot at Jambo and take what you can get. My tent site was running downhill ever so slightly. I sit down on the foot end of the cot and the tall legs shifted under my weight and bent a little. I will say that there were a number of Jambo troops who took advantage of Alps Jambo package and there were many, many Alps tents there. We had a best practices meeting after Jambo and recommended that the council use some brand of freestanding nylon tent in the future instead of the traditional canvas wall tent. The Alps had floors, mesh doors, were much cooler and set up in a fraction of the time. The canvas looks great....IF....they are set up correctly.

If I put on my way back hat, I vaguely remember going to a Scout-O-Rama when I was a Cub in the mid-60's. I remember that it was indoors at the fairgrounds in Oklahoma City and there was a pioneering tower built as a centerpiece. I also remember getting a patch. I quit as a Webelos in probably 1967 and didn't become active again until about 3 years ago. Somewhere in between 1967 and now, our council quit doing Scout-O-Ramas. I have no idea when. Does your council or district still do a Scout-O-Rama and how successful are they? I'd like to here a few details of the activities, venue and attendance.

Two questions. I'm not familiar with the term cluster. What is it? Invite? Did you have to be invited in the old days? Around here, you get tired of being chased by upcoming WB staff with registration forms in hand. You see them at beadings, you see them at training courses like SM Specific and IOLS. You see them at roundtables. You see them at camporee campfires. You see them in your sleep. The council newsletter has ads for it every month. The recruiters will even fill out the form,take your check and drive it to the council office for you. Invite? Around here, everyone is invited.

You guys can do whatever you want......I'm celebrating Festivus from now on. A hearty Scout handshake to anyone who knows what Festivus is.

Barry and I are in the same council. I wasn't around before the new course and can't speak to the good old boy club.....but I do see it in other places around the council. Sometimes it appears that there is still a good old boy network in WB, but there really isn't. You'll see the same people staffing from course to course, but they are working their way up to CD. Each course also contains new staff. My course was in the fall of 2003. There have been four courses since then and three of those courses were Directed by people who had served as TG's in my course. In fact, the next two courses being held next year are Directed by people who staffed my course. So yeah, you see some of the same faces, but it is not a closed society with some grand keeper of the flame anymore. Also, I'll agree with Barry about the effect on Cubbing. I was involved in Cubs when I went to WB. Our CM was WB trained and serving as a TG in my course. Besides me, there were 3 other leaders from our Pack that attended my course. In the end, we had 5 WB trained Cub Leaders. Not too shabby. Of course 4 of us are in Boy Scouts now though.

I was sure glad to see this thread. I took WB for the 21st Century back in the fall of 2003. I got my beads this past spring. I was interested in staffing the spring course this year because my troop guide was the CD. But I had to use all of my vacation time for Jamboree, so it was not possible. We do a spring and fall course in our council. I was informed of who the CD will be for fall 2006 and it is a person I'm pretty friendly and familiar with. I dropped her an e-mail stating that while it is rude to invite yourself to someone's party, I'd be more than willing to serve if she could use me. She answered back that she has been reading the admin guide and is quite confused on just how to put her staff together. The up side is she is going to the CD conference in a week or two and hopes to have a better understanding of who she can recruit as staff. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. BTW Eamonn, our council does do an Outdoor Skills Training course in addition to the IOLS course. IOLS trains you for taking a boy up thru 1st Class. Out OST course goes beyond that into backpacking, pioneering, dutch ovens, etc. and runs two weekends. My understanding is that it is a continuation of an old discontinued course that carried on in our council by popular demand. They do two course a year and never hurt for participants. I was hoping to do the fall course coming up in a two weeks, but had a scheduling conflict.

Funny.....we avoid public campgrounds such as this to stay away from the general public who typically is too loud and sometimes too drunk. I will say that there are those troops and packs that are fairly loosey goosey. I've been to a number of scout camps where after we put our boys to bed at 10 PM, we hear other troops and packs blowing and going until 2 AM.

SWScouter, Congrats!!! hunting wolf, Advance congrats!!! I used to be a Beaver.....an SR-540 Beaver.