SR540Beaver

scoutldr, Just curious, how do you handle your asthma with the smoke from a campfire? It puts off tons of smoke compared to a cigarette. At least with a cigarette, you can stand upwind.

I think it is a matter of perspective. I saw several former astronauts on TV this weekend talking about the tradgedy. 911 caught our attention because 3000 average Joe's were murdered sitting at their desks in one fell swoop. Passenger planes that millions of people fly on every year were hijacked and makes one pause and question safety. After 911, we all said, "there but for the grace of God". The former astronauts were explaining that each and everyone of these men and women and their families knew the risk. They are explorers and pioneers doing an extremely dangerous task. That does not negate the tragedy, it just makes it more understandable. 911 was sensless. Each Shuttle launch has a known potential for disaster regadless of all the safty precations taken.

These are all good comments! Let me give you another perspective. Little Johnny goes to a recruitment meeting at his elementary school and decides he wants to join Cub Scouts. Dad has never been a scout or maybe dropped out at Webelos himself as a kid. Mom, being a female obviously wan't a scout as a kid. Eventually, Mom and Dad both get involved in leadership roles in the pack. Mom and Dad's total scout experience is at the Cub Scout level with Tigers and Wolves. They know nothing of the Boy Scout experience since they were never Boy Scouts. Yes, they can go get training, but can they really prepare their boys for Boy Scouts? I agree with Bob that it is one program aimed at two different age groups. But it usually is seen as two programs. The Cubs rarely have any kind of consistent access to the troops and the troops don't want to get involved in little kid activities. Plus, BSA doesn't always promote togetherness. Just in the last few days there has been a thread about Cubs and Troops needing seperate camp facilities at council events for safty concerns. As long as you try to keep them apart, you are going to have a hard time getting them together. I one shot activity a year just isn't enough to build and maintain a relationship.

Bryan, Each item you listed is basically true. Saddam is an evil man deserving of death. Now, of all of the evidence you listed, which one has anything to do with the US national security? That he tortures his own people? That he has gassed his own people? That he has fought wars of agression with a couple of his neighboring countries? All of these involve issues within his own borders or his immediate border mates. That he has control of the oil fields inside his own country could possibly be considered a threat to the US because of our dependancy on oil. But Bush and company consistently tell us the war isn't about oil. And, it is his nation's oil to do with as they please. So far I've heard lots of "what if" theories, but nothing that shows a concrete threat to the US. Keep in mind, we've been beating the war drum against Iraq for over a year now. Other than proclaiming that they will defend their country against outside attack, have you heard Saddam ever actually make a threat to the US? While I think his dictatorship is dangerous to the people under him, it isn't a threat to you or me.

ASM514, I love your idea for a den chief patrol. My son joined Cubs last September as a Webelos 1. We've made every single den meeting since he joined. We "have" a den chief. I think I've seen him at maybe 3 meetings since last September. He is neven in uniform. The best description I could give of him is "den clown" somewhat like a class clown in school. Our den leader spent as much time trying to get him to pay attention as she did our boys. He has never attended any of our campouts. The one responsibility I've seen that he had was to pass out the snack at the end of the meeting. I'd guess him to be about 14, but not sure. I have a feeling that his troop handed him off to us as a means to help him mature and gain some leadership experience at our expense. He isn't exactly a walking advertisement for joining the Boy Scouts. I hope your program works, good den chiefs can play an important part in recruitment.

Bob, Wording does make a difference. Walk into any court in the land and you'll see. Since you've spent countless hours working with kids, you have had to seen this thousands of times. I have learned with my son to give VERY explicit instructions. I've learned how he thinks (pretty much) and I head him off at the pass by telling him that my answer means this and this and this. I'll tell him that it doesn't mean this and this and this. That way, he can't plead ignorance when he does something I told him not to do. No means no. A simple two letter word that can't be interpreted as maybe, might, possibly, etc. The BSA needs to write a policy that says, "Use of any tobacco products is expressly forbidden at any Scout function." No wiggle room left. No word games. No question of interpretation. Notice I included the term "any tobacco products". As far as I can tell, the current policy speaks to smoking. That leaves wiggle room for smokless tobacco.

FYI Fallen astronaut Willie McCool was an Eagle Scout. Here is his bio: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mccool.html

Zahnada, I had to chuckle when I read your post. I understand what you are saying. My 9 year old Webelo is taking Tae Kwon Do. He started in Nov. 2001. They do rank tests for belts each 3 months. He instead has put himself on a 6 month schedule. At this age, once they work from white to orange to green to purple, their instructor holds them there until they are at least 14 or 15. In fact, after purple belt, testing is invitational only when the instructor thinks you are ready. The higher belts are too advanced for a kid under that age. They don't have the strength, power or maturity to understand martial arts beyond that level. Meanwhile, there are other schools out there who pump out an 8 year old black belt in about 2 years. At tournaments, our instructor sees all these grade school kids running around in their black belts and just shakes his head in disbelief. Martial arts is not unlike scouts. It teaches responsibility, confidence, perseverance, integrity, honor, etc. While many grade school kids may have learned the technical side of doing a form, they don't yet understand all of the character building aspects that comes from years of hard work. Many martial arts schools are like Eagle mills. They think that the black belt is the ultimate goal without realizing that the path of getting there is the most important aspect of attaining the rank. I'm proud that my son already understands that and is pacing himself to make sure he has really learned what he needs to know to attain his rank before testing. I hope he makes Eagle someday, but I hope he savors the path and maximizes the learning on the way.

Awww, come on Rooster! I need a sparring partner. Actually, while I know you won't believe this, we agree on a lot more than you think. BTW, if you check your Bible really close, you can't lose your salvation. You can grieve the Spirit by your behavior, but God will not abandon you. It's all there in black and white....promise!

"send U.S. troops in harms way to distract the public from the national embarrassment he created." Rooster, You might want to read this article from a conservative website that supports your view. American-Made Terrorists - October 12, 1998 The Presidents ill-advised missile strikes on supposed terrorist bases have inspired radical Islamic factions to a renewed and intense hatred of the United States. http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1998/vo14no21/vo14no21_terrorists.htm Seems that when Clinton took a hard stand against Iraq and Bin Laden back in 1998, the conservatives were howling that it was a diversion from his other problems and that his actions would incite further terrorism. Oddly enough, there is some deja vu going on here. Bush takes a hard stand against both and the liberals are howling that it is a diversion from his failing domestic policies and that he will just incite more terrorism. It seems that what goes round, comes round. Clinton was accused of putting our fighting boys in harms way to distract the public. Let's see, based on intelligence by the same agencies supplying Bush, he determined that Saddam was out of compliance with UN resolutions and that Bin Laden was training terrorists in Afganistan. He ordered military strikes against them. He was scoffed at and dismissed. He was told he would stir up more trouble and put our nation at risk. His justification was questioned. Perhaps old Bill was onto something that Bush had to learn the hard way. But of course, the conservatives were correct to question the President and be dismissive. Nowadays, that gets you labeled as unpatriotic and un-American. Current events just prove that history is destined to repeat itself when you don't learn from it. "lie to cover up his many "indiscretions"." FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/ Rooster, Need I remind you of how the President of Presidents, Ronald Reagan and company lied, stole and cheated behind the nations back to further their own personal views. It is all in the official report listed above if you care to reread a little history. Oliver North was a disgrace to his uniform and would have gone to prison if the government had'nt slipped up and gave him immunity for his testimony to Congress. He is still held up by conservatives as a paragon of virtue. Heck, FoxNews even gave him his own show. You see Rooster, there is plenty of blame to go around......regardless of the political party or person involved. Two wrongs don't make a right. But don't pretend that it is all one sided.

"Politics are the application of religion/morals/ethics. If your religous beliefs don't determine your political beliefs, then you're a hypocrite." RobK, Correct, but I'll let my Bible study, my personal relationship with the Lord and the leading of His Holy Spirit guide me in determining my political views. I don't need a political speech in place of a Sunday School Bible lesson to do my critical thinking for me. "It's interesting to note that the only churches that get away with this advocate liberal positions." Hmmm, ever hear of the "Religious Right"? To my knowledge, there isn't a movement referred to as the "Religious Left" that is courted by apolitical party.

Dan, Huh?! What is your beef with Dutch in telling him to go find some place that doesn't expect anything from him personally? Go back and read his post. "Both my wife and I were quite active in Cub Scouts and wanted to continue on in Boy Scouts. I asked the Scoutmaster before our son joined if the troop had opportunities for more active adults and was assured that the troop could always use the help. We were given adult registration forms and told to fill them out and bring them to the next meeting. I was told by the Scoutmaster to register as an Assistant Scoutmaster but realize that I would not serve in that position or have any duties." He wanted to make a difference and was snubbed. He then was asked to be a MB Counselor and sign off on things he knew nothing about. Also, to pass kids who had not done the work. He refused to bend the rules. Just what was it Dutch said that makes you think he doesn't want he and his son to participate in a well run troop?

Rooster, I first attended a Southern Baptist church when I was 2 weeks old. I became a Christian when I was 7. I'm now 45 and have attended Southern Baptist churches all of my life. The Southern Baptists are not a wing of the Republican party. When my Sunday School teacher made each lesson into a bash the Democrats and rah rah for the Republicans, I moved. Teach me the Bible and I'll decide my own politics in light of how the Holy Spirit leads me. I don't need a lesson in ideology. Sunday School classes contain people from all walks of life and political stripe, not just conservative politics.

KS, Thank you! There is nothing that irked me more than going to church and being asked to pray for our Republican Presidents.....but not for our Democrat Presidents. I used to get a political speech each Sunday in Sunday School. I found a different class to go to. The President is the President regardless of his party affiliation and our personal views.

Pack, How about doing the opposite. Give merits for being in full uniform instead of demerits for not being in uniform. The reward would have to be something worth desiring in order to get the guys to want to stay in compliance. I wouldn't make it where they were rewarded each time, make it cumulative. 5 points each time they are in full uniform and when they get to 100 points, they are rewarded in some way.

Hops, they most likely are, but they are not camo. BDU style pants are worn by many other organizations besides the military. Look at www.propper.com. They sell military, police, etc. BDU's from kid's thru adults. They even make a version that are shorts. Camo is what most people consider the big no no, not the functionality of the pants. A black pair of BDU pants isn't going to be confused with military camo.

Hops, Regardless of what you think of Clinton's personal morals, he would have easily won a third term if the consitution allowed it. His overall polling numbers remained high from beginning to end even in light of all the scandel and controversy. He was a very popular president and history will treat him well, much to the dismay of the Republicans.

Rooster, I'd submit that almost any president (even Carter or Ford) would have similar polling numbers under the current circumstances. Look at what Bush's numbers were before 9/11. They would most likely be the same now except for current events. Yes, he polls high when it concerns terrorism and national security. He is getting failing marks in the polls over the economy. The presidency is multi-faceted and one category alone does not indicate the overall. Take Bush Sr. He had tremendous support in his war effort in Desert Storm. A year or so later he was soundly beaten in the election. Why? The economy. I see a replay coming if Bush doesn't pay more attention at home. All of those jobless people will be free to go to the polls and stand in line to cast their vote for someone else. BTW guys, Bush did not win the majority popular vote. He won the electoral college vote. Yeah, it was fait and sqaure by the rules, but there were more average Joe's that voted against him than for him.

What do we know about Saddam? We know he is a petty little tyrant who is paranoid. He won't sleep in the same bed two nights in a row. No one ever knows where he is at any time. He has had men surgically enhanced to use as doubles. He has his chef's children taste his food to avoid poisoning. Why odes he take all of these extreme measures. Out of fear for his own life by his own people. Outsiders are not allowed in. Saddam cares about one thing only, himself, his power and his legacy. He is secular and only plays at Islam for appearances sake. Terrorists are Islamic radicals who probably hate him worse than we do. He isn't a martyr, he is a survivor. He keeps a pretty low profile. He has no interest in death. In fact, it is his greatest fear. Why would a man with that kind of profile have any desire to threaten the greatest military power on Earth? Is he a horrible excuse of a person who the world would be better off without? Yes. Is a a daily threat to his own people? Yes. Do I lose sleep at night afraid that he is a threat to the US national security? No! Do I worry about all of those radical terrorists out there who want to martyr themselves for Allah? Yes! We have much bigger fish to fry than Saddam. I agree, how did he get to the top of the list when there are much greater threats to our security?

Dan, Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does not sound like your troop is boy led. If the adults lay out a calendar of how to advance a boy from here to there in a certain amount of time and use meetings to work on advancement, then you are missing the point of scouts. It is not to attain the highest rank, it is to develop leadership skills and better citizens. Something like a ball player who plays for love of the game and to reach his personal best as opposed to one who only cares about winning the world series.

I'm not sure about the whole pack. Our Webelos 1 and 2's are going to a Camporee in March as the guests of a local troop. Nothing has been said about us having to camp seperate from them. The impression we all had was that we would be camping with the troop. In fact, one of the requirements for the Webelos Outdoorsman activity badge is, "With your adult partner, take part in a Webelos overnighter or camp overnight with a Boy Scout troop." How can you camp wit ha troop if you are in a different location?

Here is a column written today by Pat Buchanan, one of the most stuanch right-wing conservatives around. The Republican party was so moderate in his eyes that he left it and went independent. It is an interesting read. Is George W. Bush an Imperialist Though Iraq does not threaten us, has not attacked us, cannot defeat us, and does not want war with us, the United States is about to invade and occupy that country. If we do, it will be the first purely imperial war in our history, a war launched to reshape the domestic politics and foreign policy of another nation to conform to our own. A war to convert Iraq into a vassal state in the Middle East is something the War Party has sought for a decade. Sept. 11 gave it the opening to foist its agenda on an outraged and untutored president.......... http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30739

Acco, I went to CNN.com's transcript of the speech and did a search for the word Iran. This was the only reference I found: "Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom." He did mean his third leg of the "Axis of Evil"....Iran.

Acco, He did mean Iran. Iran was named last year as part of the Axis of Evil along with Iraq and North Korea. There was a grassroots movement afoot then and now to return secular democratic control of the government to the people and kick the Islamic mullahs out. I think it was an overture to Iran and the efforts going on there.

Quixote, Look, you won't get any argument from me that he is a bad guy and he needs to be removed. He probably has covertly been attempting to re-develop his former WMD capability......regardless of how hard we have made it for him. All I'm saying is it makes me nervous when someone says "trust me"....especially when it is over going to war. "Trust me" doesn't stand up in a court of law. The DA can't just tell the judge and jury to "trust him" that the defendant murdered someone. He has to have proof. I realize that this is different from a court of law, but the "trust me" factor makes me wary. If we know specifics, disclose specifics. Even our intelligence community questions some of the "trust me" talk. Is he in material breach because he has not fully disclosed some things? Yes. Does he have factories pumping out huge inventories of chem, bio and nuke agents and factories building long range bombers and ICBM's? Not that anyone seems to be able to determine. While I doubt that this will happen.....WHAT IF we go in and kick butt, kill Saddam, comb his country with a fine tooth comb and find....nothing? Do we just say, "oops, we were pretty darn sure you were a threat to our national security, but guess not....sorry? I just looked at an internet poll on CNN.com asking "Did President Bush's State of the Union address make the case for military action against Iraq?" It now says 54% yes and 46% no. This is odd, since many people say there is a liberal bias in the media. An hour ago the poll also had an undecided response which has been removed. Earlier it had 8% of respondents voting undecided. It looks like someone at CNN decided to move the undecided column to the yes votes. Earlier, the no votes were winning.