BrentAllen

Fuzzy wrote: "By the way, the "no nation building" speech was made after 9/11." You may be correct about the nation building speech; I certainly haven't heard or read all of his speeches. I remember the subject coming up in the debates between Bush and Gore, but hadn't heard him mention it after 9/11. I would like to see the context, so if you don't mind, please cite it - link, date, etc...

On our trip to Cape Town, we found the Scouts there operate much differently than we do. When a Scout reaches 18, he is no longer a Scout; he becomes a junior leader and goes through training. After training, he is an ASM. Once 21, he may take over as SM. The SM's are very young - not dads of boys in the Troops, as we have here. I have always felt it is a shame we lose our Scouts, especially our Eagles, for 10 or 12 years until they come back in with their 1st Grade sons. I would encourage the 18 year olds to stick around, get trained, and try to find ways they can help keep the older boys involved with the Troop. Keeping Scouts active past the age of 16 appears to be a problem - these young adults might hold the answer to helping solve that problem.

Wow, pack! I think you could give John Kerry lessons in nuance. Please explain how Bush stating the intelligence wasn't absolute (which I, for one, could figure out, since the inspectors couldn't find any weapons - hello!) would "have given us, the people, an opportunity to take more of the responsibility for the decision"? How, exactly, would that happen? Did you get a vote in the decision to go to war? Did Bush call you? Our representatives and senators voted - for you. I just don't see how you can seriously make such statements, and then call Bush a liar for his actions. Guess I'm just not nuanced enough...

pack, For a Democrat, who isn't supposed to be so "black-and-white", you sure are on this one. Am I correct in assuming that if Bush had said the intelligence was 98% sure on the WMD's, you wouldn't have a problem with him now? Please remember, the intelligence communities got thumped pretty good over their bad intel - do think there might have been just a little CYA afterwards? They were all looking for someone to blame. On the other side of the coin, Saddam never produced any evidence that he had destroyed the weapons we knew he had. He felt he couldn't - because he was bluffing his neighbors. So, when I add that all up, I believe Bush made the best decision he could with the information he had. I think we did the right thing, removing Saddam. It remains to see if the Iraqis are willing to fight to keep the gift we have given them. We can only lead the horse to water. As I said earlier, it's still a free country - hold your grudges. Just don't tell me I should hold them with you.

pack, Thanks for the free psycho-analysis; I'll file it with all my other important papers, in my special circular file. Maybe you can help me with something else. I know we have been over this a million times, but please explain again why these Democrats escape your wrath. I'm really having trouble with this whole "nuanced" view of the world. "There is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are CONFIDENT that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a REAL and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. "There is UNMISTAKABLE evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports SHOW that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to TERRORISTS, including AL QAEDA members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in POSSESSION of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is REAL ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. Yeah, I know, they only voted to send us to war, they weren't the president, right? Or maybe Bush was doing that mind-meld thing on them he learned from Spock on Star Trek? Talk about being in denial.... geeesh! One more request, since I'm sure you are going to give a nuanced reason why you give Democrats a pass on the above - please explain the reason for their rhetoric. Were they just trying to sound tough? Why all the big talk, unless they planned on doing something about it? I guess if we get down to an extremely nuanced view (talking John Kerry level here) of the 9/11 attacks, all those who actually committed the acts were killed in the process, so to a Democrat, why did we need to attack anyone? The bad guys who pulled the trigger, so to speak, died right there. You hold Bush as the only one responsible for sending us into war - why not just hold those 19 responsible for the attacks? Fuzzy, His "nation building" comments were pre-9/11. I think most would agree the whole world changed after that date. But hey, it's still a free country - hold your grudges.

Calico, Using your logic, can we go back and claim we didn't lose in Vietnam? We never surrendered or signed a treaty - we just left. What about Somalia? Didn't we just decide to leave there as well? Oooops! I forgot - that action is supposedly what emboldened bin Laden. Fuzzy - allow me to clarify what a lie is. When someone has sex with another person, and then claimed they didn't - that was a lie. They knew they did it, but claimed otherwise. When someone makes a decision based on intelligence, and later finds the intelligence wasn't correct, that is not a lie. The person making the decision did the best he could with the information he had. If the person knew absolutely that the intelligence was false, and claimed it was true, then that would be a lie. Got it?

Gonzo, don't waste your time with BadenP. He has nothing in common with the Username he has chosen. As they say in Texas: big hat, no cattle - no-watta-mean?

Lisa, John Murtha doesn't want us to win, he only wants us to leave. There are plenty of Democrats who agree with him. Want more evidence Democrats want us to lose? "Democrats to benefit from Iraq quagmire: Opinion poll NEW YORK: A new poll has confirmed that widespread dissatisfaction over Iraq could spell the end of the Republican dominance of Congress, with voters saying they expect the Democrats to cut US involvement in Iraq. The final New York Times/CBS News poll before next Tuesday's midterm elections showed a significant majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end US military involvement in Iraq if they win control of Congress. By contrast, they believe President George W. Bush's Republicans would maintain or increase troop levels to try to win the war if they maintain power, the Times said in its online edition." Gee, how many times have I heard a Democrat use the term "quagmire" when describing Iraq? Democrats see these polls, and know if we are winning in Iraq, their chances of winning at the polls are greatly reduced. So yes, they are pulling for us to lose, just so they can get elected to office. Paint a bleak picture, never report any of the successes, give encouragement to the enemy that he is winning. That is just sickening. More evidence? The California State Democratic Party Convention in April, the largest gathering of state-party Democrats in the nation, passed a resolution calling for the termination of the occupation of Iraq and withdrawal of American troops from that country. They aren't interested in winning, only in cutting and running. As you said, that is the worst scenario possible, but it is what they want.

"If I had the information you request..." Let me repeat that, for emphasis: "If I had the information you request..." So, you are admitting that you don't have any information to support your conclusion that we are conducting torture. The truth is, you and the others are only basing your charges on your blinding hate of President Bush. Think about that, if only for just a minute. SRBeaver, do you really want to compare us to the Khmer Rouge and their torture and killings? Do you know what you are talking about, or are you just repeating more Democrat talking points? How many terrorists have we killed with pick axes and machetes? How many have we hanged? How many people did the Khmer Rouge kill? For you to think we are equal, you must really hate your country. What about the Nazis? Killing off millions of Jews. Performing all kinds of insane surgeries. Starving and working the Jews to death. You really see your country, your government in the same light? Remember, you are talking about our military, our intelligence officers - not Bush. They are the individuals handling the prisoners. I can't imagine saying anything like that about my country unless I had absolute proof it was happening.

OK, still waiting to hear about all this torture we are doing. Some of you are convinced Bush is lying when he says we don't torture - OK, back it up. Let's see the evidence that brought you to that conclusion. Again, we aren't talking Abu Ghraib - we are talking today. Give me the details, precise descriptions. Here is a little perspective for you. We treat the terrorists who are committed to killing us much, much better than the UN "Peacekeepers" treat the women and children in the Congo they are supposed to be helping. And we are the bad guys?

Well, Hunt, I guess you have a point there - a clearly ridiculous one, but a point, none the less. If you consider, in your view, while going after the terrorists in a war, any attacks made against our soldiers are terrorist attacks, then I guess you are correct. I would say that is about as important as the price of eggs in China. To prevent terrorist attacks against us, I'm guessing you would propose we never go after the terrorists? Or have you figured out a way to kill them without putting our soldiers risk? Sadly, I have come to realize the Democrats want us to lose the war in Iraq just so they can gain political power. They want our troops to fail so they can attack Bush. There are plenty of successes in Iraq, but you will never hear about them from the Democrats.

SRBeaver writes: "Sadly, ALL the data was not considered or passed on to other leaders. The trouble comes when you have an administration with a preconceived notion that cherry picks the information to support that notion." Do you really believe those Democrat talking points? What do you think is the purpose of the US Senate Committee on Intelligence? Here, I will make it easy for you: JURISDICTION Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Now, either someone dropped the ball, or they aren't telling the truth.

Sorry, Lisa, but I just can't respect a man who walks out of church on Easter Sunday with his wife, Bible in hand, and then heads over to the Oval Office to play "Drop the Trousers" and "Hide the Cigar" with an employee. Let's throw in the finger-wagging lie to the country, as well. Albright? Madeline "Neville Chamberlain" Albright? Who met with and got fooled by Kim Jong-iL? "The North Koreans cheated on our agreement..." If you say so... I don't know much about the rest, except for the media frenzy around Obama. I still haven't heard how they make anyone feel good about themselves or the country. All I hear is how bad everything is. Where is their positive message? Their uplifting thoughts about this great country we live in? All I hear is what Fuzzy posted - negative, negative, negative. Lisa, There are plenty of health care options for those without insurance. Primary Health Care Centers provide both primary and preventive care to those without insurance. From the US Department of Health and Human Services web page: http://bphc.hrsa.gov/ What is a Health Center? HRSA Bureau of Primary Health Care-supported Health Centers are a major component of America's health care safety net, the Nation's "system" of providing health care to low-income and other vulnerable populations. Health Centers care for people regardless of their ability to pay and whether or not they have health insurance. They provide primary and preventive health care, as well as services such as transportation and translation. Many Health Centers also offer dental, mental health and substance abuse care. Health Centers cared for 13.1 million people in 2004, the most recent year for which data are available. The HRSA Bureau of Primary Health Care funds 1,000 Health Centers Merlyn, Thank you for pointing out the sad condition of the Democrat party. You, along with others on the left, are forced to pull single sentences out of context to attack Bush. Do you see how ridiculous that makes you look? Is that the best you can do - twist single sentences around into such a knot that they are the opposite of what was actually said? I really feel sorry for you guys. Here is what Bush actually said: THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all. So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means. Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money. And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

pack, I told my cats what you said about them. Their response - "Hah! We eat liberals for breakfast!" Actually, they aren't wusses (sp?), they are Bombays! http://www.hexpride.com/bombay.htm The kids have a dwarf white rabbit for a pet as well. The cats have had their eyes on him for awhile. Given the situation you mentioned, I think they would go after poor Mr. Snowy first, and only turn to me after his bones had been licked clean.

I wonder why people vote for Democrats. When is the last time a Democrat made you feel good about yourself or your country? All they do is sling mud and poo-poo the other side. Negative, negative, negative. They want us to vote for them, so they can change the direction of the country? Let's see - the market is at all time highs - Democrats want to change directions? Unemployment is at an all time low - Democrats want to change directions? Interest rates are very low - Democrats want to change directions? We haven't been attacked by terrorists since 9/11 - Democrats want to change directions? Hmmmm..... I think I will vote Republican.

packsaddle, Sorry - forgot about your question. I have two cats, let me go ask them if they know. I'll be right back.......(think elevator music)....................... Ok, I'm back. Sorry, but Belle and Binks couldn't come up with a logical answer. They prefer chicken and other poultry based meals, so I didn't expect them to be much help. SRBeaver, Interesting position. If I understand you correctly, any president, current or future, cannot trust any of the intelligence agencies to advise him. He must conduct his own intelligence gathering and actually go see the evidence himself before making a decision to act against a threat. For example, to satisfy you, Bush would need to secretly sneak into North Korea and penetrate their nuclear program to verify they actually have nuclear weapons. The buck stops with him, right? Maybe you can come up with one of those invisible cloaks Harry Potter has, and donate it to the White House. Might make things a little easier for all the future presidents. Y'all are so convinced we are conducting torture - please give me the details. I want to hear what we are doing, the methods, the techniques. Not Abu Grab, I mean now, today, tonight. What exactly are we doing?

Well, SRBeaver, I lost the pool. I bet it would only take 2 hours before some liberal would start crying "Bush lied about WMD's!" It actually took 5 - must be due to the distractions of the election, eh? I was right in that if I heard that just one more time, I was gonna puke. And for the millionth time, exactly what did all those Democrats vote for in the resolution authorizing war? Were they voting for their favorite Girl Scout cookie?? To quote Trevorum, "good lord man, open your eyes!" Why do we need Acts like the one mentioned in the article? Maybe because we have "naive" bleeding-heart liberal attorneys who will reveal classified secrets and violate security regulations to help our enemies. Want an example? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15444-2005Feb10.html It's amazing how her attitute changed as her sentencing approached. She went from "I know I committed no crime" to realizing what an idiot she was: "Stewart has expressed her regrets. Her goal was to improve the prison conditions of her client, she says, but she was naive not to realize that what might have been considered legitimate before Sept. 11 would now be interpreted as criminal. "At the time I didn't see this," she wrote. "I see and understand it now." She says she should have fought the constitutionality of the prison regulations in court. She now says she wants Judge Koeltl to see. Stewart: My flaws, my weaknesses, my tendency to let my heart run ahead of my head. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6275682 I'd say that is the definition of liberalism - "My flaws, my weaknesses, my tendency to let my heart run ahead of my head." Sorry, but these types simply cannot be trusted with protecting our national security. packsaddle - linking Olberman? Is he still on the air?? Be sure to send him an email - he will be glad to know he actually has a viewer! As for Kerry, I think I hear the fat lady singing on his presidential aspirations - thankfully.

Yes, torture is such a bad thing. Let's just cut their heads off with a dull knife and be done with it! Maybe take a few pictures while we are at it. And just to make a stronger statement, let's string the bodies up on a bridge, throw gas on them and set them on fire! Yeah, that's the ticket! How come I never hear any of you complaining about that?? Or, we could imprison them and give them such good treatment that they are putting on weight. This enemy does not follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, but they sure want the protections offered POWs under it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way for me. Since when are foreign terrorists granted the rights of citizens guaranteed under our Constitution? Did some of you even read the story linked? Doesn't sound like it, based on comments posted here. Bush says we don't torture. We don't. End of story. Find something else to hate him about; if you are having trouble, just turn to the NY Times or Washington Post. I'm sure they will help you out.

msnowman, Have you seen the "Ceremonies For Dens and Packs" booklet at the Scout Shop? Chapters 4 & 5 have some good ideas for creating a flag ceremony to open a Pack meeting. Good luck!

In the interest of full disclosure, from the Couric interview: President Bush also insisted that the war in Iraq is a key part of the war on terror, and that it must be won. Couric asked the President what exactly he means when he says that the country can't cut and run, that the United States must stay to win otherwise, we'll be fighting the terrorists here at home on our own streets. "I mean that a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy, and will provide the enemy more opportunity, to train, plan to attack us, that's what I mean. One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror," Mr. Bush said. "I believe it, but the American people have got to understand that a defeat in Iraq, in other words if this government there fails, the terrorists will be emboldened, the radicals will topple moderate governments. I truly believe that this is the ideological struggle of the 21st century. And the consequences for not achieving success are dire." And from CNN: CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Frank, President- elect George W. Bush came to Capitol Hill today for the first time since the election intending to listen to congressional leaders, the bipartisan congressional leadership. But he also made it clear to them, in more than two and a half hours of meetings, that he intends to stand by his tax cut proposal and other planks in his campaign agenda. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. From packsaddle: "The administration seeks to prohibit prisoners in the 'secret' CIA prisons from talking about their interrogations because it would compromise national security. Anyone wondering if they read this correctly?" So, you have no problem with letting the terrorists find out exactly how we are interrogating them? So they can prepare for resisting our techniques? Maybe the CIA should just post all their techniques and methods on a web page, along with a packing list, so the terrorists, once captured, can arrive fully prepared to resist giving up any information which might help us defeat them. Would that make you feel better?

All leaders, including Cub leaders, are required to have all training completed for their current position before they can attend WB. So they should have all been through NLE. Now - tell me how knowing about Venturing, which some of these leaders won't see for 7 or 8 years, is going to help them run a den or pack? Yes, the OA helps our with Crossover ceremonies, but you don't have to know anything about the selection process or other details to request their help. I know leaders who have been in Boy Scouting for many years, but don't have the first clue about Cub Scouts. Should they be prevented from attending WB because they aren't familiar with the Tiger program? I think this might all be much ado about nothing. It's not like Cub leaders are beating down the doors to attend WB. It's hard enough to get them to attend NLE and Leader Specific! Only two from our Pack have ever attended WB - me and my ACM. My thoughts are that if you want an improved Cub program, encourage Cub leaders to attend WB.

To those who say WB shouldn't include Cub Leaders, I must respectfully disagree. WB is not a trivia game about Scout knowledge. It is about teaching the participants to be more effective leaders and building teams to lead their units. It is also about developing a vision for your unit, and working your ticket to improve it. I think my Pack has benefited from my participation. I also met and got to know other Scouters with whom I have worked on both District and Council activities. None of that would have happened if I had not attended WB. I'm not worried about Cub Scout Leaders not knowing much about Jamborees or OA or Venturing - why should they? It is going to be a few years before they ever see it. I don't see how having or not having that knowledge is going to make any difference in how they run their unit. Learning how to be an effective leader who can build an efficient team to lead their unit certainly will.

Hey Kudu, I strongly agree with you on the following: "What I should have written is that people who are not the outdoor type should not be Scoutmasters or Assistant Scoutmasters, or the trainers of Scoutmasters or Assistant Scoutmasters." Absolutely agree! We have found common ground! It might be small, but it is common ground! OK, group hug. Not too long.... That's enough.... :-)

Kudu, It appears you like hurling personal insults, just not receiving them, eh? Pick up any BSA Scout book with a glossary and look up the definition of Scouter. I will make it easy for you: Scouter: a registered adult member of the BSA. That's not my definition, that is the BSA's. Committee members, Treasurers, Secretaries, Cub Scout leaders - any registered leaders - all fit that definition. They all serve vital roles in making the Troop work. Now I guess you have one more item on your list of things to complain about the BSA. In all my years in Scouting, I have never met an Eagle Scout as you have described. Most of the Eagles I know have been to Philmont, and some go on one other High Adventure trip. We don't have mommies wanting Junior to walk around with empty backpacks or sleep in cabins. If I understand you correctly, my Tigers, who were camping with the Pack this weekend in 38 F weather - in tents - are tougher campers than your Eagle Scouts? Well, to borrow another line from you - "I don't know what you are doing in [your part of the country], but just don't call it Scouting!" Here are some excerpts from press releases of a few of our local 2005 Eagle Scouts: "John has served as Senior Patrol Leader, Patrol Leader, and Troop Guide. Johns favorite experience in scouting was backpacking 70 miles over 12 days with 18 other scouts and adults from his Troop at Philmont Scout Reservation in Cimarron, New Mexico in 2003, where he served as one of the two crew chiefs. John also enjoyed the challenge backpacking for a week this summer with 19 scouts and adult leaders from the Troop at the Double H Ranch High Adventure Base in New Mexico, serving as navigator. John is a senior at Wesleyan School, where he is a member of the National Honor Society, French Honor Society, co-captain of the Varsity Wrestling team, student government officer, and participant on a mission trip to Jamaica this year. John is a member of Dunwoody United Methodist Church, is active in its Youth Program, and participated in last years mission trip to Brazil." "Andy has been involved in scouting since he was a six year old Tiger Cub with Pack 494, then at Dunwoody Baptist Church. He officially joined Troop 477 in 1999 and has been an active member ever since earning 24 merit badges. He has participated in numerous Troop activities including campouts, hikes, Scouting for Food, house building at Charis Foundation and summer camps. Andy has served in numerous leadership positions within the Troop and was selected as a member of Scoutings honor society, the Order of the Arrow. Andy greatly enjoyed his wilderness experience at Philmont Scout Reservation in Cimarron, New Mexico where he and other Scouts and Adult leaders backpacked for 70 miles over ten days. Andy is a member of Dunwoody Baptist Church. He is active in swimming and is a member of the schools record setting boys relay team. He swims regularly at Dynamo and enjoys camping, hiking and working on his grandparents farm." "Brock has served in numerous leadership positions within the Troop and was selected by other scouts as a member of scoutings honor society, the Order of the Arrow. Brock is a member of All Saints Catholic Church in Dunwoody, and in 2003 earned the Ad Altare Dei award, the Roman Catholic religious award for Boy Scouts. He has especially enjoyed backpacking in New Mexico with scout and adult members of the Troop for ten days in 2003 at Philmont Scout Ranch and for seven days this summer at the Double H High Adventure Base. Brock graduated from Dunwoody High School in June, 2005. He played soccer and swam on the swim team for four years at Dunwoody. Brock played soccer in Italy with his club soccer team in the summer of 2004, and recently returned from England where the team played British under-19 teams. Brock will attend and play soccer for Methodist College in Fayetteville, North Carolina this fall."

I guess I have 2 questions about some of the sleeping bags mentioned: 1. Are you doing much backpacking? 2. How much do these bags weigh? For younger Scouts who plan on going backpacking, I would suggest strongly watching the weight on these bags. For an 80 lb. Scout to carry 25% of his weight, that gives him 20 lbs. Add up a 5 lb pack, 3 - 4 lbs for tent (carrying half) and a 5 lb sleeping bad, that doesn't leave much room for clothes, food, water and any other equipment. I tell our Webelos to ask several questions about any new camping equipment they want to purchase: How much does it weigh? How much room does it take up? Does it have more than one use? Is it a good value (compared to the next level of quality for price vs. weight/space)? Gern - if those 32 degree bags are the Canyon 32, they weigh 2 lbs 11 oz. http://www.coleman.com/coleman/colemancom/detail.asp?product_id=8495B402&categoryid=9010 Sounds like a good bag; I only mention this because it is hard to estimate the weight that closely on an individual item, but when they are loaded on a backpack, all those extra pounds add up. I take my gear to the post office and weigh it on the scales they have in the lobby, and keep the info on a spreadsheet. There are some programs out there that allow you to store the weight info and calculates total weight as you change the equipment configuration. Fun to play with. I agree on the degree ratings. I have an REI Thermopod 15, with Thermolite Extreme. At 28 degrees, I was getting chilly; at 15, I would probably be freezing! It weighs 3 lbs 10 oz in the stuff sack, which is a little heavy. I want to replace it with a Western Mountaineering down bag, which would knock off around 2 lbs. and be much more comfortable. I'll keep the REI synthetic bag for wet weather and caving - I don't think I want to take a down bag in those super-humid environments. My summer bag is a Sierra Designs Fast Bag (1 lb 9 oz, 45 degrees, Polarguard Delta) which packs very small. The WM bags are reported (by users) to be most accurate in their ratings. There is a podcast interview with the owner and co-founder on their website, in which he discusses how to properly wash a down bag and extend its life. You have to get through the first part about the history of the company, but it is worth the time listening to it.