BrentAllen

For around $40, you can purchase a 20 degree, 3 lb good-sized mummy bag from Alps Mountaineering, through Scoutdirect.com. These bags are very suitable for cooler weather backpacking trips. Quality is first-rate. For warm weather, use a Coolmax mummy insert - on top of the sleeping bag. If it cools off, slide into the bag. http://www.alpsmountaineering.com/Clearwater.htm We just purchased one for my son; he used it the past 2 weekends, with the lowest temperatures in the mid-to-upper 30's at night, and said he was always warm. Owl62, if you want to see lightweight down bags that will keep you warm, check out Western Mountaineering. http://www.westernmountaineering.com/ They have a great reputation among hikers. Just be prepared for some sticker shock - they run around $250 - $350. One day, I will own one of these... :-)

packsaddle, Speaking of frozen boots, here is Brad Range's experience in Antarctica, from correspondence back to his SM: "So it turns out that giving me the Polar Bear Camper patch at the court of honor before I left was a very good preemptive measure on your part. I just got back from my two-day survival school orientation. I slept in a Scott tent (so named because Robert Scott died in one about 60 miles from here), built an igloo, and learned several great lessons about extreme-cold-weather camping. Some were learned the hard way. By the way, my previous cold-weather-camping record was beaten by upwards of 40 degrees. When I checked my thermometer during the night, it had dropped to -31 degrees Fahrenheit. I was warm in my sleeping bag, by which I mean I didn't lose any fingers or toes to frostbite. The worst part was getting out of the bag in the morning and putting my feet back into my bootswhich were frozen solid. It took about 20 minutes of running in circles to regain feeling in my feet. Other than that, I was fine." http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/18-900/journals/brange/contact/2004-0902b.html Brad gave me the hot-water bottle idea for the sleeping bag - it works!

This won't help much with that 4:00 am bathroom call, but putting really hot water in a Nalgene bottle, covering it with a t-shirt or something similar, and taking it in the sleeping bag will warm it up quickly, and keep you very warm for several hours. And no flames! I doubt this would ever happen today, but my SM from my youth used to tell a horror story from back when he first became an SM, back in the late 60's or early 70's. The boys had strung a Coleman lanter up in their tent. Evidently they had no problems while it was lit, but when they went to turn it out, the boy was turning the fuel cap instead of the control valve. When the fuel cap opened, the vapors ignited and big flash! The SM ran over and made a mad grab for the handle. Luckily he caught it and the rope, and threw the lantern out the front of the tent. In the end, no one was hurt and an extremely valuable lesson was learned. They are called accidents for a reason. Heaters may say they are safe, but are they accident-proof? Doesn't sound like it to me.

Kudu, Do you actually know any of these "hothouse" Eagles, or is this just empty rhetoric? All the Eagles I have met, or read about in the newspaper here in Dunwoody, have been to Philmont, Northern Tier and/or Sea Base. Maybe that is just how Scouting is done in your area of the country? "2) Women (and men) who are not the outdoors type should not be Scouters or the trainers of Scouters." So... there is no place for the non-"outdoors type" in Scouting?? Not even for a Treasurer or Secretary or Committee Chair or Committee member? Wow! Glad I don't live in your world! We have non-"outdoors types" who want to participate, and have great business skills to serve as the above. I'm not sure I see your point on how being able to start a fire in wet weather makes one a good Treasurer. Or how that affects the boys. Also, please tell me exactly why one would need to be an "outdoors type" to train Committee members? Or Tiger Leaders? Or Cub Leaders? Those new leaders need to learn how the program operates, not how to take a Troop on a 3-night backpacking trip. Have you even looked at the syllabus for Cub Leader training? BALOO is for teaching Cub Leaders how to take their Packs car camping. That is about as outdoor as they get, which is very suitable for 1st and 2nd graders. "4) The only reason that my views about women in Scouting are controversial is that the BSA discriminates against girls." Actually, you couldn't be further from the truth. The reason your views are controversial is because they are sexist, chauvinistic and outdated. For example, see your reference to women Cub Scout leaders (who are Scouters, BTW) as "yellow blouses." Finally, I've been thinking about the origins of Scouting and of WB while away on our Pack camping trip this weekend. When B-P formed Scouting and WB, his country was still imperialistic. Even though he didn't want Scouting to be military in nature, I think he envisioned Scouting as producing young men who could go anywhere in the world and take care of themselves while serving God and country. Today, in the US, the greatest need for Cubmasters and Scoutmasters is to build high performance teams to deliver the program. They need to be able to teach their boys how to do the same. Those skills are going to help boys succeed - both in the outdoors in a patrol, and eventually in the business world. SM's can hire the professional climbers or whitewater guides to lead those parts of the trips. I see the greatest threat to Scouting as being parents too busy with work and other commitments to devote the time needed to make Scouting work. Where they need help is in building and working with teams, to be more efficient with the time they can give to their unit. 21st Century WB reflects that need - for both Cubmasters and Scoutmasters. I would suggest additional outdoor training for SM's, as has been mentioned in other threads. For those moms or dads that "get stuck" with the SM position because the previous leader retired and no one else would step up, I think a good outdoor course would make a world of difference in how they deliver their program.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

OGE, I agree with your practice on moderating forums. I moderate one on Highpower in Georgia http://forums.delphiforums.com/gahighpower/start and I get asked every now and then to delete a thread or post by someone who doesn't agree with it. Very rarely do I comply, as I feel once you start down that road, there is no turning back. I would rather let everyone see the posts, see who they are from, and make up their own mind about the poster. If you delete or edit, everyone still wants to know what was so offensive that it had to be removed! So I believe in the theory of giving people enough rope to hang themselves. Some may feel that way about me, but I always live by one rule regarding internet postings - I only post what I would say to someone face to face.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

Gonzo, Atlanta Area Council had a woman CD this year, and will also have one next year. There may have been others I'm not aware of. In my WB course (summer, 2004) we had around 8 - 10 women as participants, and around 6 - 8 on staff as well. I certainly agree that women cannot be male role models for the boys. However, think it is very eye-opening for boys with moms who don't camp to see women Scouters who do.

To borrow a line from you... "Your Politically Correct righteous indignation is just too funny for words :-/" You also write... "The Scouter.Com moderators should be ashamed of themselves! Turning a blind eye to this kind of unScoutlike behavior invites replies in kind and the subsequent level of discourse found on rec.scouting.issues." Funny - that is how I felt about your derogatory, sexist comment about "yellow blouses." Have you seen any of them go crying to the moderators? I happen to be very proud of that Kudu. It was a hunt I will never forget. No threat implied; I just feel you and your chauvenistic attitude are giving Kudus a bad name.

I'm sure this will be a shock to some on this page, but we have women Scouters serving as Wood Badge Course Directors in our council. Then again, that fact might play right into their stereotypes about both women Scouters and 21st Century WB.

Gonzo, There is some great information about the different types of wood, as well as some interesting finishing details, at Brazos - http://www.brazos-walking-sticks.com/index.html?first=1 When our previous Cubmaster retired, we gave him one of their exotics - a Bocote/Maple laminate, with his name and "Cubmaster" lazer engraved on each side. See http://www.brazos-walking-sticks.com/product/laminated_hardwoods_bocote_maple_walking_stick.html For something different, I like their Free-Form Iron Bamboo, in black. My Den gave me a laminate stave from Boyds' as a present a few years ago. The Bumblebee is blue and yellow, which fit right in with Cub Scout colors. These are made from dyed plywood sheets laminated together, originally designed for super dense rifle stocks (won't change with the weather). They are almost indestructable! http://www.boydsgunstocks.com/BrowseEbus/Sticks.asp http://www.boydsgunstocks.com/Images/Parts/98-120603.jpg Now, if I can just keep it away from the boys.... :-)

So, Kudu, how many "final straws" do you have? Are you still letting your boys participate in such a wimpy BSA program? Or have you moved them over to the "real" B-P Scouts? With such harsh words about the BSA, I can't believe you would let the young men under your leadership hang out with such a bunch of momma's boys. I'm amazed at your ability to spot the "outdoors type" just from the uniform Scouters are wearing. Last time I checked, yellow blouses were an approved uniform for female Cub Scout leaders. I didn't realize they were limited only to women who were not the "outdoors type." Thanks for the clarification. Is there an IQ level requirement to wear them as well, so that the "dumbed down" Wood Badge training won't go over their heads? Don't worry about our Scouting programs here in Dunwoody - we are doing just fine. Down here, this is a Kudu - http://www.mindspring.com/~iballen/BKudu.JPG - not some pompous Scouter on an ego trip.

Congrats, gwd! Sounds like a vision come true!

So, Mr. Chauvinist, wouldn't "Train the Trainer" be considered "behind the scenes?" Would serving on the Troop Committee be considered "behind the scenes?" Have all your male ASM's completed all three Okpik courses, or do you only require the women to do so, in order to prove their worth? Or do you think all the women in Scouting should be in the kitchen, making cookies for when the men return home from a campout? Welcome to the 21st Century, where women serve in the military - and not in the kitchen. One final question, Kudu - when you read about us completing our WB for the 21st Century course, or meet one of us in person, and hear us talking about what a great experience it was, do you look down your rugged, outdoors nose and picture us in yellow blouses, or do you picture us wearing special yellow beads? Maybe you should suggest that to National, since we obviously are not of your caliber, and aren't worthy of wearing the same beads as you. Give me a break...

Kudu writes: "BSA = Indoor Corporate Leadership Skills dumbed down to be useful to Cub Scout Yellow Blouses" Wow! That is about the most arrogant, condescending, chauvinistic remark I have seen on this site - and no responses, especially from the women Scouters? Owl writes: "Paintball, quite simply is for idiots. As someone who has trained long and hard to kill people with both direct fire and indirect fire weapons, paint ball is for a bunch of wannabees that didn't have the guts to get real training for real service. I laugh out loud at spoiler mommies that buy junior a paintball gun so he can express himself yet anybody that wants to teach him proper respect and handling of firearms is branded a "gun freak". I don't want paintball to ever be a part of scouting. " Gee, tell us how you really feel! Earth to Owl - Paintball is not military training - it is a game - in fact, it is a popular version of Capture the Flag, which Scouts play all the time. I've never participated in Paintball, but would do so in a heart beat if the chance arose. My son (10 years old, not yet old enough to train to kill people, eh?) enjoys watching it on ESPN, and wants to play. It is a huge industry (see below), so why rip people who enjoy it and can make a good living from it? I remember hearing someone rip Tony Hawk for spending so much time riding a skateboard, until they heard how much money he was making from endorsements and board sales. If that is their passion, and they aren't hurting anyone, why trash them? From just an economic standpoint, they are creating jobs and moving the economy forward. I shoot NRA Highpower matches, with an AR-15. Slow fire, sustained fire, 200 yards to 600 yards. We shoot National Trophy Infantry Team matches, on the E silhouette. Does that make me and the thousands of others who shoot Highpower "wannabees"? Paintball facts: Paintball has grown dramatically over the past 23 years with it currently being a multi million-dollar industry (nearly $400 million), played in over 60 countries around the world. In 2003, over 10 million people played Paintball in the United States alone. Paintball is the third most popular extreme sport in the United States (behind skateboarding and inline skating). More money is spent on Paintball equipment than Racquetball, Table Tennis, Volleyball, Water Skiing, Bowling, Tennis, Basketball, Football or any other Extreme Sport. 7600 Paintball teams compete in the USA in over 325 tournament events. 1.4 million people play Paintball more than 15 times per year. 90% are between the ages of 12 and 24 with 85% of them male. The average Paintball player spends $44.00 every time they play and nearly $100.00 every time they visit a Paintball retail shop. 45% of frequent players come from households with incomes of more than $50,000.00.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

I think I will send them 2 - a Merry Christmas card with a Boy Scout car decal included, and a Happy Festivus card (with a picture of a Festivus pole on the front). I'll include my Airing of Grievances as well. The sad thing is they probably really do celebrate Festivus.

Well, excuse me for taking his quote to include scientific debate. The scientific debate about global warming is getting pretty ugly, with plenty of attacks, or "criticisms" as they would call them. Just read the following article - scientists are attacking/criticizing each other regularly. And this is regarding articles and opinions published in Nature, Science, and Geophysical Research Letters. Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900354.html

Beaver, "Did any of the people you quoted take us to war?" Yes!! What do you think they were voting for? Are you telling me they were too stupid to understand the language of the resolution? If so, they are too stupid to be in Congress! I'm curious - since you don't think they were voting for the authorization for war, what do you think they were voting for? "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." If someone voted for that, and then claimed they didn't have any responsibility for the war, they should be run out of town on a trash heap!! Talk about standing up and taking responsibility - are the Democrats that spineless?! The resolution even spells out that Iraq is a CONTINUING THREAT! Good grief - is it that hard to understand?!?! Since you don't think all those I quoted were talking about going to war, what were they doing - just blowing smoke? "GREATEST security threat we face"..."to take necessary actions"..."a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a REAL and grave threat to our security"..."we need to disarm Saddam Hussein" Is this more Democrat "all bark and no bite" national defense? Just flapping their gums and never meaning to actually do anything? I know the far left liberals in the Democrat party have never seen a war they thought worth fighting, but has this infiltrated the entire party, or are they just playing politics with war? Either way, it shows the country that Democrats can't be trusted with the defense of this country. They talk tuff and even vote tuff, but when it comes time for action, they turn tail and look for others to blame. I'm glad we are getting this out before the elections.

packsaddle, Careful you don't fall off that high horse. Are you sure Bush didn't kill any puppies with a baseball bat?? Since you provided quotes, here are some for you - notice these are before Bush took office - was he able to control and lie about the intelligence before he even got into office?? He is powerful!! "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the GREATEST security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. Please, oh please, tell me how Bush manipulated the intelligence they were seeing. This I gotta hear! Here are a few after Bush took office, but notice who they are from: "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 begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and IS building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. "We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002, "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), 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. Yes, I know - "But, but, but, but, but, but..... Bush lied!" How tiring.

packsaddle, "People are not attacked in science. Rather, ideas are attacked and those that survive are tentatively accepted. Science is an activity that brings people together to develop better ideas." Oh, really!?!? "Grist Magazines staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the bastards who were members of what he termed the global warming denial industry. Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg. Hmmmmm? Threatening Nuremberg-style trials for those that don't agree on the science? That is how they "bring people together"?

mmhardy, You are definitely in the liberal camp; you must be getting your news from the far left web sites. Example: "... Our national guard cannot respond in force to national disasters. Our recruiters have problems recruiting. Do you think that if this administration wins these midterms that we will not have a draft? I hope not but I am not willing to bet my sons lives on it. Are you?" Instead of dealing in "stories" that "abound" how about deal with facts? "The U.S. Army will meet its fiscal year 2006 active recruiting goal of 80,000 on Sept. 22. The Active Army and the Army National Guard previously announced they had met their annual retention missions. The Army Reserve expects to meet its retention mission in the next week." "The Air Force Reserve Has Recruited 105 Percent Of Its Year-To-Date Goal. The Marine Corps Reserve Has Recruited 100 Percent Of Its Year-To-Date Goal." The only person calling for a draft is your liberal buddy Charlie Rangel. So go ahead and vote Democrat on November 7th, let the Democrats win the House, and Charlie will give you the draft. If you can't see progress of the conservative agenda, then you belong in the liberal camp. Tax cuts? Market setting new records? Over 6 million jobs created? Low unemployment? Low inflation? I say all that is pretty impressive, especially considering we are at war. Other than in liberal Mass., marriage is protected. Merlyn, Do you really think the DOD and SS don't have an idea of what is going on in the air space above the president at all times? And you really think if the president had been needed to make some critical decision, they wouldn't have interupted?? All I can say is "thanks" - I hadn't come across my most ridiculous item of the day, until now. packsaddle, That CIA link is dead. I still just have one question for the liberals who call Bush a liar and think he knew there weren't any WMD's, but invaded anyway. Why didn't he plant WMD's to cover his story? You state he is a liar, over and over again. You say he knew there weren't any WMD's. So, if all that were true, he must have known he would have a day of reckoning, where people would ask "where are the WMD's?" Surely if he knew there weren't any, and he was a liar who had no respect for the truth, he would have planted them. On the other hand, if Bush is an honest man, and thought there were WMD's, as our intelligence and the British and others stated, he would find himself in the current situation. So, you have to decide which camp you are in. If you are in the liberal camp, please tell me why Bush didn't plant WMD's. Don't say it was because he wasn't capable. We have nut jobs on the left claiming Bush created 9/11! So just answer that one simple question.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

Ed is on the right track. I would argue Scouting is successful today BECAUSE of its history, instead of IN SPITE of it, as brian would argue. If Scouting were started today, it would not get off the ground. The kids would be too involved with sports or band or chess club or u-name-it to join some new camping group. The idea that they would join some new organization to teach them values and ethics in today's world is a bit unrealistic, IMHO. The history, the tradition, the respect earned by those who have worn the Scout uniform have made Scouting what it is today. Without the tradition and history, who today would buy into the new thought that spending years going camping and earning these new things called merit badges, in order to earn some new badge called Eagle, would be worth the effort? The perceived value of Scouting comes from its history and the respect earned by the members over the last 100 years. Unfortunately, IMHO, brian doesn't realize what an amazing gift it was that B-P gave us. He thinks it can be recreated by just coming up with some snazzy new images. If brian were to think about it, he would be amazed at how long Scouting has lasted, and would maybe look at the reasons for the long-term success. We don't offer dads images of their son making the bigs (Little League) or winning the Super Bowl. We offer a game with a purpose, an opportunity for boys to become men and leaders. It is a simple program that will probably appeal to fewer and fewer boys and dads in the increasinlgy "get ahead at any cost" world. That is society, unfortunately. Me, I would prefer a smaller program that was meaningful, instead of a watered-down, please-the-cool-crowd program that offered no substance, other than to say we had a lot of members.

Gonzo, You haven't been around long enough yet to realize we have some diehard liberals here. packsaddle, Trevorum, Merlyn, mmhardy to name just a few. Don't waste too much time trying to convert them - it is wasted energy. Speaking of the National Intelligence Estimate, I'm glad to read you guys agree with it. Because the part you didn't mention, the part you can't spin, says if we pull out now, if we pull out without a victory, we will only embolden the terrorists and give them the momentum and ability to recruit far more terrorist members than they have now. So, since you guys agree with the NIE, you must agree that we must to stay and win. Thanks for your support. "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Merlyn, Your hatred of Bush has destroyed your brain cells. Even if Bush had left the classroom the moment he heard the news, and ordered the airliner shot down, there were not any fighter jets armed and in the air to do the dirty deed. There is nothing he, or anyone else could have done to change the course of events from the time the first jet crashed at 8:46 am and when the third jet hit the Pentagon at 9:37 am. Your hindsight is as good as mine - 20/20, but your understanding of the day's events is corrupted by your hatred.

Call me a Koolaid drinker, but here is what I see: The Stock Market setting new records. Interest rates very low. Taxes are low. The budget deficit has been cut in half the last 3 years, which is 3 years ahead of schedule. Unemployment at unheard of low levels. Gas prices are below $2.00. I'm glad we are in Iraq, taking the fight to the terrorists. (I get my news from many sources, including those not afraid to report the successes we are having there). Feel free to knock yourselves out posting the bad news in the MSM, but don't do it because you think I haven't seen it. I just know an agenda when I see one.

OGE, In politics, you either choose your poison, or have it chosen for you. I honestly don't care for most politicians, and realize they are a necessary evil. There are very few I would invite inside my house. I do realize they are human, and will make mistakes. How they deal with those who make mistakes is of importance to me. I have tried to point out the huge difference between the parties regarding this issue. If that matters to you, the choice could not be clearer. I am not going to agree with any party 100% of the time on policy issues (SS, Medicare). I should be able to agree with a party about how they handle their members who abuse their power, or appear not to know the difference between right and wrong. Actually, their shouldn't be any difference between the parties on this issue, but not only is there a difference, it is huge.

packsaddle, So long as you know!! ;^) Just havin' some fun with you - Biology was never my strong suit, so I'm out of my league with the rest of this discussion. A sick thought did cross my mind, though - a rainbow colored Confederate Battle flag - yikes! Hope I never see one of those! However... one year, while in Savannah around March 17th, I picked up a t-shirt with the Battle flag set in orange and green, featuring four-leaf clovers instead of stars. The message said "St. Patrick's Day Southern Style" which I thought was pretty cool.

Merlyn, First of all, it was not an Ethics rule the GOP changed - it was a GOP House rule. Just like the Democrats had their own rules when they ran the House, the GOP has their's. They are free to change them as they wish. The rule had nothing to do with the Ethics Committee or their rulings. Nice try, though. Now, let's again look at a comparison. The GOP changed a rule to let DeLay hold his position while under indictment. Without even recognizing the fact that he doesn't now hold the position, let's look at the Democrats. Ted Kennedy leaves the scene of an accident, letting a young woman die. He tries to cover it up and waits 18 hours to even report it. Barny Frank fixes 33 tickets for his gay partner, who is running a male prostitution ring from Frank's apartment. Patrick Leahy leaks classified information and is forced to resign from the Senate Intelligence Committee. William Jefferson hides $90,000 in his freezer, bribes he took from an FBI informant, with matching serial numbers to bills the FBI had provided to the informant. Harry Reid takes home a cool $1 million from property he didn't even own. Bill Clinton had sex with a subordinate in the White House, lied to the American people about it, lied to a Grand Jury under oath, and encouraged others to lie about it as well. Let's see - how many of them resigned on their own? Zero. How many were forced to resign by their party? None. How many are still holding office? All but Clinton, who was term-limited out. So yes, let's compare the Democratic history of dealing with bad apples to the handeling of DeLay. The difference couldn't be any clearer.