packsaddle

The pine power poles are treated with preservative throughout (often creosote) and sometimes with tar below ground. But since this is going to be indoors all that stuff is academic. In that case I'd go with the tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) as my top choice, not the hard, heavy, grainy oak. The poplar is reasonably soft, workable, reasonably fine grained, favorite for uphostered furniture like couches (thus demonstrating strength under ample American butts), and if you keep it dry, it will last a very long time. Moreover, once dried, it's lightweight. But it is kind of brittle so be careful - it splits really easily. You should be able to find a big log nearly anywhere around you for cheap, maybe even for free. It's practically a weed. Where are you located, if you're close to Lincoln County I'll let you have one of my trees.

Hi, I'm also from the area so I understand your question. Tulip poplar rots really fast. So does hemlock although you'll probably be able to find a huge supply of dead hemlocks now, due to the adelgids. I agree on the cypress if you can afford it. The others also rot fairly quickly (sorry NW, even your cedar goes away pretty fast in this climate, I have demonstrated this empirically with the structures around my home. ) Even redwood rots around here. How long do you want it to last? My deck has mixed woods, pine, teak, cedar, redwood. The only thing that has really lasted is the teak decking itself. I'm already replacing cedar posts and siding. Most of the pine was replaced years ago. The redwood furniture wasn't much better than the pine. Prettier while it lasted. Once you finish the carving, regardless of your choice of wood, you will want to seal it and make sure you cap the top with aluminum or copper to protect the end. Fence posts last a lot longer that way, should work for you too. Good luck.

Our commander required everyone to have a 30-second 'commercial' about what we do and what should be expected from us. Once at a general meeting of the lab, I saw him order a Colonel to give him 10 when the Colonel was slow to answer. The Colonel did it. As a civilian I think he could not give me such an order but I got the point - I had my 'commercial'. It is a good thing to know what you are, what your goals are, and what your plan is for attaining them. To me this is the boy's chance to make that statement. It can be short and sweet or it can be verbose. As for the SM requiring him to do it over, I'm sympathetic to Ed's approach. In the SM conference, this statement might be a good point of discussion. After the discussion about goals, it would be fair for the SM to ask the boy if the boy thinks he did his best at writing the statement on goals. If the boy says yes, it's done. If the boy says no, then the SM could fairly ask if they boy thinks he should give it another try. If the boy decides to, the SM should support it. If I read Ed correctly, I agree with him that adult leaders should not place obstacles for the boys but rather to offer every opportunity for the boy to succeed on his own.

Stosh, I have a really nice kayak and I still keep thinking wistfully about my old wood and canvas canoe. Wouldn't take it on anything other than flatwater though. I've been old and feeble ever since my children were old enough to tell me so. I used to think about it fairly often but I've reconciled with fate. And I can still free dive deeper than any of the boys. Outrun a few of them as well. And I'm far more willing to endure attacks of bad weather on backpack trips. I'll take what I can get.

My definition of 'winter' is that time between the winter solstice and the spring equinox. I wonder....

Such venom! tsk, tsk.

le Voyageur, thanks for those astonishing links. I far prefer the world of science where lies are usually found and rejected and most of the time, I can trust the people with whom I work. I'm sorry for those of you whose world is so different. While I can't decide which of us is in a world of illusion, I prefer mine by far. At the same time I fear your version may be correct. And I miss Eisenhower.

le Voyageur, I can agree with almost all of what you last wrote, although I think the world's best military never was allowed the chance to open up on them. I think it was hamstrung by many of the factors you've mentioned already, and probably cost countless more lives than needed. I am not a warmonger or a hawk although I probably have 'sounded' like one recently. I am simply terribly frustrated over the same things you and others have described about the Bush era. I would be greatly pleased to see Bin Laden's head on a stake, along with the leadership of the Taliban. I would rather not expend a single life or dollar getting that result. And it is because of the Soviet experience (not to mention ours in VietNam) that makes me willing to accept any approach that can produce those heads on stakes. But I will not compromise on that goal. I get the sense that some of us would rather withdraw and forget about it - and that is the most dangerous thing that we could do. Bin Laden and his people will not go away and they are going to hit us again and again until we destroy him, his nest of vermin, and anyone who stands in the way. If we can do this with drones and covert actions, so much the better. If we decide to light up the sky, I'll be fine with that too as long as it accomplishes the mission. But we will fail in the most profound way if we just give it up. It's not an option for me.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Lisa, I maintain that the stated reason for going into Afghanistan was in order to respond to the 9/11 attack. I maintain that we had and have the moral high ground on that basis, especially compared to what the Soviets engaged in. It's just my view. But in response, "As for moral grounds for war, there's no such animal. It's all propoganda, and spin by the State, there is always a hidden agenda or two wrapped tight in lies masquerading as truth by warring governments, including ours." Did you 'get' that 'spin' part yet?

"Having been an eye witness to the pickle that the Soviet Union got itself in using those means didn't work then, and it still won't work now. Bankrupt the taxpayer, and the war is over, it's that simple on why this war will eventually end in a withdrawal...." Lisa, There is your comparison.

Perhaps I'm alone in the view that the 9/11 attacks were real and not 'spin' and that we have an identified enemy - that could be myth as well. The low moral ground of the Soviets is my view...again I may be wrong about that, perhaps I am wrong and they held the high moral ground. The absence of an element of 'morality' in grounds for war is, for want of a better term, astounding. But you've convinced me. I'll say no more. Edited to add: Actually, thanks. I think I now understand well why we're going to lose. And deserve to.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

The Soviet Union wasn't attacked within its sovereign territory. It moved into Afghanistan for purely geopolitical purposes to prop up their own puppet government. Their enemy wasn't an identifiable group, it was the idea that another form of government should govern the country. The Soviet Union wasn't just fighting insurgents, it was fighting insurgents equipped and funded by guess who? The Soviet Union was fighting from the low moral ground and they knew it. We aren't. We should know that too.

Demons, huh? And I always thought they were dead people.

I wrote, "...BadenP contradicts everything I write." BadenP replied, "...you know thats not true..." See, what did I tell ya? BadenP, sorry, I'm just messin' with ya. Hope you take it in the good humor it's intended. My uncle was one of the people negotiating with the Russians after WWII, with little success. They were deadlocked over so many issues. After one particularly frustrating day of meetings, as they were adjourning for the day, my uncle told the chief negotiator for the Russians, "I guess we agree that we disagree" upon which the Russian slammed his fist on the table and screamed, "We DO NOT disagree!!!" My uncle used to just laugh and laugh about that one right up until he died a few years back. We planted him in the family group in Arlington. Ahem,... NOT that I in any way think BadenP has anything in common with the Russians, no siree! Edited to add: Yes we do agree, actually more than sometimes meets the eye. This is also true for Brent. Come to think of it, you really don't know for sure that Brent and I are different people do you? You've never actually seen us standing together....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I guess I can claim some responsibility for this thread. I confess that at the time I wasn't fully aware of the reasons for exclusion, only that my father and most other veterans didn't like it much. But these same people had, just a few months earlier, booted out our old minister because he embraced the Civil Rights movement. The new guy would definitely prove to be 'interesting', what with the flag thing and his claim to be able to see actual demons (for a while I worried that I might have been one of them, LOL). But maybe someone in this forum would be like to explain a few things today to my neighbor three houses down, a fundamentalist preacher (Pentecostal, I think, maybe Assemblies of God - I can't really comprehend all the flavors)...who has a single flag pole in his front yard and flies the Confederate flag on the pole ABOVE the American flag. To me, THAT is a more powerful message than a church not allowing it into their building.

The closest thing to this that I've seen is back when I was a boy. The Presbyterian minister for our church would not allow the troop or anyone else to even bring the American flag into the church. I seem to remember this was a source of controversy at the time.

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY (and Commander-in-chief): "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." That's a fairly clear metric for winning. But you also might want to ask Brent to answer the question. Back in 2006 he wrote, "The fact is our military won a tremendous victory in Iraq (planned by Rumsfeld)." http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=133119&p=2

Scoutfish gets it, thankfully. No problem here though, BadenP contradicts everything I write. (twinkle, twinkle)

Think about the idea that a 'native' American can also be an 'immigrant' and then put the twinkle in my eye as I wrote my reply.

Boomerscout wrote, "weren't the Native Americans also immigrants to this land?" Yes, and more indigenous people are still arriving for the first time.

Many years ago a new, extremely-adaptable species emerged in Africa and swarmed over the planet in a relatively short time, devouring every resource it could, often to the detriment to both the resource and to itself. This is my one-sentence history of man. To the buffalo, passenger pigeons, forests, plains, wooly mammoth, chestnuts, and countless others, ALL humans would probably be viewed as unwanted vermin, possibly worse than the diseases and rats and other 'camp followers' that came with us. This is an exam day and I AM in the mood.

A couple of years ago, the boy had to get the DAC to approve the project prior to getting ANY other signatures on the workbook. And because of the problems with dates, etc. I would contact the council to check to make sure everything on the application was in agreement with them. The EBOR would proceed and the application would go to council for their signature. NOW, for the project ALL signatures must be in place BEFORE the DAC will even look at it. If he agrees with everyone else the boy is allowed to proceed with the project. NOW, we drive two hours round trip to the council office to drop the form off to check the dates. And then we drive two hours round trip to pick up the signed form. We tried mail. That bad, bad USPS keeps losing paperwork...yep, it MUST be the USPS! So we have a chain of custody, 4 hours of driving, and whatever delay it involves....for one signature.

Gern, if you asked HIM that question he'd probably stumble around hoping that Rumsfeld or Cheney would supply him with the answer. I doubt he'd admit that raiding the treasury was a motivation...he's probably not clever enough even to see that...but anyway, he'd try to put a higher motivation I suspect. So..he failed. But you already knew that.

Gern, I agree, so many of us just felt sooooo good about all that, didn't we? I just want the people who attacked us killed, wiped out. If a covert operation can do this then of course use that. But if we can locate the enemy, and if it looks costly to ferret them out using infantry, then the big hammer works too. Light up the sky. Whatever it takes. Get this over with. Make the needed apologies afterward. The one good thing about Bush squandering our international stature is that we don't have to worry about that anymore. It frees us to do what has to be done. Do it.

"The only way to decisively and quickly win this war is by using missles, drones, stealth bombers and virtually decimate the hills and caves where these guys are hiding. There would be a lot of collateral damage, civilian deaths, etc." I agree. The collateral damage could have been minimized back when we had our best chance. NJ is right too, about shifting focus to Iraq when we should have applied the 'terrible swift sword' to Bin Laden and the Taliban. We can call Obama a cheerleader and pretend that we've made a profound statement but the truth is that while Bush was looking Vladimir in the eye and grandstanding on aircraft carriers with that smirking swagger, behind it all was a little boy trying desperately to please his daddy and knowing he was in WAY over his head...so his daddy's cronies made his decisions for him so he could strut around like a bantam rooster and pretend he was something he wasn't. But Bin Laden is a cobra and if he and his people are not killed, they will strike again, as often as they can. I can't believe I'm hearing what I'm hearing from people...who previously seemed proud to think we were kicking butt in Iraq. It's as if we've forgotten about what Bin Laden is, what he did, and what he intends to do, and what he WILL do again when he can. If we don't go for the kill, and I mean ALL the way, we are sowing the seeds for things far worse. I am amazed at the timidity I'm seeing.