packsaddle

Ahem, for what it's worth the USSR was the 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics', if anyone cares.

FYI, I've been called 'babykiller' on numerous occasions. No big deal. I would, however, very much take it to heart if I actually WAS a babykiller. Gern, YH, While I am openly critical of many policies at all levels of government, my agreement or disagreement with someone is not relevant to the principle in question here. I think it is sufficient to say that while YH personally chooses not to openly criticize policy, Gern does, and both of you feel morally justified. While I think it is obvious that many of us think there is an absolute morality, that belief by itself does not automatically make ours the one that is absolute, at least outside our own lives. A person may think our personal moral code IS the absolute one, but the uncertainty exists. Therefore, we should accept that we are fallible the same as our opponents. If someone dismisses another with name-calling, it is clear that their ideas are not themselves sufficient to prevail over opposing ideas. That speaks for itself. And in questions of morality, you must both know that neither will prevail over the other. In this particular case (Iraq policy criticism), the fact is that open criticism of policy IS going to continue, name-calling notwithstanding. Therefore, and pragmatically, the discussion should focus on that policy (the ideas) and not morality (personal opinion). It is a better opportunity to find common ground.

Wow, this one is lot more fun than politics. I vote for the speedo. It is still a one-piece bathing suit and if the wearer isn't self-conscious about the appearance, we all know what's underneath don't we? And, I mean, females who bring a bikini...they can easily make it a one-piece, just pick which piece.. Seriously though, if older or overweight persons want to wear speedos, they should just get a bikini wax. Painful, yes, but it makes all the difference in esthetics. Did I mention painful? And now there's the image of an older overweight man getting a wax job....uuuuuuggggggh.

Heh, heh, heh...coming from the likes of my type, I hesitate to ask but..heh, heh,...who was it now that was wondering what we were going to do without Rooster7? ;)Heh, heh.

Ed, I answered your first question already. No.

Ed, No. It just didn't need to happen this way. Brent, wonder all you want to, but if you know my "type" you obviously need to know little else. If the opposition colluded with the administration, I agree...Good question. Do you really think this is a conspiracy? As for stunning military victories, I think what we did to Mexico, taking California and much of the West, far surpasses what we did in Iraq. We not only rolled over a vastly inferior force, we permanently grabbed huge territories from Mexico and then discovered gold on it days after. Hard to top that, and very few of our countrymen died in the process. Hard to top it but we've tried...let's see: 1898 we took Cuba, the Phillipines, and Puerto Rico and we also annexed Hawaii by force. We occupied Cuba and the Phillipines for years, 70,000 troops in the Phillipines until independence in 1946 - reoccupied Cuba several more times until 1922. 1909-1933 occupied Nicaragua. Lost count of the number of times we occupied the Dominican Republic. Oh yeah, Haiti. And there was that thing in Morocco...and oh yeah, Guatemala in 1954. And Grenada, and Panama, and China, and Russia. So many enemies out there, all out to get us because of our freedom? Let's see, we practically wiped out Saddam's military in the Gulf War I and then crippled him economically for years, controlling the skies and (evidently) successfully elminating his ability to build WMD. Then in Gulf War II, the greatest superpower on earth landed and rolled over a vastly inferior military with 'mission accomplished' in mere hours. Except that since that time thousands of our people have continued to die. And many more civilians. And if the mission WAS accomplished....huh? I would note, also, that we fought terrorists inside this country for many decades. They often wore sheets. I knew some of them personally. If it makes you feel better they walked the walk too.

Ed, Saddam was isolated, militarily emasculated. He was a bad guy but there were (are) plenty of other bad guys around and we didn't conquer those other nations as a result. I always think honesty is better than deceit. And I don't know what Bush's reasons really were, only that he deceived us. If he had said he wanted to remove Saddam for no other reason than he was a bad guy, I doubt Bush would have gotten many of the votes he got for the authorization. I could be wrong, but it is speculative anyway because we didn't have the benefit of honest motives from Bush. I would not have supported the war if I knew it was merely to remove Saddam. That could have been accomplished with much less loss cost in lives and dollars than we've suffered from the conquest of Iraq. Here's an alternative scenario. Fidel Castro is a bad guy. His country is much smaller. Their economy and military are weak. He is implicated in serious human rights crimes. He has been implicated in terrorist activities in our country. He is an enemy. Cuba is very close to our border. Castro tried to acquire WMD a while back and actually HAD them. He would probably still want them if he could get them. If he had the money he would probably pursue development, and maybe he is, I don't know. For all we know he still has some hidden away somewhere. Why not invade Cuba? So what if we tried and failed once in the past, that had problems in the execution. We could get it right if we tried again now. So why not Cuba? If your argument is valid and the American people would support conquest based on a leader being a bad guy, then this should be an easy sell.

For the record. I don't own a Lazyboy. I haven't watched a professional football game, start to finish, since 1977. That just about takes care if it. Brent, I too supported the vote to authorize. I too supported the decision to invade. I too swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. I plead guilty. But I did it because one man in particular, Bush, said in regard to WMD, there was NO DOUBT. That means a lot to me and I took his word that he had sufficient incontrovertible intelligence to make that unambiguous statement of fact. He didn't have incontrovertible intelligence. And it is now clear that he not only knew there, in fact, was doubt, he also manipulated the information that he had in his hands to deceive me and the American people. A really big lie. As for the numbers, some people are in denial, some consider the casualties to be a political liability, and some see this tragedy for what it is. I simply applied a statistical procedure to make a prediction. You are free to disagree. In 10 months or so, I may be completely wrong about it and if so I'll admit it. I hope I am. By the way, you are not the only person who knows individuals who have put their lives on the line. Or who have lost their life as a result. You do not know me at all.

Kahuna, Patton admitted his arrogance and most of us recognize that it was well-deserved. I suspect that Patton was capable of admitting error. Rumsfeld has clearly demonstrated fallability and yet he doesn't seem to acknowledge it. That is unwarranted arrogance...another type of lie (self-deception in this case, most everyone else sees the truth). Brent, If I grant you the truth of every one of those quotes, it will not at all diminish the fact that Bush is a liar. He lied. I share Beavah's frustration in that I too bought the line. I believed Bush, and yes many of those others on your list. I am a little surprised that you associate Bush with those others in that manner. But as SR540Beaver mentioned, THEY don't have thousands of dead as a result of their lies. Where other politicians lied for political gain or position, that is where the comparison ends, Bush started a war for his lie (rather, lied to start a war) and tens of thousands of people are dead. My intent in that message was mostly to remind everyone that a lot more American soldiers are still going to die, and fairly quickly there will have been more of their deaths than Osama accomplished at the World Trade Center. I identified this trend and prediction because I think some people will make another comparison in 10 months or so. You might as well get used to it.

If one plots the cumulative American casualties (deaths) of our armed forces in Iraq against time, the regression is amazingly strong. Over the time of record more than 61 of our soldiers has died each month. At this rate in 10 months the number of our forces that have died as a result of Iraq will surpass the official total for the attack on the World Trade Center. Never mind that contrary to administration claims, Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attack. Never mind that as of right now the official number of wounded stands at 17,269 in addition to the deaths. We have squandered the good will that the world felt toward us after the WTC attack. We are stuck in a place where we aren't wanted, attacked by a growing insurgency, and we're supporting a dysfunctional government...made worse by our own destruction of both government and army during the invasion. All this is happening and the person responsible for the WTC attack is still thumbing his nose at us. All this has happened and Osama Bin Laden didn't have to lift a finger to make it happen to us. All we did was follow the liar and his band of sycophants. I feel sadness for the additional hundreds of American families that are going to suffer personal losses due to this debacle. And yet, Rumsfeld remains arrogant...and the administration still emphatically supports him. To do otherwise might indeed merely be symbolic but...yeah! Incredible.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

What I'm suggesting is to 'call the question' for the other pack leadership. From what you have written, your pack seems hopeless (unless I've missed something) and the other pack should either accept or reject. If the fit is as perfect as it seems then the decision will fall in your favor. If not then you are no worse off than now. Regardless if your pack dissolves or if it merges with the other, your current DE is going to lose the unit. We had a similar situation years ago and I sympathize. Intelligence and motivation must not always be part of the job description for those positions.

I agree with ScoutNut except that I wouldn't worry about the one loudmouth. The comment that someone else is going to be upset is speculative and you can't let someone else's irrational behavior control your life. Do whatever you think is best and don't sweat the complaints. If your council is as non-responsive as mine you will get no help whatsoever and the DE will indeed be likely to try to dissuade you. If you really want to go, ignore him and do it anyway. If the other pack seems to back away, just go ahead and fill out the appropriate registration form and let them decide NOT to allow you in. I doubt that will happen. This is a tempest in a teapot.

I confess I never fully understood the nature of the interaction between Ed and Bob White. But Ed wasn't alone, many of us (me included) had our brush with the gom jabar. But then, I remember suggesting a long time ago if Merlyn and Zorn Packte ever met I would like to observe. I note that Zorn is no longer with us, nor is Bob White. Ed and Merlyn could be viewed as having prevailed if in no other manner than not having quit. Looks like a similar thing with Backpacker and Brent Allen, maybe not as intense. I shall watch it with interest. Brent, I get my info from diverse sources but one of the ones I trust the most is 'The Economist' and I read it carefully. The Economist, I think, was correct in immediately calling for Rumsfeld to resign as soon as the Abu Graib scandal broke. Neither they, nor I, have changed since that time. The subsequent information on this administration has only reinforced this opinion and yes, it is my opinion that they are without honor. I see no evidence otherwise. The lies, by now, are so transparent that their denial is, well, denial. If you disagree, please produce the evidence so I can weigh it against what I have read. Thanks.

In some ways Pittsburgh could be another planet compared to my area. However, in my region where there are huge black majorities in many areas, I also wonder why these 'minorities' are not better represented in scouting. But this is a secondary question and I am not sure scouting is the answer to the problem of violence that Eamonn described. At the same time I didn't see a solution in Scoutldr's post, not that I have a solution in mind, I wish I did. As I remember growing up in the South, violence seemed to be part of the culture (and I was part of it). The difference that I see between now and back then is that back then we settled our disagreements with fists and knives. Now we settle them with guns. The violent impulse, I think, is not much different between then and now. We now just have easier and more available means. And for this I have no solution. When I listen to people from other countries (most recently from an Israeli) and hear them state that Americans have a violent society, it is difficult to disagree. No solutions, just a restatement of the problem, sorry.

My son went through something like this and I've seen it in several others as well. He had a great time at first and then around First Class he started to lose interest (peer pressure at school I think). I made him a deal. If he would achieve Star I'd leave the decision to him whether to stay or not. He made it to Star with a couple of buddies but they wanted to charge on to Life. So he followed with them. By the time he made Life, he changed his mind and wanted to go as far as he could. Sometimes there's just a ridge that the boy has to climb over to see the goal more clearly.

OK, I'm confused. I have reread this short thread and I don't see anything about farmland ownership. At first I was afraid that I had responded to the wrong thread but now I think I'm merely confused at the turn this has suddenly taken. Please explain.

My opinion on Rumsfeld is that early on the administration really shared his arrogance. Now I think they just can't admit publicly to his (and their) monumental blunders - they think it would cost them too much politically. And this is partly because the commander-in-chief has led an entire life of easy privilege, arrogance, and personal deception. He just can't see any other way. They are without honor.

OneHour, hip hop? Grunge? I thought we were discussing music! I find that the boys can adjust to almost anything if they are force-fed a little. I tried playing calliope and band-organ music for 'punishment' once and they just turned it into a game of trying to figure out how the machines work. Good for them! I wish I could FIND a band-organ to show them.

I've dealt with boys throwing up more than once and I think that is far worse than wetting the bag. Sometimes I think more comes out than there is volume to the child, almost like special creation of vomit or something. I don't see how that much effluent can come out of a boy that small. The smell, depending on what they just heaved everywhere, seems to exaggerate the volume too, and chunks spewed everywhere mixed in vile fluid is enough to make most people wretch. Especially if the boy has been eating cheese - they are in tears, vomit everywhere, and cheese drooling out their noses and over their chins. Sometimes I wish I had the camera. It's almost a carnival atmosphere with the other boys whooping it up about the lumps and everything...and you have to clean both boy and tent... you might as well pretend you're a dog and roll in it yourself. Man, don't you love this stuff...that's what it's all about! I can give you a personal anecdote on how I handled the situation once when the preemptive bedwetting measures didn't work. A few years back, one morning a boy came to me early to inform me that his tentmate needed to talk to me in his tent. I left my campfire and walked over. The boy in the tent did not want anyone else around so I sent his tentmate to their patrol. Wet sleeping bag, but not too bad. I reassured him that I had done the same thing many times when I was a boy, that there was nothing to be ashamed of, and told him to put on some dry clothes and let me know when I could poke my head into the tent. A little while later we walked back and as I leaned into the tent I accidentally spilled a huge mug of coffee all over his sleeping bag. I apologized profusely and together we got the sopping bag out to rinse it out and dry it. The spare bag came in handy. When the other boys asked what was going on the boy quite honestly could tell them that the clumsy oaf of an ASM spilled coffee on his bag. I was the brunt of a few jokes after that and boys didn't want me anywhere near their tents, but it saved some embarassment for the boy. It was a deception, I know, but it worked.

Well...uughh...unscoutlike activities? Why I have no idea what you're talking about, really. Honest sheriff, I paid cash money for them chickens!

Yep, I just noticed the message count and figured it out. I remember the 1000 mark, seems like yesterday. But I wish you the best, Rooster7. It's been a hell of a lot of fun.

Scoutingagain, I'm not certain who Merlyn has in mind but I know in this area, at least in the '70s, such gatherings were frequent. They were dressed in white sheets and gathered around burning crosses. Just one possibility.... Edited Part: typo, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Trevorum, I stepped away from my desk for a little while and I seem to have missed something. What the heck just happened? PM me if you need to. Thanks

So....what do you think of the Book of Judas?

A little biological humor for the morning here... Some people cringe when I say this but it is true for many animals, people included - paternity is always in doubt.