BrentAllen

Our cut-off is the Tuesday night meeting before the campout that weekend. We handle sign-ups through our SOAR web page, so everyone can see who has signed up. No more wondering if so and so is going, or finding out a Scout told another leader he was attending, but the message didn't get relayed to everyone. Menus are planned and tenting is arranged. Transportation is arranged. The web page allows us to set the date of closing registration, and that date is advertised with the event. If they aren't on the list when it closes registration, they don't go.

I still like Green Bar Bill's definition of active: "The real price of membership in this Troop will be unfailing regular attendance at its meetings and outings, and steady progress in all the things that make a Scout "Prepared." If we put our own time into the activities of this Troop, we shall certainly expect you to do your part with equal faithfulness." Being that a Scout is Courteous, we expect Scouts to contact their PL and let them know if they are going to miss a meeting or campout. Instead of a % of attendance, I'm thinking about putting in writing our definition of active as, "If a Scout misses four meetings in a row and has not notified his youth leader in advance, he will be considered inactive. If an inactive Scout decides he wants to return to the Troop and become active, he will need to set up an appointment with the SM to discuss the circumstances that led to his inactive status, and why that will not happen again." I feel I am being very generous with the four meeting standard. Scouts who have a long-term (think sports season) conflict and can't attend regularly should notify both their youth leader and the SM. The Scout should provide the dates of when this conflict will begin and end. Scouts will not be able to hold a POR during the absence and will not be considered "active" for the purpose of meeting advancement requirements. Fred - in your example, you are teaching two lessons. One, the Scout completed the requirements and earned the rank. Two, Scouts can miss 8 months of participation in your Troop and there are no consequences - Scouts can just show up when they want. I don't see how the second point is at all compatable with the Patrol Method.

Sure, Beavah - the reason I went to Georgia Tech is because I'm anti-science. No, I'm just anti-junk science and anti-science by consensus. I've read the science the global warmers have built their case on, and I don't buy it. Mann's hockey stick is based on such a small set of data, it is ridiculous. The science has "been settled" for how long now? Yet, Hansen recently admitted the models were overstating the warming, and they can't even explain the aerosol and cloud links. So many variables, but they've got it all figured out with just one...until some other variable raises its ugly head and they can't explain it. Here is what I would expect - I would expect those who are the true believers, the guys making the Flavor-Aid, to live as if they believed in the snake oil they were selling. Al Gore would be living in a 1,200 sq. ft apartment with a windmill on the roof. He'd be riding his bike everywhere. Instead, he lives in a mansion and travels in ways that generate tons of carbon. Meanwhile, he is getting filthy rich off the whole scam. I wouldn't expect those engineers to be travelling over the bridge every day, while they are telling me it is unsafe - which is what Al Gore and company are doing.

Nah, that may have been the way science was 20 years ago, or maybe it still is in other areas other than climate, but not today. Journalist will tell you they aren't biased in their reporting, even though they are overwhelmingly Democrats. Sorry, but that just isn't the case. Same with scientist, or at least those in the field of climate science. Here's another one for you - science is now about ethics, not real science. Pennsylvania State Universitys Professor Donald A. Brown argues that ethics requires acknowledging the links between tornadoes and climate change, despite scientific uncertainties about increased frequency and intensity of tornadoes in a warming world. Get that - ethics requires it. They have to resort to fear-mongering to scare the easily-duped to their side. So, Beavah, how come the scientist that line up on your side of the field are all unbiased, but those that line up on mine are paid-for hacks? Those on your side have admitted over-hyping the problem and pushing worst-case scenarios to scare everyone. They admit they feel an "ethic" to create links where they don't exist. That Flavor-Aide must be mighty good! (you happy, packsaddle?)

Ah, da brilliant and oft repeated attack on a Wikipedia source, even though you can't dispute it - yep, that takes a lot of work. No lazy person would ever do such a thing, would they? The directors of Fannie and Freddie (Democrats at the time) stood to make a fortune in bonuses (which they did), so they pushed the idiotic idea that every American should own a home - whether they could afford it or not. Barney Frank was a big supporter of the idea. Yep, a lot of greedy people saw a way to make money off the deal, but they couldn't do it unless the buyers signed on the dotted line. You can dance around all you want and call me lazy, but if the mortgage holders hadn't defaulted, this whole mess would have never happened. CDOs were a bad idea, but the trip mechanism was the mortgage defaults. I knew fairly smart people who took out interest only loans to buy bigger houses than they could afford, thinking they would live like kings for 5 years, sell them for a huge profit and bank the equity. They didn't see the down side, and are now under water with no equity. So, who was more greedy - the banks or the borrowers? As for the scientist and engineers, would you believe the engineers when you found out they weren't giving you all the information? They were only giving you the data that supported their agenda? When 90% of journalists are liberal Democrats, I go to conservative channels to get balance. I have liberal friends who are quick to jump on any mistatement by Bachmann or Palin, but if I ask them about Obama "visiting 57 states" they have no idea what I'm talking about. Why? They only go to the mainstream media, who are Democrats. They never hear the other side of the story (or see the other conflicting data). Of those 97% of scientists who believe in man-made global warming, I would bet good money that 98% are liberal Democrats. I can't believe someone who thinks they are so brilliant can't see this! Chew on this: Climate change will be the predominant moral issue of the 21st century, declared NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, comparable to Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century and slavery faced by Lincoln in the 19th century. Can you say "over the top?"(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

Beavah, What, exactly, do you think those CDOs were made up of, what were the securities that started defaulting that caused the problem to begin with? Sub-prime mortgages! If those mortgages hadn't gone bad, the CDOs would have played out, with everyone getting paid. Here is a good explanation of CDOs and tranches (Wikipedia): One analogy is to think of the cash flow from the CDOs portfolio of securities (say mortgage payments from mortgage-backed bonds) as water flowing into the cups of the investors in the senior tranches first, then junior tranches, then equity tranches. If a large portion of the mortgages enter default, there is insufficient cash flow to fill all these cups and equity tranch investors face the losses first. An early indicator of the crisis was the failure of two Bear Stearns hedge funds in July 2007. The assets held by these hedge funds had declined in value, due in large part to increasing defaults on subprime mortgages. Investors demanded their money back under contractual arrangements referred to as margin calls. The now defunct Bear Stearns, at that time the fifth-largest U.S. securities firm, said July 18, 2007 that investors in its two failed hedge funds will get little if any money back after "unprecedented declines" in the value of securities used to bet on subprime mortgages, despite investment-grade ratings from rating agencies. I do know a little about investments - I am Series 7 and Series 63 licensed. No comments on the liberal leanings of the global warming scare-mongering non-political "scientists?"

Sorry, browser hung up for a double post.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

Beavah writes: "Yah, science doesn't have politics, but politics uses science." Oh, really? Gee, who said the following? "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as synfuels, shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions." That would be the liberal James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute. Nothing political there, right? Or how about this statement: "On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing butwhich means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." That would be Dr. Stephen Schneider, in Discover magazine. No politics there, either, right? So, when ya start puttin' yur faith in the scientist, you might want to check to see if they are a bleedin' heart liberal, who might like to scare ya, since you aren't smart enough to figure some of this stuff out yourself.

skeptic, It sounds like we agree on many on the items we are discussing. The utility companies are regulated already. Any cost increase they have will get passed along to the consumers - us. Cost increases due to regulation will not "cut into their profits and the pay of the upper tier management." They will still make the same profits and upper tier management will still get their big salaries.

skeptic - I live in Atlanta, I know about pollution. I do wonder about how clean the air really needs to be. Are you willing to get rid of your car so the air will be 1/1,000,000,000 cleaner? As for kids with more lung issues - is the cause really air pollution? I'm 48 and I often have discussions with my peers about how many kids now have peanut allergies. None of us can remember anyone having them when we were kids. Did the infants with peanut allergies just not survive 50 years ago? Is the same true for infants that had lungs issues 50 years ago vs. those of today? Or could it be one of a million other variable? Women having children when they are older (over 40)? Kids being born out of wedlock and not receiving proper prenatal care? My wife has asthma and she blames it on her mother, who smoked during preganancy. I am all for clean air and water. I would just like to see regulations based on science that is confirmed by scientist on both sides of the political aisle.

Our Troop has been asked to provide a Color Guard for the opening ceremony for this event. Several of our Scouts will also be participating in the climb. From the Dunwoody Crier: Stair Climb Honoring 9/11 Fallen. If youre wondering how youre going to get your exercise on September 10 or how you might recognize the 10th annivesary of the tragedies of 9/11, consider this: The Manhattan Condominiums at Perimeter Way is inviting all to participate in its 26-story memorial stair climb. Open to the public, the climb is coordinated to honor the 343 New York firefighters and 60 police officers who perished in the twin tower tragedies. Proceeds from the $25 registration fee will benefit the Georgia Firefighters Burn Foundation. T-shirts will be awarded upon completion.

I agree with Barry about modeling behavior. I hope that I am being a good role model for my Scouts as both a father and husband. When does that take place? At COHs when my wife attends, when Scouts come to my house to work on merit badges, and even last night at our high school football game, where I usually see 8 - 10 of our Scouts. And no, I don't want the homosexual lifestyle modeled as normal and acceptable to my son, since I view this as sinful.

Thanks, scoutingagain - I hadn't had my daily fear-mongering from a liberal yet, and it is already past noon. I was getting worried! :-)

I think there is a big difference between "wild" and "adventure." You don't need to have a wild place to have an adventure. I prefer adventures in wild places, but I've had great adventures in areas that were pretty well populated. One of the reasons we sought out MOHAB was that it was in a wild, uninhabited, undeveloped area - that appealed to us. I've heard many Scouters commenting (not necessarily complaining)about how many people they saw at both Philmont and Norther Tier, and my guess is they were expecting to see less. I think they had a great adventure, it's just they had more company than they were counting on. If you really want to get out there, where you are really on your own, there aren't that many places left to do it in the Lower 48. I think that is the mindset behind the first post here. MOHAB will never be a Philmont, mainly because of the permits needed to enter the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Those are limited for a reason.

Calico, It would appear that the Commander In Chief disagrees with you about regulation and job creation. Obama halts controversial EPA regulation Excerpt: Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-halts-controversial-epa-regulation-143731156.html

Try this link for the MOHAB photo album: http://www.kodakgallery.com/gallery/sharing/shareRedirectSwitchBoard.jsp?token=3021511920103%3A1812235169 Please let me know if it doesn't work. I suggest viewing at full screen.

If you take a full Crew of 12 to MOHAB, cost was $550 per person this year. They bill it as a Crew for $6,600. If you take fewer than 12, the cost will obviously be higher per person. Go to http://www.montanahighadventurebase.com/ for more info. From Atlanta, our airfare was $525 with two stops heading out, and one on the return. We arrived late on Tuesday night (11:30 PM local). The Council let us spend two nights in the basement of their office, which was very nice - carpeted with a little kitchen area. Their office was about 5 miles from the airport. Great Falls is not that big of a city. This was only the third year of the program. First year they had one Crew, second year they had two. This year they had 7. We were the first Crew from east of the Mississippi. The other weeks, Crews came from Houston and Michigan. As word gets out, this place is going to get very popular! The Montana Council (the whole state is basically one Council) wants to make MOHAB an ultralight backpacking destination. They are acquiring gear with that in mind. The Oware pyramid tents we were using weigh around 26 ounces and sleep 4. Those black pads you see us all carrying were provided by MOHAB, and luckily we all carried them - the foliage we were tenting on would have punctured my thermarest the first night (the tents don't have bottoms). The base also provided us with individual ground clothes, which helped, but wouldn't have saved my thermarest, I don't think. Our guide is a student at Georgia Tech, and we've stayed in touch - he's coming to our Troop meeting next week to talk about going ultralight. He gave me some stories from the other Crew Treks after ours. On week 3, the Crew was camping in the same small meadow we used on our second night out. All their food and stoves were over near the small fire ring at one end of the meadow, and they were setting up all their gear and tents at the other. A grizzly came walking right through the middle of camp. He either didn't notice them or didn't care, and headed over near their food. They were worried he would go for it, but he angled off and kept going. The last week, on the last day, the Crew headed up a valley behind Walling Reef, the big wall mountain you see from base camp. Wind gusts picked up to around 90 mph blowing down the valley. When the big gusts hit, they had to drop to their knees to keep from getting knocked over. When it eased up, they would go about 20 - 30 yards before the next hit. There was no way they were going to get the tents up, so they just staked them down and everyone crawled under. It blew that way all night - no one got more than an hour of sleep that night. The next morning the front passed and the wind eased up. Luckily, that was the last night and they weren't far from base camp.

You want wilderness and adventure? Go to MOHAB - Montana High Adventure Base. On a week-long trek in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, we saw 2 other hikers, going the opposite direction, and 3 bears. We made 72 stream crossings - everything from step-over's to setting up rope for crossing. We made steep, 1,700 feet climbs up to passes, hiked in and slid down areas covered with snow, and bushwacked miles to pick up a mapped trail. This is one of the wildest areas you will find in the continental US. If you don't believe me, look at the August, 2011 issue of Backpacker magazine. Index description of 8 page article: "Big, Wild, Empty Want to be alone with grizzlies, bighorns and 200 miles of the Continental Divide? Bring your A game and exlpore Montana's 1.5 million acre Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. Bigger is Better: Lose yourself in the lower 48's wildest spot, Montana's 1.5 million-acre Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. There's nothing wild left in the Lower 48? Don't tell the grizzlies on this traverse of the Bob Marshall Wilderness." This area, just west of Dupuyer, MT is reported by the US Forest Service to have the highest concentration of grizzlies in the Lower 48 (all adults carried bear spray, which was provided). It's northern boundary shares a border with the southern edge of Glacier National Park. No roads anywhere inside the wilderness area. This is not a trip for the inexperienced or the light-hearted. But it is absolutely beautiful. I've put a photo album of our trip online, but I haven't put in many captions. You should be able to view it here: http://www.kodakgallery.com/gallery/creativeapps/slideShow/Main.jsp?sourceId=533754321803&cm_mmc=Share-_-Personal-_-Email-_-Sharee-_-View&_requestid=349389 Let me know if that doesn't work. I'll try to get some captions in over the weekend.

shortrigdge, Please give me the scientific, factual cure for the common cold. My daughter has one, and she'd like the remedy.

moosetracker: "When ministers are wrong, no one can call them on it, except for your opening your eyes and ears and listening to others, and making your own decisions. Rather then just following.." As a Christian, I believe God speaks to us through the Bible, through the church, through prayer and through circumstance. If a minister is advocating something that goes against the Bible, the elders of the church should recognize this and confront him. If your "inner voice" is telling you something that goes against the Bible and/or the beliefs of your church, you should question it. The guidance received through the Bible, the church, prayer and circumstance should sync up, providing markers that you are on the path God has laid out for you. People and society have changed; God's word has not.

I don't know a whole lot about Perry, but he does have one advantage - he is a governor and not a representative or senator. And governors beat reps and senators in presidential elections. As for the Republican VP - it will be Rubio.

Yep, Calico, you are correct. This is what paying 99 weeks of unemployment payments gets you. We have plenty of jobs available, but Americans have become too soft. Given the choice between a hard, sweaty job in the heat and a stroll to the mailbox to pick up a check, Americans are going to choose the latter. All paid for with money borrowed from the Chinese, as we go deeper and deeper into debt. Let's keep doing what we are doing, right? Bring in more illegal immigrants to do the jobs Americans are too soft to do, and keep paying more and more unemployment. It sure seems to be working so well!

Wow, packsaddle! You found a hit piece on conservatives in the Opinion section of the NYT! Who woulda thunkit?!?! I guess that might be interesting... to at least some one.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. In 2007 the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion. That's an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue. Put them together, you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit. Of the $901 billion in new spending, $343 billion is associated with the downturn - unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid. Add that to the $338 billion in lost revenue, and you total $681 billion, which is just under half of the $1.399 trillion deficit. Spending money we don't have makes up much of the rest of it ($1 billion in Libya, alone).

Article out today... Spending Cuts Preferred Over Tax Increases By Economists: Survey NEW YORK -- The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts. The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases. As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/taxes-cuts-economists_n_932697.html