Brewmeister

My issue is with the presumption of this discussion starting with the first post. "Self-centered spoiled idiots" and all that. With the disclaimer that I live on the right side of the aisle so I have an admittedly partisan viewpoint, it sure does seem to me that the left's first response to any criticism is "STFU, we won!" Which is not real helpful. And to Beavah's point about fearing for the safety of the POTUS, there sure was a lot of visceral hatred toward the last president...seems to me there was even a play that explored his assassination. Each side has its wingnuts, but perhaps you have to excuse my perspective, coming from Wisconsin, where the response of the left to policy decisions they didn't like was for mobs to take over the capitol and for the Democrat legislature to leave the state...hence the speck and mote. On to Econ 101... It's not real popular to say these days, but here goes: Business is not in business to take care of its employees. It is in business to take care of itself. Got that? Workers are truly human resources...an input into the production process. Have I lost all the liberals out there already? Are you furiously typing on your keyboards to point out how cold and heartless I am? Well, stick with me if you will. When faced with a situation that will affect their ability to continue to exist (that dirty word "profit" again), businesses must either cut the cost of input, or raise the price of output. Now, you could argue that Papa John's should raise the price of their pizza by 25 cents rather than cut back on the cost of their input...but that is their choice. And that choice will have an impact on their operations. As to those millionaire business owners who wouldn't dream of cutting their own salary--how much do you think that salary (that input) relates to the overall payroll and benefit base of the average business? Now, smart businesses also understand that taking care of your employees makes sense. It's a reason that companies rated as "Best Places to Work" by the great place to work institute do BETTER in terms of profit and performance overall. But, businesses are free to make the decisions they wish--at least they still are. Some will be good decisions and some will be bad. I'm probably whistling into the wind on this one but the suggestion that people who make business decisions based on their evaluation of the business climate (i.e., doing their job as a forward-looking business manager) are somehow spoiled, self-centered people taking out their frustrations on their employees is ridiculous.

I thought about doing an Econ 101 primer here but I suspect it would be a big waste of time... How about this instead... "First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Michelle Bachmann and other noxious outlier representatives to be elected. So on one hand it's the establishment that is doing gerrymandering... But on the other hand said gerrymandering results in "noxious outliers" being elected. You contradict yourself in your own examples.

Hmmmm...I guess making business plans based on political realities and basic math is now taking out my frustrations on people. Well, please excuse me while I go fire some people, beat my wife, and kick my dog before I change out of my jammies to go harvest the magical money tree from the orchard of gold.

Weighs 8 pounds--I wouldn't want to pack it compared to the hammock I use now (2.5 pounds) Although they claim it's stable, and the pictures seem to show it, I can't help but think that with the center of gravity being low (compared to a Hennessey or other hammock), it would still feel very tippy, or require some major guy-wiring to keep it stable.

Sorry, Beav, got confused with "da Democrat" verbiage... I believe you are wrong on gerrymandering and you are over thinking the reasons for the apparent disparity. All you have to do is look at the red/blue national election map by COUNTY. That map easily proves how the House of Representatives could easily be one way and the Senate the other, despite the TOTAL popular vote for the House. No gerrymandering required, it's just how we break down geographically.

Let's see...people who disagree with the current administration are "idiots" who are just "spouting off," "spoiled," and "self centered." Well that makes sense. I mean, it's not like anybody ever "purposely demeaned" the previous president. Yeesh.

When da Democrat gets the majority of the votes and a substantial majority of the Electoral College, how is it that da House of Representatives stays Republican? You all are trying to find patterns that don't exist and explanations for an unexplainable electorate. Look at my crazy state of Wisconsin for an example of this. Earlier this year if you recall, our controversial Republican governor won a recall election by a greater margin, over the same candidate he had faced a year earlier, despite what appeared to be a huge uprising on the other side of the aisle. Additionally, in last week's election, the electorate returned control of the entire legislature to the Republicans. In the U.S. House, currently we have 5 Republican representatives and 3 Democrats. In 2010, the state tossed out our well-known Russ Feingold, after 17 years, for conservative Republican businessman Ron Johnson. Yet in 2012, we chose ultra-liberal Tammy Baldwin over Tommy Thompson, who was a former, multi-term, popular governor of the state. So we now have D senator, one R. And, Wisconsin preferred Obama by something like 14 percent in 2008 and 7 percent this time around (off the top of my head). You can't explain the senate split or the difference between the executive selections (gubernatorial vs. presidential) to party-line politics.

For years my father in law said that a runner on the football field who went across the sideline was "out of bounce." I finally told him that the runner could just use some other type of fabric softener.

Could it be that voters actually looked at the candidates and the message and simply found Republican house candidates more compelling?

Two states legalized pot too if I recall... So the BSA rules if I remember correctly was that it's ok to smoke, just not within sight of the boys. Is it ok to toke up at my next scout outing as long as I'm outta sight?

All this bad news lately has got me thinking. I suspect my tenure as a scout was similar to many boys. I joined Cub Scouts because my parents put me in it. I crossed over to our affiliated troop. Eventually I was done. Never really gave a thought to the whys of scouting. Returning (many) years later as an adult Scouter gave me a chance to rethink the whys. I could list a whole bunch of individual onesthe aims and the truisms, all the stuff one picks up in training and sees in the development of boys over time. Ultimately, however, the whys are really tough to put into words. As the saying goes, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and that is true about Scouting. So back to all the bad news. As a program espousing service before self and traditional values, scoutingspecifically the BSAis an easy target in todays self-centered and secular society. We read the attacks here. We see the perverse delight some take in the failings and missteps the BSA has made over time, failings that are inevitable because it is an organization comprised of human beings. It is convenient for some to use those failings as an indictment against the standards themselves and, by extension, the people who believe in them, rather than what they area reminder of the imperfect people we are and a motivation to do better. At the same time the organization is under attack from the outside, we see the push and pull from competing interests within the organization. My point is that in this environment, its hard to stay focused on the whys of Scouting. Does my son understand the whys? He can recite some of the points I have talked to him about, and Im sure he believes it, but he mainly wants to go camping and spend time with his friends. And thats ok. I also tell him that Im proud of him as a Scout, and I mean it, and Im proud to be associated with the BSA.

It's not working. Only ads for garage door openers. And there are no llamas in my garage. Not even in my special llama garage.

Is the BPSA what you recommend?

I found my old garrison cap...my son is wearing it to the troop meeting this week. He thinks it's cool...

Edit: withdrawn for pointlessness....(This message has been edited by brewmeister)

Scouting is local...

Man, it's easy to toss out insults behind the Internet shield of anonymity.

uniform (yn-frm) adj. 1. Always the same, as in character or degree; unvarying. 2. Conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent. 3. Being the same as or consonant with another or others. 4. Unvaried in texture, color, or design. n. 1. A distinctive outfit intended to identify those who wear it as members of a specific group.

Brew, I think the difference is that as a Wolf boys are supervised when using knives. As a scout they are not. Sending a boy off with his patrol on a hike (no adults) with a pocket knife is different than having a Wolf using a knife at the Cub Scout Day Camp whittling station. Hmmmmmm....we're certainly not sitting over the boys shoulders. I still have the same opinion...it is silly to let the boys use knives in cubs, then say when you get to boy scouts, you can't use them until you get to second class.

I know the totin chit covers more than the cub scout whittling chip, but the first post mentioned knives, when knives are covered by the whittling chip. It seems pretty silly to me to wait until second class on knives when boys have already been using them since being a Wolf cub. Then again we have our webelos build and tend fires too so maybe I'm just a renegade...

Without derailing this into a hammock discussion there is truth to both viewpoints. There are spots where hammocks will work and tents will not and vice versa, but in most cases both will work. I just use it for comfort. Other than that it's a pain to store your gear or even get dressed versus a tent. Well, it's also kind of fun to be "that guy who's sleeping in a hammock"....

That's what I'm asking, and that's why I focused this question on affordability. I can hit the trail for the weekend with my pack, my Hennessey hammock, and enough food and water to get by. But, I don't know how to translate that into a troop setting. The challenge is to arm the group with enough information so that they can make well-informed decisions while keeping it affordable for our demographics and budget realities. it might be a case where we have to downscale expectations, or perhaps even build in more day hikes into our plop camping to make use of the equipment we have as we grow into more adventure. Knowledge is the first step, and that's what I'm trying to gain here and elsewhere.

I seem to be getting hammered for not including my location for some reason. As I said, I'm at the same latitude as Beavah. Wisconsin.