gsmom

From the article: "You thought the United States was unpopular before the Iraq war? Well, rest assured that the fallout from these events will not only intensify the hatred the Muslim world has for us, but will spread worldwide. Sitting out here in England, I can tell you that unfortunately, the writer of this article is correct. The United States had very little credibility before these reports came out, due to the incompetence displayed in managing post war Iraq. Any credibility the US might have had in convincing people that we were bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and the Middle East is now gone. I don't believe that the incidents of abuse reported are seen as the actions of a few rogue soldiers. What is now playing on British TV are reports by the International Red Cross that abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan were reported months earlier to the military and to Bremer. Our governmnent has taken the position that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to detainees we have determined are "enemy combatants," for example, in Guantanamo. It is widely assumed that a culture of lawlessness pervades our policy toward detainees, and this culture started with policies determined at the top of the chain of command. President Bush's statements on Arab TV are seen as too little, and his apology at the press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan as too late. It will take serious action on Bush's part to even to begin to restore America's credibility. He could start by firing Rumsfeld. Any British minister in this situation would have been out the door already. Many of you will find this controversial, but I will say it anyway, and maybe we can have a discussion. For the first time since I have been living abroad, I must say that I am ashamed to be an American.

I have been reading this thread with some interest. I was also bullied in school, and as a result, will not stand for any bullying of my daughters. Fortunately, the few times it has happened, they have been able to deal with it on their own with some adult advice. I think all the advice given here has been good: building the victim's confidence is important, and stopping the bullying at its source is even more important. Spider says: "My son has asked the other boy to leave him alone, sort of an agree to disagree kind of thing, and reportedly the other boy has said "No, I like it this way." This boy has clearly been given more than enough chances to shape up and change his behavior. The school administration has its head in the sand, which unfortunately is true of many school administrations. As a result, the message given to this boy is that he can get away with it. Knocking someone down is an assault. My advice to spider would be to tell this boy that the next time he lays a hand on his son he will call the police and press charges. Then do it.

Trail Pounder says: "If you're not with us, who are you with? Are you Pro-terrorist? Pro-Saddam? Pro-Ba'athist? Pro-Hamas? French? A frothing-at-the-mouth member of International ANSWER? A black and white, all or nothing partisan on the extreme left? If you're not with us, who are you with? " This is exactly what I'm talking about. I am not "with" George Bush on the way he has chosen to handle the war on terror. (In my view, many of his actions and policies have made Americans LESS safe, but that is a topic for another thread.) However, that does not make me, or any other patriotic American who may happen to disagree with his policies, any of the above.

NJ says: " It seems like more than a "choice of words" issue, more likely those are the terms in which the man thinks. " I agree, in fact, even though it was a joke, I think it is a reflection of the black-or-white, all-or-nothing terms in which Bush and his administration think. Bush has said (I'm paraphrasing) that "If you are not with us in the war on terrorism (as he defines it) you are against us." He and his administration have pretty consistently tried to imply that any political opposition in "wartime" is unpatriotic. It's not too hard to see how an attitude like this could lead to a lame joke about a specific political opponent as "terrorists." gsmom

Congratulations! Isn't it wonderful how children respond respond to interest and generosity from the adults in their lives.

Your question is not really that vague. You want to know what the public's perception was before and after the Supreme Court's decision in the Dale case. Start with the Dale case. You can read it online - go to Findlaw. The Supreme Court did not ban gays from the Boy Scouts. Then look at newspaper and other media reports about BSA and scouting both before and after the case was decided. You can also look at forums, blogs, etc. You are not so much interested in whether the newspaper and media reports accurately stated the BSA's position, but what the public's perception was, as reflected in the media. You need to analyze the news reports to see how BSA and scouting is characterized, and how that may or may not have changed over time. You can also search for articles discussing this issue and doing the analysis, and see whether these articles support your own analysis. This can be discussed in your paper. There is a lot of material out there. Good luck! gsmom

FOG: While taxation without representation may have been one issue in the Revolution, a fundamental concept underlying our Constitution is due process. Here is the Fifth Amendment from the Bill of Rights: "Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." If the Guantanamo prisoners were taken in combat, they should be classified as POWs, subject to the Geneva Convention, and returned at the cessation of hostilities. That occurred once the Taliban were defeated and Hamid Karzai installed as President. We make no claim that we occupy Afghanistan like we do Iraq. If they are not POWs, they should be afforded minimum due process. This will not compromise our security if handled properly. What are we afraid of? We would show the world that we adhere to our fundamental values even in the worst of circumstances. We treat our worst enemies with the same fairness as we do our own citizens. World opinion is important, and I'm not talking about the French. We invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam to promote democracy in the Middle East. How can we promote democracy to others if we aren't prepared to make the difficult choices ourselves?

Our government has declared the Guantanamo prisoners to be "enemy combatants", NOT prisoners of war subject to the Geneva convention. Here is an excerpt from the opinion: "Gherebi alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Third Geneva Convention arising out of his involuntary detention at Guantnamo, a naval base "under the exclusive and complete jurisdiction of the respondents," and he further claimed that, "Respondents have characterized Gherebi as an `unlawful combatant, and have denied him status as a prisoner of war, have denied him rights under the United States Constitution, have denied him access to the United States courts," and have denied him access to legal counsel." First of all, it is always possible that the innocent have been swept up with the guilty. A hearing before a tribunal would help to resolve that. However, for the sake of argument, lets assume they are all guilty of terrorism. We, and our democracy, are supposed to be better than they are. We should never compromise our fundamental American values. These prisoners should be provided with the bare minimum our Constitution provides: notice of the reason for imprisonment and an opportunity to be heard on that issue.

I believe our treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo is shameful. They are being held "on suspicion" of terrorism indefinitely, with no notice of any charges against them, and no ability to challenge their status in any tribunal. Our country was founded on the notion of "due process". Due process means notice of charges against you, and the opportunity to be heard. Due process is not only a fundamental American value, it is what every human being is entitled to. Bush's refusal to extend these fundamental rights to these people makes us hypocrites when we try to promote our democracy abroad.

Actually, it wasn't Lincoln that came up with the idea. It was the Founding Fathers: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the death penalty is a deterrent, and that it is an appropriate punishment for a heinous crime. How do you address the fact (and it is a fact) that innocent people have been executed because our system is imperfect, and can never be made perfect. Isn't it better to let a guilty man live (in prison of course) than to execute the innocent?

"Supposition #1: The death penalty is wrong because a "civilized society" should never kill criminals. Supposition #2: The death penalty is wrong because the government could inadvertently kill an innocent man. I disagree with Supposition #1. I believe a "civilized society" has an obligation to protect its citizenry. The death penalty sends a message to those who would contemplate murder, and prevents convicted murders from repeating their crime. I understand the risk associated with Supposition #2. I believe we can trust our government to take this risk seriously. Furthermore, as long as we live in the world we live in, where men (and women) are so willing and able to rob, beat, rape, and murder for their amusement and gain, we need to take that risk. " I believe a civilized society can protect itself by locking someone up for life. Studies have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. Having said that, however, I think that Supposition 2 offers the strongest argument against the death penalty. We have in fact put to death innocent people. This is simply unacceptable. Even if you trusted that all prosecutors and police do the right thing all the time (and not all of them do), the system is imperfect. Innocent people have been and will be convicted. The death penalty is irreversible. Life in prison is not.

"If the US is serious about driving down health care costs, outlaw insurance and socialized medicine! Make everyone an educated consumer!" The problem with making everyone buy their own health care is that treatment for the catastrophic illness is beyond the means of the ordinary individual or family. For example, my first child was born with congenital heart defects. The open heart surgery took 9 hours, and her care for the 10 months she lived cost $100,000. She had a very rare defect, and died from complications of surgery. The insurance paid for her care. I don't believe anyone in this forum would have denied her this care simply because my family could'nt afford it. NO family should be denied access to care when it is really necessary. The challenge our government has is to figure out how to make sure that everyone who needs it gets appropriate care. This may be a combination of "socialized medicine", insurance, and family contributions. But something does need to be done. gsmom

I moved from the US, where I had world-class health care provided by my employer, to the UK where I (and my family) are covered by the NHS (National Health Service). The NHS has its problems, to be sure. However, it covers EVERY citizen and non-citizen living here legally. The British are justifiably proud of this. In the US you have a wide disparity between those who are employed with health insurance (and by the way, many of the working poor have no insurance) and those with no insurance. Purchasing insurance privately is prohibitively expensive for all but the very affluent. Paying out of pocket is for the wealthy. There are currently about FORTY MILLION in the US without health care. I think this is unacceptable. The issue is not whether national health care is socialist or whatever. The real issue is how do we ensure that ALL US citizens (and legal residents) have health care. gsmom

I believe it was the Red Cross that took donations that were supposed to be allocated to victims of 9/11 and decided to use some of the money for other purposes. A public outcry forced them to abandon that plan. I'm not aware that the United Way was involved in any such situation.

It is clear if you look at the original post that there is no question that this boy was assaulted: 1. there was physical injury - the boy's mouth was cut. 2. There was a witness - another scout. 3. The boy scout leader admitted his misconduct to the mother at the time. I don't believe a leader would apologize for something he didn't do. It sounds like the response from the leader's "higher ups" has been wholly inadequate. They have been given more than enough time to do the right thing in accordance with established policies as have been described here. I am not involved in Boy Scouts, and I can't speak to official policies. As a mother, however, I think enough damage has been done. I would take the boy out of this leader's troop whether or not any legal action is taken against the leader. Just my 2 cents. Gsmom

What is "Father Abraham"? Why is it controversial?

Hi CMinor, I don't know where your council got this information, but they are seriously misinformed. Studio 2b is IN ADDITION TO and does NOT REPLACE the GS program currently in place. You can choose to ignore Studio 2b altogether if that is what your girls want. I have mixed feelings about Studio 2B. Some of it looks interesting, like the stuff about careers. Some of it looks so far afield from Girl Scouts you wonder why it was included. As long as it is only an option, which the girls can accept or reject, I'm not too worried. I've been a Brownie leader for 1 year now overseas. My girls bridge to Juniors this year. Studio 2b is not even close to being on their radar, in fact they are excited about being able to do badges for activities they have been involved in. I really don't see this disappearing any time soon. gsmom

kwc: Wow! What a story! I'm glad everyone was safe. I have always been fascinated by the weather and how things like tornadoes and hurricanes work. Maybe this will spark a lifelong interest for your son. Dsteele: I'm a lawyer! (see my original post on this thread). I haven't practiced for many years; I wanted a more 9-to-5 life (so I could have kids and a life outside of work) than a practicing lawyer could have. (You may now commence the lawyer jokes, but not cheap ones!). gsmom

How tragic! I don't have resources in mind at the moment, but I have some thoughts based on my own experiences with death in my family. Be as honest as you can with the children about what happened. The way you present the information will depend on their age and maturity. Allow the children to express their feelings. Have the children express their condolences to the family of the leader. This can take the form of poetry, drawings, or any form the children are comfortable with. Encourage them to think of a particularly happy or fun moment they had with this leader, and how the leader made a difference in their lives. The family will treasure such expressions for years to come. Encourage the children's parents to give the children the option of attending the funeral or memorial service. Communication with the children's parents is essential. Let them know the facts, and your plans for helping the children deal with this. gsmom

Since moving to the UK last summer: a full time mom (or mum as they say here). Before that, a legal editor at a publishing company in New York City. If I turn on the Wayback Machine: I've been a waitress, hotel chambermaid, clerk, contracts administrator and practicing lawyer. I'm now the leader for my third grade daughter's Brownie troop. This is my first contact with Scouting since I was a Girl Scout myself.

Hi Midnight, I am a Brownie leader. The antics these women engaged in as counselors when you were a kid should have gotten them fired back then. As you said, they violate any number of rules. The situation you describe as having happened over the "last few summers" is far more serious. GS does have a written policy regarding sexual orientation, it is basically a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Advocating any sexual preference is inappropriate and not permitted. However, enouraging experimentation and making themselves available (even outside of camp) goes beyond advocacy. What you describe sounds like child abuse and is a CRIME. Old Grey Eagle is giving you good advice. Get as much detail as you can in the form of witnesses, dates and specific behavior observed. Point out to the council that an abused child could go to the police, and that once that happened, matters would be out of their control. I think you will get results. Good luck.

Can I make a suggestion from the female perspective? Dying hair is a chemical process. Asking this boy to re-dye his hair can have bad consequences for the hair color and could cause damage to his hair. Why not ask him if he wants to wear a wig for one or two pictures (maybe in a back room) "for posterity" and let him be himself for the ceremony. I wore a wig during cancer treatments and with a good wig no-one will know the difference. If you men think this is ridiculous, I'm sure you will say so! (and I won't take offense) gsmom

Scoutdlr You said "I realize tobacco is an addictive drug...what I don't understand is why you keep buying them if you want to quit. Does someone handcuff you and drag you to the store?" I am an ex smoker, so I can answer your question from experience. The nature of an addiction is that you can't "just say no." You go to the store and buy cigarettes because you have an irresistible physiological craving for them. I quit for good (after stopping and starting up again for many years) when my fiance (now my husband) told me we wouldn't get married unless I quit. That was a powerful motivation that finally overcame the craving. Most smokers need a strong motivation AND some kind of assistance to quit. Ditto for alchoholics and drug addicts. gsmom

I have been following this discussion about the no-smoking rules for a while. I just realized that Ryon, the poster who raised this issue, is a 14-year-old boy! This puts this whole discussion in an entirely different light. The adults in this boy's troop are obviously incapable of policing themselves. I find this to be shocking. The onus should not be put on a fourteen-year-old boy to tell the adults to stop smoking! As someone who has had cancer (although not lung cancer, and now in remission), I strongly disagree with Ed Mori when he says "There are many more things that are more important than worrying about if a Scout sees an adult smoking." I can personally attest to the effects of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, not to mention the emotional stress experienced by my family. If Ryon has not been successful in getting the adults to behave like adults, he should be advised to have his parents step in and enforce the rules. gsmom