Zahnada

Hi Eamonn, Nope, I haven't taken 21st Century. Good info though and thanks for the heads up. But you haven't disillusioned me yet! I just need to reconsider. I still really like the idea of boys training adults in a leadership setting. I think the implicit messages from the training would be invaluable. And the boy staff would gain so much from the experience. One problem I have with Woodbadge is that it often becomes an "Adults Only" club despite the fact that one of its purposes is to aid a youth program. I would like for adults to see what boys can actually do when th

I would love to see a boy-staffed Woodbadge Course. Sure, have as many adults on staff as you would for a standard JLTC, but the rest of the staff should be youth. Youth led classes, youth guided patrols, youth set-up activities. And adults in the patrols. Personally, I think this would be a slap in the face for many adults. It might open a few of their eyes. Some would be insulted by the prospect and would stop paying attention at first, but I have a feeling they would come around by the end of the course. Just from my experience with JLTC, I know the boys are up to the challenge. H

Sorry, I just reread my post and realized that I stated something wrong. I made it sound like college students themselves are people who often vote. What I meant was that college graduates (or higher educated people) are the ones more likely to vote. College students on the other hand are one of the worst voting demographics in the country. Sorry for the confusion. So to restate my argument, the higher educated are more likely to vote. With the strong partisan split in voting behavior and elected officials, I don't believe that a somewhat liberal academic community is making a huge diffe

"Can a kid even get a balanced education today? Where can a student go where there's no Che Guevera posters and gray-haired professors sporting pony tails?" I think if a kid is using political ideology as a criteria for selecting a university then it won't be too difficult to find one. The main example that comes to mind is BYU, but I've heard the liberal bias is not as strong as most people think. But this supposed liberal bias has been around for a long time. But look at the country as it is. We have a Republican President and the Republicans own Congress. Just by looking at that

"Terrorists who are greatly comforted by Americans who choose this time to attack their elected government with greater furvor than they defend it against its enemies." Whoaa! I'm not sure but have the Democrats, or at least anyone who doesn't support President Bush, just been labelled as supporters of terrorism?

"I know of at least two high ranking wanted terrorists that have been captured in Iraq since the fall of Bagdad. A training camp was also found that had a Boeing 747 set up to train for highjacking scenarios." Let's not forget how many terrorists have been captured in the United States during the last 2.5 years. And the terrorists involved with September 11 learned to fly in America. If having terrorists in a country is a criteria for invasion, we'll have to attack Oregon and Florida too. There still is no firm evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The terrorists weren't

"The idea of looking for scientific evidence as to whether homosexuality is a choice, to me, is like looking for scientific evidence that squares can have five sides. Its logically impossible." You need to look at all sides of the argument first. There are some who believe being gay is a choice and others believe it isn't a choice. My point was that there has been no firm proof to back up either side. "If someone chooses to have sex with people of the same sex, they must want to do so. And if they want to have sex with members of the same sex, they must already be homosexual. There

I just had a great conversation with my old Scoutmaster last night. We caught up and talked about old stories from the troop of old. Do you keep in touch with anyone from your old troop? Are there any lifelong friends you made through scouting? For me, the personal side of scouting made it worthwhile to come to meetings and outings. I had some great friends there. I still keep in touch with a few of them regularly. The conversation always turns to our memories of the troop.

Eamonn, Excellent points. I would never want to change your views on morality and I'm very glad to see that you have logically worked through your moral stances. I guess the real issue isn't what we consider moral, but whose definition of morality should the BSA use when creating membership policies? (this is more of a rhetorical question since I believe the forum has tried to answer it several times already. No sense in another 10 page thread that goes nowhere). -yis

Eamonn, Just so all sides of this argument can be honest with each other, I would like to say that there is no firm proof that homosexuality is either an innate trait or a chosen one. I know scientists have offered "proof" that it is one or the other, and while I don't think it's necessary to cite every example, needless to say nothing has been conclusive. But I would like to answer some of your questions. A person may not come out of the womb, or be born, as a homosexual. But they won't come out as a heterosexual either. I think this was the point Deloe was making. A newborn baby h

In defense of Bob White (who thought I would ever say that?), I would like to make a few semantic statements. Although I haven't spoken to anyone from Old Baldy Council or any of the judges or lawyers involved I therefore do not know anything about this case to be "true", but I'll take all of Merlyn's posts at face value and believe him. So if Old Baldy did take government money, then Bob White made a claim that was untrue. It was a mistake, an error, a misinformed statement. But a lie? To me, a lie is intentional. A lie is when you honestly know the truth, but choose to say something differen

TrailPounder, Are your comments directed at me? I never attempted to claim that other news organizations aren't biased. In fact, the point of my original argument is that every news organization or individual is biased and the coverage is affected accordingly. And I certainly never said that liberals are smarter than conservatives. I only assume those comments are directed at me because you reference my "mindless robot" comment, but you take it completely out of context. Who did I say was the mindless robot? Not liberals or conservatives. I'm saying that everyone but yourself ("yours

firstpusk, I'm not clear on what point of mine you're arguing against, but I will try to respond. Please tell me if I'm going in the wrong direction. Personally, I find Fox News to be the most blatantly biased and uncivil coverage and reporting. A good reporter will create dialogue between the sides, but Fox inhibits that dialogue by promoting the "I'm right, you're wrong and I'm going to talk over you to prove it" attitude. (side note: a very similar attitude presents itself in this forum frequently). But all of this has little to do with my argument. I'm saying that biased co

Huh?

To each his own. It is my opinion that ideology creates viewing behavior instead of viewing behavior creating ideology. Then does it matter what slant people like with their news? We all seem to have some "third-person effect" where we think, "Watching this biased news doesn't affect me, but it's inaccurately shaping the opinions of everyone else!" That's probably not the case. Any Democrat watching Fox News will spit at the biased nature of the coverage and cry out that Fox is deceiving the world. They then won't believe anything Fox says. But they wouldn't believe that side of the story

"If people critisize Jesse Jackson, than they're a horrible racist; if someone critisizes homos, than must be a homophobe; nothing but worthless blather. " It's funny that this goes the other way too. If someone doesn't hate gays, they're a left-wing activist with an agenda to destroy the moral foundings of America. If someone criticizes President Bush or the War in Iraq, they're unpatriotic and unsupportive of our troops and only using the war to damage the President in an election year. Nothing but worthless blather.

"BORs do not "sign-off" on any requirements. They either unanimously approve the advancement or they site which requirement(s) still need to be completed and how completion will be measured in accordance with the BSA advancement policiesand procedures." I apologize for my use of terminology that may be considered misleading in regards to the actions and responsibilities of the Board of Reviews. My word choice was improper and I'm sorry for any confusion. "The BOR varifies that the advancement was earned according to the conditions of the requirements, as established by the BSA. They

Acco and Bob, Didn't we already have this discussion about active service? Well, I'll repeat my understanding of the rule for all who missed it. When a boy enters into a position of responsibility/leadership, the SPL and SM must explain to him what "active service" is. It is then their responsibility to assure that the boy serves actively. ie. "Why haven't you been at any meetings this month, James?" If it is determined that the boy cannot serve actively (he may have football practice every Wednesday night at 7), then the SPL or SM should discuss with him if there is any way for him

Trail Pounder said, "The Nazis killed 6 million Jews & 20 million Russians. Saddam tok videos of blindfolded prisoners being tossed from two story buildings, the taliban hung young mother by the neck from soccer goals. Our guards let us all down, but they didn't kill anyone, heck, they didn't even hurt anyone, they just acted very poorly and made a bunch of murdering terrorist scum play a little naked twister. They should be sent back to their trailer park with a dishonorable discharge and that's all." I'd just like to say that these were prisoners of war and not "murdering terrorist

TrailPounder, Personally, I prefer "Sink the Bismarck". I don't know if I spelled it right, but it's a good song. Of course, "Battle of New Orleans" is also a good song. -Z

This whole argument about whether or not the United States is hated by other countries has turned into a set of false dichotomies. When a country is as large and active as the United States, there will be many contradictory policies and actions. We need to take the bad with the good when considering our past and present. Then we can understand why the world loves and hates us. Revisionist history (such as claiming the US never tried to invade Canada or that we were completely innocent of aggression in that war) accomplishes nothing. Here are some contradictions that are true. America is s

Uncleguinea, Achilleez is correct. The United States did try to invade Canada during the War of 1812 and the attack was very unsuccessful. There were many British troops stationed along the Canadian border. With increased tensions between Britain and the US, some politicians felt that to attack these troops and conquer Canada would give the US prestige in the global community. The attack completely failed. Eventually, British troops even managed to burn down Washington DC. But, it was the US who attacked first militarily.

Well, my opinion has changed. Apparently there are thousands of pictures of various kinds of prisoner abuse. I would be inclined to blame the prison guards if these were just a few polaroids or a roll of film. But thousands of abuse pictures? If 7 people have been accused, then that's hundreds of pictures each. That's too much for me to believe. I tend to agree with others that these pictures were taken for a reason and that reason was supplied by higher officers.

Other countries aren't just willing to accept our money. They also love American culture. Look at the high foreign returns on Hollywood movies. Look at all the MacDonalds and KFC that are in other countries. I would say the world is in a love-hate relationship with the US. They love our money and culture. But we're also the world's scapegoat. We act regardless of public perception in the global sense. We make other countries feel small. We also exert our will over the world whenever we want. We get blamed for acting (ie Iraq) and blamed for inaction (ie Tibet or Rwanda). It's kind

I'm sorry to make an assumption about you, Rooster, but your last post seems to have answered my initial question indirectly. You attitude about "liberals" and their motivations leads me believe that if a Democratic president were in office and these events occured, you would also be using it as evidence to back criticism. I think you've proved my point. If the situations were changed, the Republican Party would be just as aggressive in finding fault. I'm not justifying the Democrats' actions. However, everyone should see their own biases within the partisan system. I have a feeling that