Zahnada

I'm afraid I don't have anything in my car right now. But I do know the other ways that scouting creeps into my life. Is there anyone else out there who can't bear to go on any sort of trip without a pocket knife? Does anyone else carry a bandanna all day in their pocket? Does anyone else have to have a raincoat when you leave on a trip regardless of what the weather is suppose to be?

 

Man, that "Be Prepared" stuff really sticks with you after awhile.

I've looked at resumes today. You know what so many boys have under the heading of "Leadership"? I've seen tour guides as leadership positions. I've seen honor roll students as leaders because "We set the example for the school." I've seen secretaries of many clubs that only have half a dozen members pass as leadership. I don't mean to belittle these tasks, but none compares to organizing events for six months for 50 boys.

 

Leadership is a beautiful part of BSA. It is the best thing we can offer boys. Many boys will have difficulty finding responsibility in other places.

 

I love the BSA method of slowly building a boy into a leader too. I love watching their confidence grow over the years as the learn that they can be in control. They can actually make some decisions and people will respect those decisions. I love Boy Scouts.

 

That's why I love the topic of JLT and JLTC. It is fundamental to scouting and it really separates us from any other group out there.

Well, I have to admire the creativity and resourcefulness of the scout. I'm kind of glad to see that there are no bids for him though.

 

I'd like to meet this boy. What does everyone think. Is he a "slacker" who just didn't want to work for the money? Or is he industrious and not afraid to try new methods for fundraising?

 

My gut tells me that this boy may have a creative side that could be effectively channelled into other troop activities. He may even have some good fundraiser ideas for his troop. Breaking the rules doesn't always call for discipline. I'm thinking of Sid from "Toy Story." He's the one who mutilated his toys. While there are ethical problems with that if the toys are alive, I have to admive Sid's engineering capabilities and creativity. He just had a different imagination than Andy.

I think the JASM should act as a sort of liason between the youth and the adults. It's a great position to be in (not to mention very difficult). You're more experienced, but you're also still on the same level with many boys. This is kind of an unofficial duty in my opinion, but very important. I often see the JASM as the person who defends the SPL to the adults and makes sure that boys lead. You're the behind the scenes kind of guy.

 

Also, I like the suggestions about mentoring Life scouts. It's a wonderful position because it's so loosely defined. I've seen JASMs serve as a recruiter and mentor figure for new scouts. I've seen them as mentors for SPLs and PLs. I've seen them as mentors for SMs. I see them as a Program Staff where they set up activities for the troop to make sure that the other leaders are interacting with the boys. I've seen JASMs as the Head Instructors for classes where they demonstrate a model class and teach other scouts how to teach.

 

I've also seen JASMs become useless and sit in the back and become too "cool" for troop meetings. I've seen them walk around as "enforcers" where they look for boys to yell at. I've seen them become the screw-offs in classes. I've seen them be the ones to bring pornography and tobacco on outings.

 

I don't know what their official job is, but as long as the JASM is enthusiastic, they can serve as a fundamental piece of a troop. Take initiative. Good luck.

It's tough to think of just one thing to change. There are so many little things I'd like to change.

 

Really I'd like to just echo some of the other comments. I would use magical powers to give all adult leaders faith in the boys. I have seen great boys from the "tweener" age of 18-21 be chased out of the troop by adults who still wouldn't not listen to their views. I considered some of these boys much more experienced, capable, and knowledgable than these adults, but the adults wouldn't listen to them. They basically chased the best young adult leaders out of the troop. Pity. I think we need more for the "Tweeners" to do because they are the best leaders. They bridge the gap between adults and youth and while the youth accept that, adults have difficulty believing that someone younger than 30 may know what they're doing.

 

(Yay for rants!!!)

It's a tough line to draw on skits these days. My all-time favorite skit is "Stab-Die." It's been outlawed in my council as too violent. It is a very funny skit and the name really implies too much about it.

 

I have never found something nature (like animal urination) to be offensive. I think a rule can be made against sexual references, swearing, and inappropriate amounts of urine and excrement. But to splash a leader in the face with a cup of water does not offend me and I doubt it will warp a boy's mind.

Ok, the link didn't work. Another great example of my computer ignorance. Here's the article:

 

Are they torturing captured al Qaeda thug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? A report in a moment, but first the Talking Points Memo. Blood money in Iraq.

 

The Factor has been investigating just who is profiting by having Saddam Hussein in power. And here's what we found out for you.

 

Russia profits the most. Saddam owes Moscow billions for arms and supplies and is paying the debt off by sending the Putin government oil well below market prices. The Russians then turn around selling the oil, making huge profits.

 

Saddam has also given Russia contracts to explore for oil on Iraqi soil. Those could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars more.

 

So no way Russia wants Saddam out.

 

France sells Iraq just about everything and gets hard currency from Saddam in return. This is done under the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, which is a complete farce.

 

Iraq buys whatever it wants with oil money. The U.N. looks the other way. Some experts believe U.N. supervisors have been bribed by Saddam but The Factor has been unable to confirm that.

 

France also has signed oil exploration contracts with Saddam, although they are not nearly as lucrative as Russia's.

 

British and U.S. oil companies are still buying Iraqi oil through middle men in Jordan and Syria. America buys tons of oil that originates in Iraq, money that goes right to Saddam's military.

 

So this is embarrassing and the Bush Administration owes us an explanation, as does Prime Minister Blair.

 

The good news is that Mr. Bush has no vested interest in removing Saddam, other than the danger angle. American oil companies are getting Iraqi oil from Arab middle men fairly cheap, and this system benefits the U.S. economy.

 

So it's logical to assume that if Saddam did not pose a changer to us, the president would have no reason to push him out.

 

Finally, the Germans have sold billions in arms to Iraq and U.S. intelligence believes that country will be embarrassed when those deadly weapons are uncovered. Thus Germany does not want USA making that discovery.

 

So the next time somebody tells you that America should make a decision about military action against Saddam with the world's approval, you can read them this Talking Points Memo.

 

Our allies are making billions off Saddam. Those billions mean a lot more to them than American lives do. And that is the cold heart truth of the international situation.

 

 

This was written by Bill O'Reilly

Well, today France, Germany, and Russia have blocked a UN resolution to use force in Iraq. This brings us back to earlier topics in this thread. Below is a Fox News piece that really articulates the resistance those three countries have to the use of force in Iraq. ASM1 tried to explain it in earlier posts, but I think this is a much easier read.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80187,00.html

 

 

About the "quiz,"

 

As I'm sure all of you know, it's very difficult to trace the origins of a string of forwarded e-mails. I would be the first to shout out, "THIS CAME FROM AN E-MAIL AND NOT THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UN!!" So I know that validity is always an issue.

 

I do know that it comes from Stanford University (some student-faculty collaboration I think, but am not sure). That makes if fairly reputable in my mind. I have also received several e-mails that challenge the answers. However, the challenges are often concerning the wording of the questions that are leading to certain answers. And some of the answers aren't the whole answer.

 

On the whole though, I haven't heard anything that states that "the quiz" contains any false information. I haven't looked too hard though.

 

If nothing else, this does represent the opposing view to war and can be debated and disproved on that premise. These are issues that anti-war people bring up so it's foolish to say, "This came from the internet and therefore has no merit." If you can pick apart the content of the quiz or support the content of the quiz, then it would really help any argument for or against the war.

I received this in an e-mail today. I thought it was really interesting. I don't have any source citations to back any of it up, but it might generate some good discussion.

 

Take the War-on-Iraq IQ Test

 

Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

 

 

1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?

A: 6%

 

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?

A: 50%

 

3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?

A: Saudi Arabia

 

4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?

A: Iraq

 

5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?

A: $900+ billion

 

6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?

A: 50%

 

7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the UN?

A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

 

8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?

A: 86 million

 

9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?

A: Since the early 1980's.

 

10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own?

A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.

 

11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran?

A: No

 

12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988?

A: 5,000

 

13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?

A: 0

 

14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?

A: 17million.

 

15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack?

A: No

 

16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?

A: 35,000

 

17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War ?

A: 0

 

18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front?

A: 6,000

 

19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War?

A: 40 tons

 

20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994?

A: 700%

 

21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991?

A: 80%

 

22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self defense?

A: No

 

23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?

A: No

 

24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3?

A: 10,000

 

25. Q: What percentage of these will be children?

A:Over 50%

 

26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air stri! kes on Iraq?

A: 11 years

 

27. Q: Were the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?

A: No

 

28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?

A: 20 million

 

29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports?

A: 12 years

 

30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?

A: 38

 

31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?

A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)

 

32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions?

A: 1.5 million

 

33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997?

A: 750,000

 

34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?

A: No

 

35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998 ?

A: 300

 

36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?

A: 5

 

37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?

A: Yes

 

38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history."

A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

 

39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?

A: 90%

 

40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in ?

A: Yes

 

41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?

A: Over 65

 

42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?

A: 30+

 

44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?

A: 8

 

45. Q: How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got?

A: 0

 

46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got?

A: Over 10,000

 

47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?

A: The US

 

48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?

A: Over 400

 

50. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?

A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

 

cmcmullen,

 

I have to disagree with you and that's why I started this thread. I do not believe that BSA's policy is clear. The beliefs of many of the people behind the policy (such as yourself) are very clear, but the actual policy leaves itself open to much interpretation. This is as I understand it at least. These are some basic questions that should be answered.

 

My main questions are distinguishing between a gay man's actions and his beliefs. If he's attracted to members of the same sex, this could be interpreted as being gay. But if he doesn't follow those impulses, is he still leading an "immoral" life?

 

As to the questions about members and nonmembers falling under these restrictions, it seems like this may be a violation of nondiscriminating hiring policies. That was my first impression. But if they are required to be members, as Bob White indicates, then that loophole seems to be solved. I was just curious about what would happen if a BSA employee came out of the closet. If they weren't a member, it could potentially be unconstitutional hiring practices.

 

Anyway, the point is that these questions exist and will eventually surface in real life situations. I don't see a written answer for these questions or even something that could be interpreted into an answer (if I'm wrong, by all means point me in the right direction).

 

Well, this post has turned into more of a speech than a comment. To sum up, I don't feel that the BSA policy is clear and the vagueness of the entire issue may create problems.

Now, any topic on a forum will undoubtedly stray eventually. But this is really something else. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. Often topics evolve into other intelligent and useful conversation, but this has just diminished into ramblings and insults.

 

In an attempt to bring the conversation back around, does anyone think that war with Iraq is avoidable? ASM1 I think would argue "no." And many here would say that it is avoidable. But should we avoid it?

Get ready for a nice chunk of ignorance! (I have very little faith in the history I'm about to utter so feel free to correct me)

 

Didn't many of the Arab nations try to overthrow the Israelis? Wasn't it the 6 day war? I think there were many and they all failed. I know that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were trying hard to dislodge the Israelis.

 

Anyway, the only way to make the world happy would be for the United States and Europe to completely leave the Middle East. Of course that would leave Israel vulnerable, not to mention the oil issue. Of course, then the world would complain that the US isn't doing their job of policing the world and keeping people like Saddam out of Kuwait. It's a no win situation for the US. Somebody will always hate us.

 

As for Israel and Palestine, nothing will solve that anytime soon. Maybe if aliens attacked earth and all nations had to team up (Independence Day) could there be peace. I think the US should temporarily remove everyone from Israel. Then nuke the whole place. Then they can fight over it.

kwc57,

 

This is exactly why I ask these questions. I really want to know where the lines are drawn. It is my perception that BSA is walking a very thin line on the whole issue and it's only a matter of time before someone pushes them. I'm not trying to start up debates or argue with people. I'm finding out how broad the policy is and how broad are people's opinions of the issue.

 

I'm kind of torn on the nature vs nurture issue. If it is a socially constructed thing, then a person can easily decide to not be gay. Are they then allowed back in despite how "avowed" they might have been?

 

What if it's nature and a person was only confused about their sexuality in the past? I find these interesting questions.

 

 

And sst3rd,

 

Thank you for expressing your views on this topic. You managed to display your feelings in a very brief manner. I hereby free you of any obligation to respond to this thread or read these posts anymore. You don't have to worry. This issue won't bother you anymore. (as long as you don't look)

I realize the topic of gays in scouting has practically been beaten to death in this forum. Neither side is really giving any ground. My only reason for starting this topic is so that I can better understand the issue and the actual policy of the matter.

 

Terms like "avowed" and "gay" are actually very vague and not well defined by the BSA rules as I understand. So I want to ask some hypothetical and direct questions to see where the boundaries of these rules are.

 

Does the policy apply only to adult leaders or to anyone associated with BSA? What about non-volunteer members of BSA?

 

If an adult leader avows that he has been attracted to members of the same sex, but doesn't avow that he's gay, can one be used to assume the other? Is that reason enough for him to be forced to leave BSA?

 

What about gay men who have never engaged in same sex, sexual activity? Do they fall under the restriction? It seems as if their life style isn't any worse than a straight person who abstains from sex.

 

Where do bisexuals fall into this argument? Can a happily married bisexual man who avows that he may have engaged in sexual activity with another man be removed?

 

What about the countless boys and adults out there who are questioning their sexuality? These rules seem to restrict their ability to talk with any member of scouting about the issues they personally face. I heard somewhere that 1/3 of teen suicides are because of sexual orientation confusion and guilt. It seems wrong to sweep these issues under the carpet, but the word "gay" is quickly becoming taboo in scouts.

 

What if a very open and avowed gay man becomes straight? Could Dale walk up to a troop and say, "It's ok, I'm straight now. Will you let me in?"

 

Many of these questions probably have easy and explicitly stated answers. I just find sexuality a very confusing and complicated topic and we all know that there are exceptions to every rule. I just don't know how large this umbrella rule is.

I don't want to see any more comparisons between Hitler and anyone. I've seen Bush compared to Hitler and Saddam compared to Hitler. Such comparisons are ALWAYS faulty. Anyone can be compared to Hitler, but it never proves anything.

 

"Gee, Hitler was a great motivator. And Ghandi was a great motivator. Ghandi is like Hitler."

 

The typical comparison to Nazis goes like this, "Person X has this trait, Hitler has that trait, Hitler was leader of the Nazis, Nazis are evil, Person X is evil." Where is the discussion? We all know that Hitler and Nazis are bad. There's only one Hitler.

 

I'm sorry if this strays from topic, but I feel that Hitler and what he did should stand alone in history. Let's not use him and everything he did as a means to categorize people as "good" or "evil." Hitler analogies always have a logical fallacy.

I would recommend a standard Leatherman. If you want to go cheap, you can buy imitational Leathermans for $10. Those pliers have infinite uses during a campout.

You should almost never take the press at face value. This goes for US media and foreign media. Anyone out there who blindly watches the press and makes opinions from its reporting are only being used as tools.

 

There is no such thing as an objective media. Personal ideologies of the reporters and of the editors will always creep into any story. It also shows their ideologies by which stories get published and which ones are ignored. Just one look at Fox News should be enough proof of some blatant bias in the press. Naturally, any form of media that is stationed in the United States is probably biased towards supporting the US (unless it's a medium that defines itself by being anti-US which only creates another bias).

 

What we all need to realize is that politicians and the press have a very significant relationship. Politicians provide stories and interviews which gives the press something to talk about. What is expected of the press, is that those stories are taken favorably. Bush would never walk out and say if this war is about oil because he knows there would be no way to put a positive slant on that. Since politicians play such a huge role in determining what's on the news, it's natural that they will present news that favors them. Therefore, almost any news contains some sort of bias from either the source or the reporter.

 

I know that many will counter my argument by stating the "watchdog" function of the press. Watergate is a great example of investigative reporting. But what happens if everything is picked apart and criticized and fully researched? Sources would then not want to be sources anymore and the press would lose even more information.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there's some massive conspiracy that the press and the government want to take over the world and are spreading vicious lies. Just never trust any press fully. Realize that there are market pressures and administrative pressures and government pressures on all news. And certainly don't base your opinions on the opinions given by newscasters.

 

So it wouldn't surprise me if there's tons of wrong, exagerated, or misleading information being spread by the American press or a foreign press. The sad part about being in any type of society that's run by others is that we will never know the entire story.

Never get in a land war in Asia. This is a lesson that over 300,000 Chinese soldiers couldn't teach the United States in the 1950s. I think the point was made in Vietnam though.

 

Where's General Ridgway when you need him?

ASM1,

 

You've grabbed my interest. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not well-informed in many areas of politics.

 

So what are these "facts" that you have that say we'll be up against French, German, and Russian troops if we enter Iraq? I know they don't support the war for numerous reasons. But I said they weren't going to take up arms in defense of Iraq. And I'm still waiting for your evidence to the contrary.

ASM1,

 

Regardless of what France, Germany, and Russia think about the war and their relations with Iraq, I seriously doubt they would offer Iraq any military support during a conflict. China is different though. While the world still is uncertain of what China would do, the threat is there that they would enter a war if we attacked North Korea. Are you seriously stating that you think that if the US went into Iraq, we would be up against French, German, and Russian troops? Do you think we'd even be up against French, German, or Russian arms?

 

If we fight Iraq, they will stand almost entirely alone. They may have some Al Queda or Palestinian support, but I don't see any standing army in support of Iraq. However, I do see the potential of such an army standing with North Korea.

It's definitely a combination of answers. Many of the choices factor in to ignoring North Korea. I personally threw my vote for the China connection because I feel that's the most important. China makes a ground war impossible (we saw that during the Korean War) and China has strong economic connections to the US. China is a friend we wouldn't want as an enemy.

 

Who is Iraq's friend? Nobody as big or as powerful as China. The public seems against Asian ground wars after previous experience too.

ASM1,

 

Disagreement fuels discussion. Discussion can create change. I'm glad you're here and I'm glad you're expressing your views in such a strong way. Where would the conversation be if everyone agreed?

 

I feel that this is the wrong war, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy (quote taken from Omar Bradley concerning the Korean War. Kind of ironic). No evidence has been presented that has convinced me that we need a war.

I'm asking this question because I'm genuinely curious of what the consequences would have been in this hypothetical situation.

 

What would you personally have done if the BSA had fought the Dale case all the way to the Supreme Court, but they had lost? In other words, if BSA still tried to represent the scouting tradition that many in this forum support, but were unable to, what course of action would you take?

I don't know if this is in line with BSA policy or not, but my personal belief about rank and merit badges is that their purpose is to offer a tangible of a boy's achievements in scouting. Therefore, they represent what was learned but should not become what was learned. A fine line yes, but I shall attempt to walk it.

 

When I see a boy with a First Class Scout badge, I make assumptions about him. I assume that he knows basic scout skills (pioneering, orienteering, cooking, etc). I assume that he's also been on several scout outings and has probably been camping and backpacking. I do not assume that he was dragged along to this rank by a parent who quickly signed off requirements regardless of whether he earned it or not.

 

I have similar assumptions about boys wearing all the different ranks. And my assumptions about Eagle Scouts are too long and too many to contain within this post.

 

So therefore, I have no problem with a troop arranging its meetings around scout skills. A knot-tying class is a great meeting plan and then a week later the boy should get the requirement as long as he learned the skill. A meeting on how to be prepared for emergencies can get several requirements signed off on Emergency Preparedness merit badge. No problem.

 

Such meeting orientations are around the skill and not the requirement. While in the books there is no difference, to me there is a huge difference between getting a skill or a knowledge signed off and getting a requirement signed off. One takes more work than the other and one will be remembered longer than the other.

 

When Boy Scouts turns away from the skills and becomes only a means to satisfy requirements to obtain the coveted Eagle, the program is cheapened and sacrificed. The result is to turn scouts into school. Scouts is a program of application. School is a program of theories and ideas. In school, students know that they do not need the information they learn, so they retain it just long enough to pass the final exam and then all is forgotten. This often happens in scouts when the goal of the troop is rank advancement. Merit badges and ranks can quickly become a series of "repeat after me" questions, but with no retention. An amount of competition is then pumped into the program between youth who feel that being a Life Scout makes them more of a person than being Second Class. They don't worry about the skills, just the rank.

 

I think that the 7 years from age 11-18 is more than enough time to earn the rank of Eagle. And I also feel that it should take every one of those 7 years if the rank is to be appreciated by the boy. After 7 years, the boy will know that he earned it.

 

From my years in troops and by working on JLTC, I have seen many things. I have seen Eagles at the age of 14 who can't tie a bowline. I have seen Eagles become complacent once they obtain their rank and slowly fade away. They had nothing left to prove because they felt they had achieved scouting's only goal.

 

I was actually on the path to a fairly early Eagle. I was Life after a few years. I was a step away from Eagle. That step ended up taking over 3 years as I was almost eternally a Life scout. Within those 3 years, I learned more from scouting than from all my time before and throughout Cubs. Basically, those 3 years where I went no where in rank were my most active in scouts because everything had a purpose outside of Eagle. I actually relearned everything I learned on my way to Life because I was a Life scout who couldn't cook, tie knots, or use a compass.

 

To me, rank advancement is inconsequential if it means that no learning is taking place. Stretch scouting out as long as possible for your boys.