Zahnada

Going back to the Cable News topic (my apologies to all you wrestling fans), there was an interesting communication study done. Sadly, I read the study, but can't site it offhand, so you'll have to take my word. It makes sense though. Anyway, if there was a completely unbiased, balanced news agency... it would fail. Big time. People always believe their side is right. So, if you give balanced coverage to both sides, they would feel the opposing (or "wrong") side was getting too much. They would then feel the news was slanted. It's funny because the researchers produced a completely

Brent, do you consider Fox News to be fair and balanced? Don't worry, I'm not going to defend CNN, MSNBC, or any of the net work news. The personal views of the producers and the anchors will always influence the coverage. But what is your impression of Fox?

I HATE it when people use WWII arguments to attempt to prove a point. Why? Because it's simplistic and it's inaccurate. WWII was it's own moment in history. The leaders of WWII (Hitler, FDR, Churchill, Stalin) should also have their own place in history. It's easy to compare Saddam to Hitler. It's easy to compare President Bush to Hitler. BOTH COMPARISONS ARE INACCURATE. I feel WWII arguments don't pay proper respect to the current situation or to the situation surrounding the 1940s. Similarities between historical events certainly exist, but they will ALWAYS be outnumbered by the

"Scouts acting "Gay" is not funny to me. There is nothing funny about imitating those whose ranks are filled with pedophiles." I'm really surprised that this comment has been allowed to slide for this long with no one addressing it. I don't want to hijack the thread. But I do feel it is necessary to address the fact that the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is not a position stated by the BSA. It is also not a connection based on any scientific data or fact (actually there is strong evidence to just the contrary). If you feel skits involving homosexuality are inappropr

Lisabob and Beaver are completely right. I guess these is no good way to boil down politics into bite sized, non-partisan chunks. But what I would like to do is get the boys thinking on a larger scale. Think about the world and their place in it. Reflect on their duties as American citizens. The citizenship merit badges are a start, but once you finish the requirements... Hmmm... I feel a political, national and world awareness is important to our mission as scout leaders. I just don't see how to implement it. Just saying, "Well, they'll learn all they need to learn from the merit

It bothers me that for the most powerful nation in the world, our youth are vastly unaware of the global and even national situation. Maybe scouting isn't the proper forum for such discussion, but the "Duty to Country" aspect seems like it should be. I mean, what is "Duty to Country"? Is it blindly saluting the flag and reciting the pledge? Boy Scouts have always supported our troops. But for that support to be real, they should understand what our troops are fighting for. But how do we explain that when half the country disagrees over what the troops are fighting for? I just know

I was wondering, with the current crisis in the Middle East, the War on Terror, and the conflict in Iraq, do any of you make efforts to educate your scouts on global issues during meetings? Since the US is so crucial to the state of the world, knowing about these conflicts seems to be an inherent part of "duty to country." Afterall, these scouts we train and teach today may soon be the ones fighting these wars. I also like the thought of the youth of this country actually being knowledgable of world events. I'd like to be able to teach these things to the boys in my troop. But the p

"The victim feared for his saftey when the gun was pointed at him." That was really all the information I needed. At this point, the action goes beyond "boys will be boys" and into "this boy is trouble." I think it's safe to assume that the action was taken for the purpose of striking fear into his victim. This is just wrong and has no place in Boy Scouts. As Eamonn said, scouting is a "controlled risk." This boy obviously appears out of control (from what I've read) and has no place in scouting. I apologize if it previously appeared I was taking the assailant's side. I wanted

Very true, Lisabob. It'll be interesting to see who emerges for 2008. Right now, it's shaping up to be Hillary, but you never know. I don't think she'll have much of a chance though. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something very unlikeable about her.

Well, it's a good thing there wasn't a police officer nearby. Bringing such a "toy" or "weapon" on a scout outing is idiotic. However, I will continue to play a little Devil's Advocate here. The original question of the thread is "Behavior that warrents expulsion from troop?" What I am saying is that I do not have enough information to answer that original question. I cannot say if this behavior warrants expulsion because it leaves too many questions. If it were a BB gun being used, then there'd be no question. That boy would be gone. And I'll admit, I'm leaning to

Rooster, I have to agree. The Democratic Party is pure chaos right now. It's sad. In the last election, Bush was in position for Kerry to walk up and snatch the presidency from him. But the Democratic Party has lost touch with its voters. And it's even worse these days. Now, the only thing that appears to unite the Democrats is a mutual dislike of Republicans and Bush. The Republicans and the Bush administration have really divided this country. But the Democrats have done an astonding job of dividing themselves. So I don't believe Kennedy and Dean speak for the average Democr

Hey SR540Beaver, Don't get me wrong. I'm not justifying or defending the behavior. Airsoft guns, just like paintball guns, have no place on a scout outing. And most certainly, the things can put out an eye. But I did want to clear things up for the other readers that an airsoft gun is not the same as a pellet gun. I know when I originally read the first post, I thought it was describing a pellet gun. I flipped out. But when I reread "airsoft gun", suddenly, the scenerio became more believable (although definitely not excuseable). Having an understanding of the "weapon" just br

So, he pointed an "airsoft" pistol? From my knowledge of airsoft, it's basically a bb-gun that shoots soft, rubber pellets. The main use of the gun is to get teams together and shoot each other in some sort of capture the flag game. It's much like paintball except it hurts a lot less. So, to call this "a weapon" might be extreme. Don't get me wrong. An airsoft pistol has no place on a scout outing and this needs to be dealt with seriously. I just want everyone to realize that airsoft is not the same as an actual pellet gun. If it were an actual pellet gun, or if he pulled a kn

I think this was also a Churchill quote: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

Torveaux There are problems with comparing a handgun ban to other historical instances. During Prohibition, bootlegging became a profitable business because the demand for alcohol cut across all socio-economic levels. The poor, the rich, and the middle class were all willing to pay for it. With such high demand, the infamous bootleggers had incentive to provide a very high supply. This, in turn, kept prices profitable, but still reasonable for the average citizen. I don't see this kind of demand for handguns ever amounting to truckloads of handguns sweeping down the Canadian border. Guns

It feels like we're trapped in a classic prisoner's dilemma. Anyway, I feel my views on how to limit handguns requires more explanation. Sure, it won't change anyone's views on the matter, but when has that ever stopped us? For starters, banning handguns would be a long process that would require several decades. I doubt the government would go the route of saying, "Please turn in all your handguns for immediate destruction." As has been mentioned, this would leave the law abiding people defenseless while the criminals would have all the guns. What's more likely is a ban on the man

Whoaaa, BrentAllen! Easy, Brent, easy. Hey, I'll admit, I don't know you. I know practically nothing about you. But I'm willing to bet that you are a very responsible handgun owner. You're much like thousands of other Americans who own handguns in a responsible manner. So, do I want to take your handgun away? No. But do I want to limit and restrict handguns and handgun ammunition in our society? Yes. Do I want to make it nearly impossible for any of our society's negative elements to own or possess a handgun? Yes. Will keeping handguns out of the hands of gangs and criminals make our nati

Brentallen, I have no problem with police and military being licensed to carry handguns. It is more practical for their line of work. But how often do you walk around the hallways of your house swinging your handgun around corners to make sure it's safe? How often has anyone in this forum done that? As for keeping guns away from children, you could always just lock up the ammunition for the rifle if locking up the rifle is too cumbersome. I don't accept "it's safer to have a handgun in the house" as a logical excuse at all. And then there's the handgun for sporting argument (i

"You are incorrect that rifles are as good as handguns in home defense. They are unwieldy and not designed to use at close range." I disagree. No offense, but it seems like a very close-minded counter argument. The only time your close range argument would hold true is if the intruder is right on top of you. In which case, unless you sleep with a handgun under your pillow, you don't have much of a chance anyway. You can shoot a person with a rifle from a few feet away just as easily as you can with a handgun. Also, a rifle or shotgun is more intimidating. In any case, I don't feel this is

Personally, I'm just for handgun control. In my opinion, you can defend your house/family perfectly fine with a rifle. And a rifle is certainly ideal for hunting. If there happens to be the need for a militia, well, I'd rather have a good rifle by my side than a pistol. It's when guns can be neatly tucked into one's pants that they start to cause problems. Sure, I have absolutely no statistics, but I would guess that the vast majority of crime and gun-related deaths occur from handgun use. I'd also guess that handguns are the preferred weapon of gangs. It's kind of hard to walk down the

I, like many of you, have been informally researching this topic throughout my time with scouting. It's remarkable how much societal saturation BSA has. They have amazing brand name. "Boy Scout" is a household term. Everyone can conjur up a mental image to match. And despite this, dropout rates are still high and membership enrollment appears to be slipping. We can't underestimate the "cool" factor affecting a boy's decision on whether or not to join or continue. Middle school is the time of popularity crisis and scouting has never been popular. Personally, I feel this stems from a menta

Bob, There are four basic stages of group development (actually there are more, but there are four main stages): forming, storming, norming and performing. If this forum were a group, it would be in storming. Why do groups storm? Why do they start arguing with each other and have confrontations? Because they are establishing norms. They are establishing sets of guidelines, spoken or unspoken, by which the group needs to act. Until there is a consensus on these rules/guidelines and until everyone is willing to follow them, then the group will not be able to continue to develop.

"These are bullies nothing less." Bob, I'm going to be blunt with you. I know it's obvious that I have never been in the "Bob White Fan Club." But I also have tried to walk the middle ground of compromise and understanding in this forum. These discussions serve many purposes. Often, it's to find information, resources or help. At which times, you excel. Nobody in this forum can debate your knowledge, passion or commitment to Boy Scouts. When a scouter asks for aid, a post by Bob White is generally enough to solve the issue. And we all thank you for sharing that with us. But thes

Actually, Seattle, I disagree with some of what you said in your last post. Now, I don't know anything about the major general who became a major, but I tend to believe that Patton and MacArthur would never allow someone to command them to perform pushups. Where would these pushups be held? In a private room with just Ike and Truman? Well, we certainly can't do private punishments of this nature in scouting. Would it then be in public on display in front of Patton and MacArthur's men? They would NEVER allow themselves to be demeaned in such a way. Even if it meant they would have to sit out th

"I could always respond that if one doesn't like the post, one is perfectly free to skip it. But that would be too easy a cop-out." Well, you got me on that one. I really should have stopped reading. But the title really left me so perplexed that I had to read. "Had the article been written by Hans Zeiger as a "satire" praising the BSA and condemning gays, atheists, liberals, etc., it would certainly have been held up as a typical example of hate-speech by the religious right." I just want to make a quick clarification. "Hate Speech" is speech that is meant to incite violence.