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 balanced news broadcast. The Republicans thought everything slanted towards the Democrats. The Democrats thought it was slanted towards the Republicans.

We must always remember that EVERY newscast has one purpose: attract viewers. High ratings = ability to charge more for advertising = higher profits. That's the system TV is based on.

So, although I feel Fox News is slanted towards the Republicans, I can't fault them for that. They've chosen a very successful economic strategy, as is shown by ratings. And it's obvious that other stations are desperately trying to copy Fox's strategy of confrontational news.

I think it's important to remember that the media is a business out to make a profit. Always consider that before you form opinions based on its coverage.

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 differences.

Sorry to vent, but intelligent discourse is lost when people start playing the "Well what about what happened in World War II" card. They're bad analogies because they always draw comparisons between situations that shouldn't be compared. Not all war is the same. Show respect for the people who fought against Nazism by not politicizing it to win partisan arguments.

Again, my apologies for the rant. I just see the World War II analogies so often that it really drives a nail under my skin. It's an effective debate tactic, but very ineffective in intelligent conversation.

"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 inappropriate because it mocks a group - I agree. If you feel that the Bible specifically condemns homosexuality - fine, that's a conversation for another time.

But if you disagree with skits about gays because of their relation to pedophilia - that's just misinformed.

And I certainly hope the author of the original quote doesn't use that rationale around his scouts for why gay skits aren't appropriate.

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 badges" seems like a cop-out. Any ideas for better ways?

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 that it was in college when I finally learned about the Israel/Palestine situation. It wasn't until college (or maybe senior year of high school) when I learned what "communism" and "capitalism" actually meant. And that's pathetic!

Our actions as Americans affect the entire world. But so few people even have a reasonable knowledge of what's going on out there.

But is it out of place to begin a scoutmaster's minute by saying, "If any of you have watched the news lately, you've seen footage of the Israeli conflict. Does anyone know what that's about? Why it's important to the US?"

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 problem with teaching politics is... how do you keep it from becoming political?

For instance, there are two very different sides to the war in Iraq. If a boy asks "Why are we fighting in Iraq?" What do you say?

a. "We're fighting to keep the world safe from terror."

b. "We're fighting to get oil for Bush and his buddies."

c. "We're fighting because..."

I don't want any political/partisan preaching at meetings (and I'm sure parents don't want that either). But I do want scouts to be aware of the state of the nation and its position in the world.

"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 to make sure he was fairly represented. But that one line at the top is all the information I need to know to determine this boy's character.

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 towards saying this boy should be removed from the troop. But I don't know enough to solidly make that statement.

My advice to hereajo is this: If you honestly feel this boy compromises your ability to keep the members of your troop safe, then remove him immediately.

For the rest of us, it's all just speculation. We don't know who these boys are or what exactly happened. I can imagine a variety of scenerios playing out with the given information. Some scenerios that adhere to what I know are truly ugly and dangerous. Others are fairly harmless. I don't know where reality falls into the continuum that I can construct. So I cannot answer the question.

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 Democrat. But in that case, who does speak for them?

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 brings up other questions. Like, how far away did this occur? Were they wearing hats and jackets so it probably wouldn't have hurt?

Although inappropriate, airsoft is just on a different level in my mind than other weapons. If I had to rank them in order of severity:

Squirt Gun

Nerf Gun

Airsoft Gun

Paintball Gun

BB Gun

Gun

But still, don't misunderstand me to think that I would turn a blind eye to this behavior myself. Those things at close range and on bare skin can really sting.

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 knife, then that kid would be gone from my troop instantly.

So, in this case, I would definitely need more information before determining a punishment. Although, I have to say, the boy in question sounds like a problem child that may not have a place in scouting anyway.

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 are already expensive, but a ban on guns would make the blackmarket ones prohibitively expensive for the lower classes (and most violent crime stems from lower socio-economic status).

The comparision between making handguns illegal and illegal drug trafficing is also flawed. Drugs are an addiction that people feel they must feed. A handgun, although possibly a mental addiction to the feeling of security, has not physical addicting ability. I just don't see your doom and gloom scenerio of blackmarket handguns making the situation any worse than it currently is. According to my proposition, all the current civilians who own handguns would be allowed to keep them. Once used illegally, or found in possession of someone with a criminal record, that gun would leave the system. The remaining handguns would still be in possession of the lawabiding public.

And then I had a question about your statement about how regular, law abiding citizens would be attracted to lawlessness because of such a ban. Would you buy a blackmarket handgun if they were otherwise illegal? I really don't see vast amounts of people turning to criminals just to get a handgun, but maybe I just associate with a different kind of crowd.

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 manufacturing and sale of handguns and strict enforcement of firearm laws. Therefore, everyone who currently owns a gun would still own a gun. The proportion of armed law abiding citizens to armed criminals would be initially untouched. As the years go by, the proportion would actually tip in favor the law abiding since criminals caught with handguns would lose their weapons.

The only thing is that new handguns would not be entering the system. With a decreased supply, the price of ammunition would increase making it more expensive to own and fire a handgun. The law abiding would continue to possess their guns until the gun broke or until they used it improperly. Eventually, handguns would vanish from our society, but in the meantime, the armed law abiding citizens would still exist.

Naturally, a blackmarket for handguns would open up. However, as with all blackmarket items, these handguns would be very expensive. The guns would stay out of the hands of gangs for the most part. I think the outcome would be that crime and violence would decrease.

Am I being optimistic? Yep. I really don't think this kind of scenerio will ever play out. As we've seen on this forum, the two sides of the argument are just too far apart to find common ground. There was a story of a woman who was killed during a car jacking that was posted a few days ago. Some would say that if the victim had a handgun, this never would have happened. Others would say that if the assailant didn't have a handgun, none of this would have happened. Just too sides of an argument.

But I must say, it's nice to see an intelligent discussion on these forums that doesn't get too heated and evolve into personal attacks.

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 nation safer? Yes. Will such restrictions have an affect on your ability to possess a handgun? Unfortunately, that is also true. It's too bad, but I still believe it's the best option.

So, you're absolutely right, I can't give reasons why you shouldn't be able to own a handgun. But I can give reasons why the prevalence of handguns is a bad thing.

Is our world safer now with regular citizens and criminals walking the streets carrying concealed handguns? Or would our world be safer if neither side was able to easily conceal a weapon? This is the fundamental break in our paradigms, Brent. You feel safer with more guns in the world, I feel safer with less.

Now, I'm completely sympathetic to your view because there was a time when I possessed a handgun. It's a great feeling of insurance. The mind is incredibly creative and can come up with an infinite number of scenerios where having a gun will be useful. I even took it camping (not with scouts, but with friends). I thought "what if we encounter a cougar on the trail?" or "What if there's an axe-murderer in the woods?" But then my brother became a police officer. He told me about all the stupid things people do with handguns. For him, that's the dangerous part of the job. Everyone walking down the street can potentially be a killer at a moments notice.

I know you'll disagree, but I do feel you're making the world more dangerous rather than safer. I also feel you're putting your family at more risk with your lifestyle. I also don't know what the September 11 attacks have to do with this discussion at all.

You said that "I happen to think firearms are the BEST way to protect my family."

Sorry, Brent. The best way to protect your family is with common sense. And except for certain imaginative, wild scenerios, handguns just aren't common sense.

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 (ie The Olympics). Perhaps this is just a sacrifice our country will have to make. Or maybe there could be some very special, very hard to obtain permits to own sporting pistols (as far as I know, Desert Eagles, HK USPs, and the like are not part of the Olympic equipment). And then perhaps ammunition and the weapon itself could only be purchased at designated locations that assure only permitted individuals could carry them.

The point is that it is important to make handguns much more difficult to own for anyone who could use them for harm. Right now, our current laws are not effective as displayed by the prevalence of handguns and handgun violence.

I hope to not offend anyone, but most rationale for carrying handguns stem from paranoia and fear. Such as the arguments for stopping car-jackers with a handgun. Is your car that valuable to you? I can't think of a single scenerio where pulling a handgun on a car-jacker is the best course of action. And this is definitely not the best way to protect your family.

And finally, do you really walk down the street carrying a handgun at all times? Where do you live?

"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 a very strong argument in favor of handguns since a larger weapon will also do the job.

"You are also incorrect in your implied assumption that if handguns were controlled, gangs and other criminals wouldn't have them. Every gun control law ever passed has shown that the bad guys keep their guns and honest people give them up."

This is very true and is a valid point. Gangs wouldn't just give up their guns. But what we can do is limit the amount of new handguns entering the system. More importantly, we can limit handgun ammunition. It would take awhile, but the guns would eventually work their way out of the system much like they've done in England. Sure, there will always be criminals with handguns, but to a far less degree. Overall, as years pass, fewer and fewer criminals would have access to handguns and this would make society safer. But you're absolutely correct that it wouldn't be an immediate solution. But a lack of gun control isn't a solution either.

"It's also extremely difficult to hold up someone who has his own handgun in his pants or under his counter. That's why crime rates go down when states pass right-to-carry laws."

This is also true and is a very interesting point. But how many crimes have been prevented by the victim suddenly pulling a handgun from their pants? I really don't know. And how many people have been shot because they decided to pull a gun instead of just throwing down their wallet and immediately cancelling their credit cards? Once again, I don't really know.

The point I'm making is that handguns don't solve as many problems as they create. Handguns only have one real purpose - to shoot people. I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms. But that right needs to have some logic attached to it. Rifles allow for recreational shooting as well as home and community defense.

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 street and hold someone up with a rifle tucked down your pants.

So, here's a question to the gun-control and anti-gun-control crowds. Would you be in favor of strict restrictions on handguns for ordinary citizens? Any weapon over a certain size would go relatively unchecked.

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 mental connection between Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. People assume they are very similar in activities. Why would a middle school boy want to do arts and crafts while wearing a uniform under the watchful eye of a "den mother"? Whenever scouts are parodied on TV, it is usually the Cub Scouting image that gets lampooned. It's just uncool for boys to be scouts.

But there's also the parent's perspective. And this is where the stream of bad press plays in. It certainly seems that every article or story about scouting these days is negative. "Scout Leader found with child porn," "Scout dies on campout," "ACLU takes Scouts to trial," "United Way cuts Scout funding."

Boy Scouts is much more controversial than it used to be. I've met people who have taken "Eagle Scout" off their resumes lately. Public opinion has slightly turned against scouts. Sure, the sky is not completely falling, but we can't ignore the writing on the wall. Fewer boys are joining. Parents used to sign their sons up for scouts because it would develop their character and leadership while getting them in the outdoors. But those ideals have taken a beating lately.

Of course, as Bob White would probably say, the solution starts at the unit. Deliver a good progam and you will win in the face of the controversy. The local deeds of a good unit will outweigh the effects of poor national PR.

Better PR on the national level wouldn't hurt either.

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.

You, Bob, are generally at the center of the storm. You antagonize posters who feel you don't oblige by the rules of conduct they expect from this forum. Now, certainly, you have been attacked yourself. I won't deny it. You have been at the center of some nasty assaults. A poster once made it his entire mission to get under your skin. But has it ever struck you that perhaps all these attacks might have something to do with you as well as the attackers?

It is not simply that you express an opposite view in a debate. It is not simply that you are being attacked for supporting BSA and following the program. There are many posters on this forum who deliver the same message. They fight on the same side of the debate. But there's something about you that makes people feel that you've violated the rules guiding the debate. Certainly, these rules are not written, but everyone feels them. That's why we're storming now.

Now, I won't defend the ones who routinely attack you. And you should know, when they try to twist the conversation into an attack on you, they usually fall on their face.

But you should know that in this ongoing battle, you are often an antagonist as well as a victim.

I encourage everyone in this forum to send Bob and others private messages with examples of how you felt they violated the norms of this group. Be specific or general, but be constructive. And if you receive one of these PMs, read it with an open mind and try to understand how another can see you this way.

"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 these forums serve other purposes as well. Sometimes it's to debate the methods or program of scouting. Maybe it's a debate on scouting politics. Perhaps, there's a discussion where a poster wants to share new ideas or insights into scouting that he/she feels will do a great service to the boys. With only a few exceptions, the posters on this board desire nothing more than to serve their youth in the best possible way. And these people, no matter how different their views, can often find just the smallest middle ground during a discussion. Rooster and TJ can take a moment to admire each other's passion. FOG once paused and admitted he's abrasive. Most people in here can say with someone they vehemently disagree with, "I understand why you feel the way you do. This is what I think..."

I've never seen this with you, Bob. I've never seen you even show an attempt towards understanding a position other than your own. I've never seen you try to open your mind to looking at the program differently. What's aggravating about debating with you is that you never listen or try to listen. You're a man who has a lot to teach the members of this forum. But you're not interested in teaching or educating. You do not guide, you push.

Occasionally, people confront you on your behavior. Then you slip away and disappear for awhile. Suddenly, the atmosphere in this forum is much lighter. Debates are more civil. If nothing else, the topic of the debates stays on the issue. Have you noticed that when you get involved in a debate, it often turns the discussion to be about you? Instead of "uniform vs. no uniform" it's "Bob White vs. the anti-Bob Whites." You bring a negative aura to this forum. You also bring out the worst in many posters.

I'll be honest. There was a time when my faith and love in scouting waned. I would step away from these forums disgusted with scouting. How could an organization I loved have members who are so mean to each other? How could they fight so much? Is this what I want these boys to become? Is this the example they should follow?

As to your original question, I will only say that this forum has had behavior that is very un-scoutlike. And yes, you are often the victim of some of the worst attacks. But it is not because you are a martyr. There are many posters here who can spread the truths about the program without creating enemies. You need to take a good look at your attitude, Bob. Why do you feel that you've antagonized so many people? Why is it necessary to have this entire thread? Maybe because, in this forum, you are a bully. Nothing less.

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 the rest of the war.

From what I know of both men, they would rather be fired and henceforth martyred than do pushups for their actions.

And also remember, scouting is not the military.

"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. This article has no hate speech in it. And although I haven't read Hans Zeiger, I assume he also does not commit hate speech because it is illegal. Although many unkind things have been said in this forum, none of it is hate speech. If I were to start arguing that all gays need to be shot, then it would be hate speech.

"So obviously, bashing BSA and its conservative policies is OK, because its just "satire", but bashing gays, atheists and liberals is wrong because that's hate-speech, right?

Bringing out that dichotomy through the posts that reflect the truth of it, is one of the reasons I posted the article."

I think the above quote is the primary point of your argument. But I feel you start from some false premises, false generalization, and false victimization. Attacking BSA because of its conservative policies is fine. Sure, I don't agree with it, but it's not against the law. I think reading any thread between Rooster, Ed, Merlyn, and TJ shows that people can disagree. But I've never seen one side afforded more rights in the argument.

Bill O'Reilly attacks liberals all the time, and he's criticized by the liberals. The LA Times attacks conservatives all the time, and they're criticized by the conservatives. But one side isn't getting special treatment.

It's very common for a person to feel that the other side is getting preferential treatment although the treatment is the same. I think there's actually a psychological term for that. Let's say it's an election year and you are reading a completely bipartisan newspaper. Let's say you're conservative. If the paper is giving equal coverage to conservatives and liberals, you will preceive it to be a liberal paper. This is because, mentally, you have not afforded equal treatment to both sides (naturally, because most people are partisan) so equal treatment is out of balance. I think the same is happening with your perception of BSA coverage.

Anyway, I apologize if my train of thought has been hard to follow. Long day. Just ask if something doesn't make sense.

But let me make one point. It's important that we, as scouters, not act as victims. We need to continue to deliver the program and concentrate on the youth we serve. Once we feel victimized by the media or other groups, then we become defensive. We see conspiracies. We close into ourselves instead of keeping our wonderful program out in the open. We start attaching labels to scouting. Labels like "conservative." We're only victims if we act like it.