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 they are pushed to try. In any case, it's an idea that I don't feel should be tossed aside even if it's not feasible for Woodbadge.

Eamonn, would a Woodbadge staff have a place for even 2 to 4 youth staffers? And not just some kind of age quota either, but actually important staffing positions?

Another problem I have with Woodbadge (and don't get the impression that I'm on an anti-Woodbadge mission. Just some observations), is that some men use it as a slippery slope of rationality for perverting the boy-led system. For instance, "The topics in Woodbadge are too complex for boys to understand so we'll have adults teach adults."

then, "Well, these JLTC course are too complex for youth to teach other youth and have it make sense. We'll have adults teach the youth."

Then, "Boy led it great, but a youth cannot possibly understand everything about teams and leadership. I'll just tell him to do this... and I'll do this... and make sure he does this... and this is too important to risk so I'll do it..."

And it just goes downhill. It's funny but the people who preach "boy-led" the most always seem to be the ones who never use that system.

Anyway, after a few tangents and twists, I don't really know where I am in this post. Just thinking...

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.

Has this ever been tried before?

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 difference. The better argument would be that parent ideology influences child ideology more often than academic ideology influences child ideology. By the time people get to college, they know what they believe in.

And another great Churchill quote, I believe goes something like, "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

And my all-time favorite Churchill quote-

Woman: Why Mr. Churchill, I do believe you are drunk.

Churchill: And you are ugly, Maddam. But I shall be sober in the morning.

"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 information, I wouldn't say that liberal professors and textbooks have brainwashed all our college graduates. Just the opposite since college students are more likely to vote.

But I do agree that political affiliation and ideology should not be a criteria for selecting academics.

"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 Iraqi. The training didn't occur in Iraq. Osama doesn't need Saddam's money. There's no clear connection between the two except for a mutual hatred of the United States.

"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 may be, very rarely, people who choose to CLAIM that they are homosexual, but homosexual means having sex with members of the same sex because one wants to, not for acceptance or significance, or any other reason. If I offered you a million dollars to have sex with a member of your sex, and you accepted, would that make you a homosexual?"

Ok, I'll buy this, but we're just getting into a battle of definitions now. You are right. A person who claims and acts like a homosexual without really wanting to is not technically a homosexual. But there are many people who I feel pretend to be gay to either fit in with a certain group or to gain attention. Am I claiming that these people constitute the majority or even a large percentage of gays? No. But they are there. I think part of the ambiguousness of sexuality comes from bisexuality (What are your thoughts on this?). And I have one hypothetical for you that I've asked people before: If there's a man who is attracted to other men, but he never follows these impulses, is he gay? Or does one actually have to have sex to be able to claim their sexuality?

"Also, the question of whether it is innate or a choice is not a completely valid dichotomy. It may be that homosexuality is due to environmental effects, but that doesnt mean its a choice. After all, influenza isnt innate, but it isnt a choice either. So even if you show that homosexuality isn't innate, that doesn't mean it's a choice."

Innate is not the word I meant to use. Instead let me say "inside of the person." So, nature/nurture, it's still a desire that's inside, therefore the desire itself is not a choice.

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 has no concept of sex or sexuality. One argument for why there isn't a higher proportion of 11 year old gays is that sexuality isn't fully developed at that age either. The boy is just beginning puberty.

Now, is homosexuality a choice? For some people, yes it is. I feel strongly that there are many gays who have chosen that lifestyle to gain either acceptance or significance. Some people want to be a member of a marginalized group or perhaps they want some drama in their life.

However, I have known several gay men who have struggled with their sexuality their entire lives. They hid their impulses throughout high school and college. They desperately wanted to be "normal" and to not have to live through the prejudice that every gay person encounters. If there was some magic switch that they could flip to become straight, they would most certainly use it without hestitation. My personal acquaintance with these individuals make me believe that homosexuality is not always a choice. For many people, the choice would be the straight and normal life, but that life goes against something internal.

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 different.

So if he said something not true, then why try to corner him by labeling him as a liar? Such an attack would make any poster here defensive. And it's totally outside the point of any arguments being made here. Notice how these threads really get derailed by stuff like this. Let it be noted that I don't condone Bob White's final reply with the "Merlyn said, 'liar liar'" comment. I felt that was just as immature as Merlyn's accusations of his lying.

As for Deloe's closing comment of, "Meanwhile, FOG implies that all atheists are liars, along with many other incredibly rude responses. These are the values you learn in the Scouts?"

I couldn't agree more. Can anyone else feel a growing intolerance in the issues and politics section? Is it possible to debate these issues civilly? I would hate for people to form their impressions of scouting from the postings in this section.

One final message to Deloe and Merlyn: I'm not quite sure what either of your intentions are on this forum, but I encourage you to look outside the "Issues and Politics" section more often. Go into Open Discussion and you will see a group of boys and men who truly care about a program and the impact it has on youth. I know you don't agree with several aspects of this organization, but I hope you realize that there are some really good people in this forum. These are people who want to make a difference in the lives of boys and they have nothing but good will.

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 ("yourself" not necessarily referring to you, TrailPounder, but every individual) is seen as a mindless robot. It's the "Third Person Effect." The effect is basically, "I will not be influenced by this biased media, but everyone else will be." So, liberals are concerned that people watching Fox News will adopt a conservative view of the world while conservatives fear that people watching other news will adopt a liberal view. This theory has one assumption: that everyone else is a mindless robot who believes everything at face value. This is most certainly not the case.

In summary, you will form your own opinions regardless of whether you watch Fox or CNN. The liberals will form their own opinions regardless of whether they watch Fox or CNN. People actually think when they watch the news.

You've been insulted by a statement I was arguing against.

Did I make myself clearer or did I just make everything I said more confusing?

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 coverage does not have the major effect on people's attitudes that some like to believe. We often assume that everyone else who watches something like Fox News is a mindless robot who will accept all the information and form judgments accordingly. That's not the case. Nearly anyone who frequently watches a 24 hour cable newscast will be educated and will probably have already formed their own opinions. So the people who watched O'Reilly call democrats "the enemy" and who believed that democrats are "the enemy" already believed that democrats are "the enemy" (Ummmm... please tell me if that sentence makes no sense). People already have their opinions and are rational actors when it comes to viewing the news. So the bias in Fox News probably has very little effect in changing attitudes. All it does it cement current attitudes and beliefs and polarize the population. But I think it's very rare for O'Reilly to turn a Democrat into a Republican.

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 anyway. The same holds true for a Republican following a more liberal media source.

The truth is, complete objectivity is impossible. Just the fact that we're living in American means we're not getting the objective side of the Iraqis viewpoint. The personal biases of the networks, reporters, broadcasters, station managers, etc will always bias the news in some way. People will then select out what they agree with and what they want to believe.

"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 also talk with the scout to learn more about him, his feelings about the troop program and to evaluate the performance of the adult leaders in the troop."

No arguments here. And you're not disagreeing with anything from my post except for my use of the wording "sign-off". I actually think we may be in agreement on this one.

"In the specific case we are discussing, that was not done correctly. The scout was held to artificial requirements created by the BOR and not by the BSA. The scout should recieve a new board where the policies and procedures are followed correctly."

I couldn't agree more. Actually, I don't know if I expressed it clearly, but this was one of the main points of my arguments. My understanding of the situation is that the boy did in fact complete all the requirements.

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 to still be what they would consider active. If not, then they should ask him to hold off on this position of responsibility until a time when he can actively serve. This way is better for the Troop, the patrols, and for the scout himself. (note: this does not apply to a struggling leader who tries. This isn't a critique of leadership skills as much as activity)

Therefore, if the boy makes it through 6 months, it should be assumed that he was actively serving to the satisfaction of the SPL and the SM during those 6 months. Otherwise, he still wouldn't be serving.

The moral of the story is that if the boy enters his BOR and has held a position for 6 months, then the BOR cannot refuse to sign him off for his service in that position. He has fulfilled the requirement.

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 scum." Not every Arab is a terrorist and murderer. Not every Arab who hates America is a terrorist and murderer.

As for the references to Nazis and Saddam's regime, I don't want our country and our military held comparable to their standards at all.

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 selfish and generous:

We're capitalist (and proud of it) so we always try to get the most while paying the least. It's basic economics to pay the workers in factories the lowest possible wage. It's also impossible to deny that there is an oil interest in creating stability in the Middle East. We like for our policies (foreign and domestic) to benefit us.

However, we're also the most generous nation in the world. We give more aid to world causes than anyone else. It's impossible to deny that there is a humanitarian interest in creating stability in the Middle East. We give tons of money and labor to aid countries in ways that will never benefit us directly. If there is a huge natural disaster in the world, you can bet the US will be offering help. Just look at the billions spent by the Marshal Plan to clean up after WWII. We have money, and we spend it for others.

America is wasteful and ecologically mindful:

We use more energy than anyone else. We pollute the environment to a great degree as well. However, we spend money developing ways to be more efficient and we spend money to help clean the environment. We waste, but we also create. The streets are paved with gold here. We flush our toilets with fresh, drinking water while several countries in the world have limited water supplies.

America is protector of freedom and bully:

When a government oppresses people, America will not be afraid to fight them. The ideals of freedom are not just rhetoric. However, we often do what we feel is right without waiting for approval from the global community. This unilateral course of action gets things done, but it imposes our will on the rest of the world. The result is that people will view us as arrogant.

There are many more existing contradictions. The point is that the world is in a love/hate relationship with America. They need us, but they don't like to admit it. We cause problems and we solve problems. There's bad and there's good to being the most powerful country in the world.

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 of how a teenager views the police. The police are necessary and there are time when you really love to have them around. However, the police are not afraid to bust you for drunk driving which makes them something to fear and loathe. Now imagine the police if they had lots of money... Ok, the analogy is dying, but you get the point.

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 you would use this event against a Democrat if he were president.

Once again, sorry for making an assumption about you.