Zahnada

Trail Pounder,

I'm not saying that the ideas of someone higher up being responsible aren't true. I'm just presenting some counterarguments.

I think these guards were briefed on handling prisoners and on culture. I think they may have used this knowledge to "have some fun" with the prisoners. And in that case, the training did fail because the training didn't make them realize how horrible and stupid these actions are.

But your explanation does make sense too. Right now, there are two very plausible sides to this whole story. There might be a group of guards who started messing around or there might be a group of guards who were ordered to perform certain actions. With what we know, both could be true.

NJ,

I haven't formed my opinion on this whole incident so don't think that I'm arguing with you. I just wanted to point out that these troops were (at least they should have been) briefed extensively on Muslim and Iraqi culture. So they might have the knowledge of what would be humiliating to these men. I can imagine the military issuing little "Here's what you shouldn't do with Muslim males" books and these soldiers thought it would be fun to break these rules.

Also, the hoods look as if they could have been sewed together in no time from any old black cloth. The dog leash could also be any form of modified webbing or strap that would be in large supply in the military. Now, did these soldiers take the time to construct these implements? Was it all that premeditated? Who knows.

Part of me believes that these people were ordered to do this. But another part accepts Fat Old Guy's reasoning. What high ranking official would want pictures of this kind of abuse knowing that they could likely find their way into circulation?

(This paragraph is mostly tongue in cheek) If you really want to get information and cooperation from people, never have cameras around. Either beat them or humiliate their neighbor in front of them and say, "this will happen to you too." No matter what you do, never leave evidence that can be broadcast on CBS.

And Rooster,

You're making a lot of anti-liberal comments. If a Democrat was in office do you not think the Republican party would be jumping all over these incidents? I'm not justifying anything, but just try to imagine what you might be saying if it was a Democratic administration.

Buffalo2,

I generally don't buy that "It's the media's fault" attitude. The terrorists who killed that contractor have a hatred towards America that was not affected by these prisoner abuses or the media's coverage of it. They used that as their reason for murder, but if there had been no abuses, they would have said, "This is because you are occupying Iraq." The media had nothing to do with this.

This is just a reminder to everyone out there to be sure to register to vote in time for this coming election. If you're not registered, don't procrastinate. Do it now! I don't care if you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, Libertarian, Federalist or other. Register soon and be sure to vote.

Also, if you have any "just turned 18" people in your troop/crew, be sure to tell them to register.

The United States of America is suppose to be the beacon of democracy for the entire world, yet we have a horrible voter-turnout rate. Do your part to fix that.

I must say that it's really nice to see Bush standing behind Rumsfeld. If no new incriminating evidence against Rumsfeld turns up and he is allowed to keep his job, my level of respect for President Bush will go up. It would be so easy for Bush to pin the blame all on Rumsfeld and fire him. Nobody within the GOP would fight the decision and it would silence all the other critics.

That's what I really like about President Bush: loyalty. He's very loyal to his staff and friends. Another example is that most candidates would have replaced Dick Cheney with someone more personable and likable by the public for the next election. Bush is sticking with his man. That speaks volumes in my mind.

Rooster,

I agree with you completely. Political groups have grabbed this story and exploited it as a means to attack President Bush. I will be very upset if Rumsfeld is either fired or forced to retire over these incidents (my objection to blame being place on him is based on current known information). The soldiers responsible should be punished accordingly. Provisions need to be made for these acts to never be repeated. However, I do not feel that any of this was caused by the Republican Party and the events should not be exploited as such.

With that said, I must now make apparent my pessimism regarding politicians. If these same events occured with a Democratic president in office, I feel the Republican Party would also make similar attacks in attempts to discredit. this is the nature of our partisan system. I feel the Democratic Party has taken a moral low road by using these events to benefit themselves. But I do not feel the Republican Party would be above such actions either.

What is it about politics that makes everyone lose at times?

Well, I'd like to answer some of the things that OGE and Rooster have said.

First I would like to say that the United States Military is a representative from our government and our country. Each of us has personally paid to send those men and women there and we all knew we were paying for them. I'm not saying that what happened is our fault, but I understand how it can look very bad for our country as a whole. So to compare the US Military to terrorist groups like Hamas really has some flaws. The US Military should and is held to a higher level of expectations than the terrorist group Hamas. I personally take offense to people making arguments by saying, "Well, what we did was bad, but Saddam and Hamas have done worse." We're not in the same ballpark.

It all comes down to "Setting the Example." The US has placed itself on a pedestal for the entire world. We're the example. "This is how a democracy should be. This is what freedom is!" And it is very out of character for our country to engage in such abuse. That's why there's all this backlash and that's why people have blown it out of porportion. They are shocked that Americans can be a member of something like this.

Let me use a high school example. In your schools, you all knew of that one kid who used drugs. He always seemed high, he dressed the part, he acted the part, and his life was leading him down that path. But what if you one day saw the Student Body President, Valedictorian, Eagle Scout using drugs? Wasn't he held to a different level of expectations? Isn't it more of a shock?

I wonder what kind of negative ads were used between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. That was a real nasty election.

The Democratic primaries were really interesting though. There were plenty of negative ads, but they weren't aimed at each other. All the ads were aimed against President Bush. The arguments being, "I'm the best candidate to get rid of Bush." Which is an interesting self-promoting while still being negative approach.

I've read that the success of negative ads isn't to convince people which way to vote. The ads actually convince people not to vote. The amount of strong Democrats is about equal to the strong Republicans. Each election is decided by the swing voters. The ads make the swing voters think, "Both candidates are losers. I'm not going to take responsibility by voting!"

Of course the trick is to make sure that of the remaining people, more of them support you.

But I agree with OGE. I find the ads distasteful and I really lose respect for the sender. Imagine if troop elections could use negative advertising. "Just last year, James proposed to raise the cost of food purchases on outings from $5 to $7 per scout. And now he favors having scouts pay for their own merit badges. Do you want this boy running your troop? Vote Alex for SPL."

Well, the only connection this topic has to scouting is that I'm a scouter and I'm interested in all of your opinions.

With that said, what are your thoughts about negative political advertising? Since we're heading into the election cycle, things will start heating up even more. "Kerry flip-flops on issues" "Bush didn't serve in Vietnam" "Kerry will raise taxes and increase spending" "Bush cares nothing for the environment" and so forth...

Do negative ads strengthen your support of your particular party? Do they make you not want to participate in the political process? Do you wish they would just go away? Do they impact your voting behavior?

It just seems as if most major elections focus more on attacking opponents than self promoting. Of course, if that's the case, it must be working.

Well, I thought I'd give you a little test run. Now you know that I have read this post (so it shouldn't say 0) and I have replied (so you should get a notification).

I never use the notification option myself, so I haven't noticed these problems.

In my troop, we had a group of Junior Leaders who would sing any song they could think of. They sang loud, fast and long. The songs ranged from traditional camp songs, to oldies (Yellow Submarine and American Pie) to jingles, to songs from "The Simpsons." Since these were the older boys, the rest of the troop looked up to them and many would join in the songs. It really made times fun. But other crews of Junior Leaders moved in and the singing stopped. I realized how much something like singing really depends on the boys setting the example for the younger boys.

What about your troops? Singing is such a great way to unite a group, pass the time, and break down barriers. However, it is "uncool" for many boys to sing and confidence in one's voice is always an issue.

Is singing a big part of your scouting experience? Do you have a "singing troop?"

I think one of the issues raised here is the thin distinction between "Learning Experience" and "Letting them Fail." It is true that we learn the most from experiences that don't always go the way we planned. Nothing runs perfectly. However, as adults or experienced scouters, we can often spot problems looming on the horizon. It's instinctive to prevent those problems or solve them quickly ourselves. So I can see the Scoutmaster's perspective in this instance. First, it's difficult to know when to step back and put trust in the boys, and then it's difficult not to take control immediately when there is a problem.

What's important for us as leaders is to turn those "failures" into "learning experiences." The key to this is letting the boys figure out what went wrong and how it can be fixed. As adult leaders, our job should often be leading the self discovery reflections. Then learning will take place.

As a rule of thumb, I'll immediately get involved if safety is a concern. Otherwise, I'm there to ask them what they can do differently next time.

I've heard of a teacher who was trying to keep her class from saying "ummm" when giving speeches. The use of "ummm" and other filler words is often unconscious, but is a habit that can be changed. So, she gave everyone in the class a tin cup and a handful of pennies. Then the students gave their presentations one at a time. Whenever someone uttered an "ummm" of "uhhh" they would hear 20 pennies clinking into a metal cup. Apparently it was very unnerving, but it forced these students to turn an unconscious action into a very conscious one.

I don't know if I would approve of such a technique for youth because it might be very unsettling, but the basic premise of the idea of simple enough. If the person in question really wants to change his swearing behavior and it is an unconscious act at this point, he may just need reminders. A firm jab in the ribs with your elbow whenever he swears might be enough (and probably preferable to public humiliation). He just needs to start thinking about his speech more.

Or maybe you can just give everyone in the pack a tin cup and a handful of pennies.

Well, I guess the question now is would we rather have GEORGE W BUSH from the GRAND OLD PARTY or GORE (al) from the GOOFY LIBERALS (too bad John Kerry's name is too boring for our purposes)?

I do like GOSSIPS for the media though.

But anyway, Rooster, I shall shake your hand and let's have a clean fight in November. Now about these GAYS...

Come on, Rooster. You forgot the GOP.

Now if we could only think of something for the media that begins with "G".

Or NYLT (National Youth Leadership Training) as it will be called. I don't know if this has been posted yet, but the task force website for the construction of this course at www.jltbsa.org has been updated. It has more explanations of the changes and the dates of implementation.

I really want to get my hands on a curriculum (and I'm going to read it with an open mind). Anyway, check it out if you're interested.

-Zahnada

Ed,

I agree that squelching does make conversation difficult. I personally don't have anyone squelched, and I don't really intend to. However, I wouldn't argue against someone's right to squelch posts if they wanted to. What's the difference between making the conscious decision to ignore a poster everytime they post or simply allowing a computer to do it for you?

Many of the "dialogues" on this forum are really just people talking without listening anyway (and although I used the word "many" I still consider it a small proportion). I personally become very annoyed when I'm either arguing or reading an argument and the sides refuse to listen to each other. Both sides just keep shouting out the same points and arguments and then attack the other side based on semantics but not the overall content of the posts. If squelching allows some people to avoid those conversations, then I have no problem with it.

One of the problems with the issue of gays in scouting is that we're often not clear on what we're arguing for or against. The conversation then takes a cyclical route with people repeating the same point.

For instance, several posters who are in support of the BSA policy often cite that BSA is a private organization and as a private organization they have the right to select their membership standards. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, I have yet to see an opinion on this forum that disagrees with this. Everyone seems to agree that scouting has the right to select their membership, so dwelling on this point doesn't go anywhere. The real issue is whether BSA should have made their selective decisions.

When it comes to this question, there's a lot of assumption as to the arguments people make. I've developed a list of explanations that people have given in support of this policy. This is probably not an complete list.

1. Safety- gays in scouting would represent a physical risk to our youth. This argument will occasionally draw parallels between gays and sex offenders or child molesters.

2. Bad example- This is a morality argument that may or may not stem from religious beliefs. Basically, it says that gays are immoral and so as leaders, to allow gays to be scouting members would be condoning their lifestyle by ommision. This argument connects to the discussions about letting unmarried, pregnant women be leaders.

3. Conversion- This is an argument that believes all (or most) gays to be activists. If allowed in scouts, they will recruit youth to become gay.

4. Gays are just not scouting material- This is a bit of an add-on to "Bad Example" in that it also focuses on morality. This argument will say that gays are immoral people, and therefore they are just not who we want to have around. Look at this argument the same way you would view the anti-atheist argument.

Those are the main categories I have come up with. Add more if you like. The point is that if we're to reach any kind of understanding about this issue, we should at least make it clear what we're arguing for or against.

I'm on the west coast and scouting has suffered here in recent years. It still has some strong pockets (I think mostly rural, but I don't have any numbers or real proof), but their overall image has taken a bit of a beating of late. I've noticed that often when I mention I'm in scouts to someone they ask about the recent contraversies. Years ago, they would ask about Eagle or service or summer camp or they would mention that they reached Life but quit. Now it's "What do you think about the gay thing?"

However, for more on this please consult your "Issues and Politics" section. I don't want to start the same, old debate here.

I also come from a big troop. I noticed that whenever we tried to recruit new scouts, the boys and their parents always had the same concern. "Will we just fall through the cracks of such a big troop?"

Part of the concern has to do with leadership and I always assure them that leadership is proportional to the size of the troop. As a larger troop, we have more positions for boys to be leaders. But the other thing they were concerned about is that it's easy for a boy to fade away into a big troop without anyone knowing. As you said, 13 boys can leave your troop and it wouldn't make much difference. The problem is that some big troops let those 13 scouts walk out the door and hardly notice. A small troop might make more of an effort to retain scouts.

I know that my troop, while maintaining its size, had a horrible drop out problem for many years. It was just too easy to forget about certain boys especially if they're the quiet ones. If one boy never goes on outings, who notices? Luckily this problem has been mostly fixed.

But, now for the virtues of a big troop. I think a large troop offers more opportunities for boys. A large troop needs more troop guides and more instructors. A boy of 14 can find himself teaching a class or leading a game to 20 younger boys. A large troop also forces the boys to push themselves. As mentioned above, it's hard to stand out in a big troop which is a minus and plus because it means that someone who wants to be a Patrol Leader or SPL cannot passively wait for the opportunity. Large troops also mean more responsibility for the Junior Leaders. For an SPL and his staff to have responsiblity for 50 or more boys is tremendous. Now that's a learning experience.

So, I guess having a big troop is just what you make of it (banal, I know). Personally, I think the positives of a troop of 40 (Jamboree size) or more outweighs the negatives. Although when my troop peaked at 120, it had grown too large.

I kind of agree with fotoscout that it might provide a false sense of confidence. But my feelings on this aren't BALOO specific. I doubt that any training course can fully prepare people for the job that we as adult leaders must do. Much of the learning should take place through gaining experience and observing others who have already accumulated experience.

Actually, since BALOO covers so many topics, none of them can be covered completely. But I can see a person leaving the training and feeling qualified to perform several tasks that they have only seen through flipcharts and handouts.

But, training is important and definitely builts the base for adults and youth to become leaders. Just always remember that the knowledge accumulated through a training course is always limited.

Well, another election year is underway. Despite some major differences in regards to the issues, I think both Republicans and Demoncrats (and most other parties for that matter) can agree that it's important for people to take an active role in their government. Part of the Scout Oath refers to a duty to country. It has always been my feeling that a person can best perform that duty to country when they understand the situation of their country. This requires more than simply performing the Pledge of Allegiance every week.

So, how do your troops perform their duty to country?

Do you discuss politics or the presidential election in your troops?

How do you keep such discussions open to understanding and non-preachy? (check out the Issues and Politics section if you want an example of how not to hold political dicussions in your troops)

I've always been a part of a large troop and we had enough Junior Leaders to fill a patrol of their own (SPL, ASPL, Troop Guides, JASMS, Instructors, Troop Quartermaster, etc). In this way, the older boys are able to set the example for the younger boys during outings by forming what can be seen as the "model patrol."

I think it would be hard on the SPL and the scouts if he was a member of a regular patrol. His job has many responsibilities and he probably would not be able to fulfill his duties as a patrol member. He would constantly be in and out of the patrol. He would be leading the patrol leader at times and be led by the patrol leader at other times. It creates strange control dynamics and group dynamics.

I think he should be allowed to focus on his duties as Senior Patrol Leader. This might mean the formation of a Junior leader patrol or his participation with adults.

Here's the problem as I see it. Achileez and Bob want each other to explain their beliefs in such a way that it is rational according to their own belief structure. This is an impossible task (as we've seen). The two sides start at such different points of departure that they can never solve this issue of creationism vs. evolution (and thus God vs. atheism). It's like trying to define an apple by comparing it to a bathtub. There just isn't enough of a connection to even start.

Achilleez,

Bob did give you a sufficient answer. God is and always has been. Your questions of this answer are very logical, but what you must understand is that God doesn't have to answer to mankind's theories of logic. It is impossible for any of us to visualize what the universe was like before it was created just as it is impossible for us to fully comprehend what a perfect being (God) really is. For instance, what if I were to ask you to imagine a new primary color. One that doesn't exist. You can't do it, but that doesn't mean that God can't create one. We can't fully comprehend the Devine by using our limited, human minds. So Bob's answer is correct. God always has been and this works because He is God.

Bob,

You must accept that Achilleez's belief in evolution also makes sense if he starts with the assumption that there is no God. There are billions of planets and our planet has been here for billions of years. The laws of probablilty would say that eventually the right mix would have to be attained. Sure the chances were very small that a planet would evolve to hold life in the way that Earth has, but those chances were there.

For both of you,

Is this a conversation where you hope to gain a better understanding of the belief structure of the other? (note: not acceptance or conversion, but an understanding). Or is this a conversation where you only want to prove the other person wrong?

I'm noticing the beginnings of a disturbing trend in the rankings of posts. It was my understanding that posts are to be ranked on their merits. I took this to mean that a post that has an interesting insight or well articulated statement or message should receive a "Thumbs Up." Meanwhile, posts that are personal attacks or trying to incite other posters or just causing trouble should be given a "Thumbs Down."

However, I've noticed that some people appear to be posting based solely on whether they agree with the post or not. I have seen some well-articulated posts and arguments that have received negative votes. The only reason I could think of for the voting is because the posts were controversial.

I thought the rankings were to distinguish interesting and important topics. Unfortunately, it looks as if some voting is being used to merely discredit a poster whom people disagree with.

What exactly are we voting on?