What have you done for me lately?

a client of mine just left after griping for 20 minutes about the ACLU. knowing the client, that isn't a big surprise, but he did get me thinking. his current gripe revolves around the Boy Scout jamboree. basically all the scouts get together every 4 years and do whatever it is that boy scouts do. this year for the first time since the 1930's the boy scout jamboree was not able to be sponsored or assisted by government organizations. historically, the DOD provides tents and manpower to assist the organization - but not anymore.

because the boy scouts require all members to acknowledge the existence of God, providing them with assistance or sponsorship would be a violation of separation of church and state. apparently this was a victory for the ACLU?

because of their name and their charter, anybody who is critical of the ACLU risks being "anti-american", "anti-liberty", etc. but my real question is what position have they championed recently that actually took some back bone? or even made sense? (I remember a few years back they championed the KKK's right to march in Skokie, IL - unpopular to be sure, but the ACLU realized that even scumbags have certain rights.) other than that case, i can't remember hearing anything out of the ACLU, in recent years, that sounded like anything but petty political maneuvering.

thoughts?

You do know the whole founded by commies thing, right?

"I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU. What the viewers should be asking is - Bob Rumson, why aren't you?"

the ACLU is just set up in such a way that any argument against them is so easy to twist into a "so what do you have against Civil Liberties?" moment, that its just ridiculous.

they fight to remove religious elements from the public eye. of course, they also are fighting to help the mormon fundamentalists keep the right to be polygamist, childraping, welfare living freaks.

their agenda is pretty hard to nail down sometimes.

Did they end up representing NAMBLA or were they just considering it?

I think the ACLU picks and chooses their cases in such a way as to give themselves the most exposure. If you have a run of the mill 1st Amendment case, don't expect the ACLU to show up on your behalf ... it's not about the law, it's about their publicity.

They are, incidently, largely funded NOT by your $20/year contributions, but by charging exhorbinant legal fees that get lumped into whatever settlement they win (sometimes more than the settlement, incidentally), which is why a lot of the folks they go after settle.

lookout123 wrote:

i can't remember hearing anything out of the ACLU, in recent years, that sounded like anything but petty political maneuvering.

thoughts?

I guess you could call anything petty political maneuvering or publicity seeking, especially since they can't handle every case and therefore must be selective, but here's a list of some issues they're handling:

PATRIOT Act and the SAFE Act
Civil rights for gays
Evolution in schools
Surveilance of citizens
Civil rights for Muslims
Internet regulation
Civil rights for Native Americans

If you want to see everything they're doing, they do have a web site. There, you can see even the stuff that doesn't make national news.

lookout123 wrote:

this year for the first time since the 1930's the boy scout jamboree was not able to be sponsored or assisted by government organizations. historically, the DOD provides tents and manpower to assist the organization - but not anymore.

About bloody time. Support an organization that inculcates hatred as a stated part of their mission? Give me a break! :rar:

Pie wrote:

About bloody time. Support an organization that inculcates hatred as a stated part of their mission? Give me a break! :rar:

You may want to be more certain of what they are actually teaching.

who and what exactly are boy scouts taught to hate? i remember camping, first aid, volunteering at the old folks home, the carwash and donating proceeds to the school... but for the life of me, i don't remember the badge for showing enough hate. did i miss a lesson?

oh wait, there was that time they let us use knives to whittle - should that be deemed as a danger to society?

The official stance is that you're OK no matter what religious beliefs you have as long as a) it involves some sort of supernatural aspect, and b) you're not gay. Individual troops may have more restrictive views, especially Mormon troops, though perhaps not officially.

lookout123 wrote:

who and what exactly are boy scouts taught to hate?

Gays and atheists.

please provide documentation to show that the boy scouts teach children to HATE gays or atheists.

they are an organization that feels strongly that A) there is a higher being than one's own self, and B) that homosexuality is wrong. They believe that to be a part of the organization you should hold to those beliefs. that does not equal hate.

if the scout leader were to sit down one afternoon and say, *redneck twang* "now boys, you all know we don't hold with them faggots and godhaters, so let's make some signs to hold up and make sure you grab some rocks to throw at 'em too." now that would be teaching hate.

They lead their young by example. If you do not teach acceptance and tolerance, you teach rejection and hate.
Oh yeah, and if you have AIDS, forget being a Scout...

lookout123 wrote:

because the boy scouts require all members to acknowledge the existence of God, providing them with assistance or sponsorship would be a violation of separation of church and state. apparently this was a victory for the ACLU?

Makes sense to me, I don't understand your gripe.

Pie wrote:

They lead their young by example. If you do not teach acceptance and tolerance, you teach rejection and hate.
Oh yeah, and if you have AIDS, forget being a Scout...

oh BS. i teach my son that stealing is wrong. i don't teach him that anyone who steals is worthy of our hate.

jinx - my gripe is that the BSA can be a valuable experience in a child's life. it is an organization that has been very positive for many many people. they aren't on the sidewalks handing out christian/buddhist/hindi tracts or proselytizng people, but because recognizing a higher power is a core value of the group they are now rejected from the assistance they have historically received.

Pie wrote:

About bloody time. Support an organization that inculcates hatred as a stated part of their mission? Give me a break! :rar:

Like all sweeping generalizations, the accuracy of your statement matches it's precision.

I checked their mission statement. It's one sentence. I quote it here and it's dependent elements.

[CENTER]Mission Statement[/CENTER]

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.


Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.


Scout Law
A Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent


Vision Statement

The Boy Scouts of America is the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.

In the future Scouting will continue to

* Offer young people responsible fun and adventure;
* Instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character as expressed in the Scout Oath and Law;
* Train young people in citizenship, service, and leadership;
* Serve America's communities and families with its quality, values-based program.

[CENTER]The Boy Scouts of America BSA http://www.scouting.org[/CENTER]

There is no inculcation of hatred. Trust me on this one.

Now, you may know individuals who are hateful and involved in Scouting. But to libel the organization the way you have is inaccurate, inflammatory, and inappropriate. I urge you to take up your grievances with the people about whom you have a complaint.

In the decades I have been involved in Scouting, hatred has NOT been a part of the program, not on an individual, patrol, troop or district basis. I have seen no evidence of hatred by Scouts, or leaders; no evidence, factual, circumstantial or apocryphal.

There *is* a policy in the organization at the highest levels that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a Boy Scout Leader. This is not inculcating hatred. An organization cannot hate. People hate. I imagine there are Scouters who hate, but tarring all Scouters this way would be as correct, soothing and fair as saying you, as an American, are an imperialist pig given America's foreign policy. Maybe it fits, but even if it does, it's not because of the policy, it's because of your individual qualities.

They're taught to exclude gays and atheists. Whether they're taught to hate them as well is, like so many things in Scouting, up to the individual troop. What can raise the most bad feelings is that most kids at the age in which you join the Scouts don't have set views on religion or sexuality, and they only come into their realization after several years in a troop. If at that point they are atheist or gay, they have to either quit, play along, or announce. If they announce, many troops would be happy to let them stay, but the greater organization comes down and overrules them, which never causes happy feelings.

lookout123 wrote:

oh BS. i teach my son that stealing is wrong. i don't teach him that anyone who steals is worthy of our hate.

Screw it. You can teach your son whatever you like. The Boy Scouts can teach their members whatever they like, too. But they CAN'T DO IT WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT. That's all the original ACLU case was about.
Lookout, do you teach your son that homosexuality is "wrong"? How will that impact the way he treats gays, for the rest of his life? How about us atheists?

BigV wrote:

There is no inculcation of hatred. Trust me on this one.
[snip]
There *is* a policy in the organization at the highest levels that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a Boy Scout Leader. This is not inculcating hatred.

I guess we disagree right here. If the Scouts say that a gay person is not "Morally Straight", then they are condemning an individual. In fact, an entire class of individuals. That opinion is most certainly transmitted to the youth they lead.

Pie wrote:

They lead their young by example. If you do not teach acceptance and tolerance, you teach rejection and hate.
Oh yeah, and if you have AIDS, forget being a Scout...

Official reference regarding tolerance.

Consistent with the obligations of the Scout Oath and Law, Scouting teaches youth to show tolerance and respect for all human beings. The Scout Law requires youth to be helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind to all, and Scouts are taught to be respectful of those whose views may be different from their own. Scouting teaches both tolerance and clear moral values. Tolerance for all does not mean that all behavior must be accepted as appropriate for those in Scouting.

It is possible to be tolerant, and selective. Tolerance is not anarchy. Even if it were, anarchy is not hatred. Intolerance is not the same as hatred. You wildly overstate the truth. Do you have standards? Do you hate everything that doesn't match your standards? Does your intolerance make you a hypocrite?

lookout123 wrote:

jinx - my gripe is that the BSA can be a valuable experience in a child's life. it is an organization that has been very positive for many many people. they aren't on the sidewalks handing out christian/buddhist/hindi tracts or proselytizng people, but because recognizing a higher power is a core value of the group they are now rejected from the assistance they have historically received.

It's wrong that they ever received gov't assistance (regardless of how valuable you think their services are) - not wrong that they won't anymore. You can try to minimize it all you want, but requiring recognition of a higher power as a core value of the group is a major sticking point with some Americans.

So, people are now fighting to be included in an organization whose principles they reject?

why?

mrnoodle wrote:

So, people are now fighting to be included in an organization whose principles they reject?

I can't speak for them (although I would guess they'd like to change those principles). What I am fighting for is to yank their public funding.

Oh, okay. I guess that's cool, as long as they yank the NEA's as well. The government pays for too much fluff anyway.

stick-poking aside, if the BSA's public funding is revoked, can they keep their little creed thing?

BigV wrote:

It is possible to be tolerant, and selective. Tolerance is not anarchy. Even if it were, anarchy is not hatred. Intolerance is not the same as hatred. You wildly overstate the truth. Do you have standards? Do you hate everything that doesn't match your standards? Does your intolerance make you a hypocrite?

(calming down)
Yes. One should have standards. However, one cannot espouse religiously-derived standards as membership criteria for an organization and still receive government funding.

Pie wrote:

I guess we disagree right here. If the Scouts say that a gay person is not "Morally Straight", then they are condemning an individual. In fact, an entire class of individuals. That opinion is most certainly transmitted to the youth they lead.

Look, Pie. What "the Scouts say" and what *I* say as a Scout leader don't match all the time. Does that make me unqualified as a Scout leader? You know, this isn't the Whitehouse with an airtight policy alignment of adherence to the party line. You make an easy mistake by short circuiting a couple of points and making a direct zap to your conclusion. Avowed homosexuals cannot be leaders in the organization --> organization says gays are not morally straight --> different==evil==worthy of hate.

Come on. It just *isn't that way*. If you know these people, these Scouters and you don't jive with them, move 10 blocks west and connect with another troop. This is a very local organization. The ideas you're so apoplectic over are coming from Irving, Texas. That's far far away from me. On purpose. You can associate with like minded people in any organization. Look at our diverse country, we all get along as a country. Look at the cellar, we get along here too, despite some unbridgeable divides. If you looked into Scouting, you'd find that there's a way to get along there too.

Your characterizations of the BSA as haters just is not true. Whether or not you choose to persue it further is entirely up to you.

mrnoodle wrote:

Oh, okay. I guess that's cool, as long as they yank the NEA's as well.

Totally different. While you may not value the National Endowment for the Arts (I don't really either), you can apply to get funds from that endowment, the same as every elephant dung artist out there.

BigV wrote:

Look, Pie. What "the Scouts say" and what *I* say as a Scout leader don't match all the time.

But aren't all members of an organization responsible for the actions of that organization? In college, I read a book called "Exit, Voice and Loyalty" that had a few ideas that really stuck with me. If one fundamentally disagrees with the tenants of an organization, one has two options: exit or voice. "Loyalty" in this context is the triumph of complacency over ethos.

The Boy Scouts want to limit membership while soaking up everyones taxes. Sorry, that don't fly, get off the teat. I say the ACLU can hound them until they stop using public schools for their meetings as well. Once they get their hands out of the cookie jar, I'll defend their right to freedom of association.

Griff wrote:

The Boy Scouts want to limit membership while soaking up everyones taxes. Sorry, that don't fly, get off the teat. I say the ACLU can hound them until they stop using public schools for their meetings as well. Once they get their hands out of the cookie jar, I'll defend their right to freedom of association.

Now that's what I ment to say. :blush:

I've been trying to think of a way to phrase my feelings on this, but it's hard. I was a Scout for seven years, worked at a camp one summer after that, and attended camp as an adult leader one other year. I loved it, and the views on gays and atheists are a dark stain on an otherwise wonderful program. It wasn't one that came up much, in my experience, though, but when it did it was jarring. One camporee, we were forced to pick a religious service to attend on Sunday morning, and due to family history I picked Catholic. It's the only time I remember ever taking communion, and it felt like a disturbing imposition on a personal issue.

In an organization that in many ways goes out of its way to be inclusive, it is sad when accidental bigotries of history interfere with the good work they do.

More than that, the DOD is MY money. Why should the Boy Scouts be funded by me? If I want to support them I'll give them money. :eyebrow:
Don't give me any shit about all the other things the DOD is using my money for, were talking Boy Scouts here.

Pie wrote:

But aren't all members of an organization responsible for the actions of that organization?

While that sounds reasonable, you know in your heart that it is not practical when carried too far. Realistically speaking, the larger an organization is, the more likely there will be a disconnect between the actions of an individual and the actions of the organization. I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. But as soon as the organization expands from one to two and beyond, my responsibility for the actions of other individuals in the organization diminishes somewhat. This separation is usually in proportion to my dedication to the organization, the size of the organization, and the importance of the issue at hand.

Pie wrote:

In college, I read a book called "Exit, Voice and Loyalty" that had a few ideas that really stuck with me. If one fundamentally disagrees with the tenants of an organization, one has two options: exit or voice.

If I fundamentally disagree with the tenets of an organization, then how can I really belong? Does my possession of a membership card indicate belonging? What about my name on a roster? What if the organization changes or I change, am I still part the organization?

Pie, I want to explore your statement. Actually, it's not easy for me to agree or disagree with an organization. It is much more natural for me to agree or disagree with an idea, a statement, or for me to express support or approbation for an action. Organizations have ideas, make statements and take actions. if I focus my response on these things, I find I make better, more reliable decisions.

Let me illustrate. I believe in the idea of fairness. I think it's important, and worthy of my support. A different person may also believe as I do. You could say we agree with each other about the idea.

If this other person said "Fairness is important.", I would agree with his statement. This is a stronger sense of agreement, since a statement is a more concrete, tangible expression than an idea.

If this other person demonstrated fairness, I would again approve, and this is the highest expression, the most real manifestation of fairness. Because an idea may be true or beautiful, but by itself, it is inert. Statements reveal more about ideas, but statements can be lies. Actions are the least ambiguous of the three and therefore the firmest foundation upon which to base my decisions.

I have another question. Do you imply that one may either exit an organization *OR* voice dissent? What if I wish to change an organization? Must I leave? What if the changes I seek are best pursued from within the organization? What if it's an organization from which I cannot easily leave? My family? My gender? My history? It is by association with others that makes an organization. And what I think and say and do today reflects on all the organizations of which I am a member. But I am responsible for those thoughts, words and actions, not my fellow members.

I don't see your choices as comprehensive or mutually exclusive.

Pie wrote:

"Loyalty" in this context is the triumph of complacency over ethos.

Pie, by "Loyalty", do you mean placing greater emphasis on status quo than on principles? What if I agree with most of what an organization stands for, but not a small part? What if I am neutral about some ideas?

Mutliple the detailed decision making process outlined above by the manifold instances for which it would occur in a large organization, like The Boy Scouts of America, in just one day. Or over a career. It is necessary, not complacent, to remain engaged, critical, and open to ensure that the arc of an organization matches the trajectory of one's ethos. It is my individual responsibility to associate with and respresent the many organizations I am a part of. As long as I am paying attention, I'll do that well, and there'll be a fair match. But I believe perfect fidelity is as unimportant as it is impossible. I'd rather we all be paying attention in the present, and see what happens.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

More than that, the DOD is MY money. Why should the Boy Scouts be funded by me?

As much as it is MY money. The statement that the Boy Scouts are funded by you, through your taxes via the DoD is just plain trolling. Puh-lease! Furthermore, our representational government implies that you and I have elected representatives to make these kinds of decisions. If you don't like it, trow da bums out.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

If I want to support them I'll give them money. :eyebrow:

Do. Or don't. But seriously, you should.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Don't give me any shit about all the other things the DOD is using my money for, were talking Boy Scouts here.

I reckon there's considerable affinity between the two organizations. They are structured similarly, they share very much the same values, and I believe that the Armed Services recognizes these things. I believe the chance to plant favorable seeds in fertile young minds for the cost of a base-wide drill can be easily justified as a recruiting expense.

BigV wrote:

It is possible to be tolerant, and selective.

Absolutely, it's called segregation. Except for some progroms and inquistions, Jews have been tolerated for most of the past 2000 years. Even in the early 20th century United State, we were tolerated. It was only when we tried to check into certain hotels and join certain country clubs that we found the difference between 'tolerance' and 'inclusion'.

I appreciate the good work of the Scouts. I was a Cub Scout a long time ago. However, as good citizens, the Scouting organization should be the first to understand the need to uphold principals, and one principal of this nation is that individuals should not be forced to have their taxes go to support organizations which actively discriminate against them (except for the armed forces). This includes the use of public resources.

I was a scout for a few years, we met at our local synagogue. I was catholic at the time, and meeting there gave me a lot of exposure to Judaism, which I can say only opened my mind to other ways of thinking and worshipping god. The adults I met who were invovled in our troop, were real mensches, to use a phrase. I'm sure the adults had differences of opinion about many things outside of scouting, but we never cottoned on to that as kids.

The other scouts were really pretty good guys to be around. Probably not as exciting (read larcenous/misdemeanorous) as some of my neighborhood friends, but also not so cliquish or back stabbing either.

I may have stayed on longer, but our scoutmaster left the troop for some reason, I think it was a combination of being married and also because (I think) he felt a number of the parents were not carrying their end of the load. Could be wrong.

In any case no one really stepped to the plate after he left and I really admired him to the point where I doubt anyone could have filled his shoes.

I don't hate anyone, and my intolerance is limited to peoples actions (e.g. letting your dog crap on my lawn and walking away as if you were leaving me a bag of Krügerands) rather than any other defining characteristic.

This non hatred wasn't the result of deprogamming either.

But that was my troop.

At a World Jamboree one time I was asked by my scoutmaster to invite the scoutmaster from another troop on a ballon ride. My scoutmaster was a hot air ballonist. This other scoutmaster and troop was from Arabia. I have no idea what this guy was thinking or what he was about, what kind of cultural worlds were colliding at that moment, but I did sense what i took as hostility or at least contempt. He sat there silently eating a piece of sausage not saying a single word for several minutes. My friend and I just sat there wiating for his answer that we could report back to our scoutmaster. After an extraordinary long silence he fianlly said OK or something to that effect. Probably not as long winded as OK. This was 1972 if I remember.

Whatever, that was his trip.

As far as the us govt fundung the BSA, is that new? I'm not surprised. During one drill at summer camp it occurred to me that the only difference between us and the military was that we didn't have guns. (they were locked up down at the rifle range, and we paid for our own bullets.)

I agree with BigV, the hatred and intolerance is a local thing and was not part of the program when I was there. But that was 30 sumpin years ago.

footfootfoot wrote:

As far as the us govt fundung the BSA, is that new?

Not government funding, but use of government resources not available to the general public.

BTW, there are all sorts of cultural cues which can be mistaken. Some cultures avoid eye contact, which makes them appear suspicious. From your description pf the encounter, I can't say if the guy was being rude or just thinking it over. I wasn't there. Of course, 72 was the Munich Olympic bombing, so there might have been tension.

lookout123 wrote:

oh wait, there was that time they let us use knives to whittle - should that be deemed as a danger to society?

You left out teaching you to shoot and forcibly crossing old ladies across streets.

Happy Monkey wrote:

One camporee, we were forced to pick a religious service to attend on Sunday morning, and due to family history I picked Catholic. It's the only time I remember ever taking communion, and it felt like a disturbing imposition on a personal issue.

If you weren't actually Catholic you shouldn't have taken communion (Protestants have a very different view of this one, incidentally).

And yes, that's a big deal, if you're Catholic. Hell, it's a big deal for me and I'm a very lapsed Catholic, to the point where I cannot take communion unless I would re-up.

Fortunately, Wolf, you needn't engage in ritual cannibalism anymore. You can engage in simple feasting instead.

I prefer leavened. And mead.

wolf wrote:

If you weren't actually Catholic you shouldn't have taken communion.

Exactly. I didn't feel like I had a choice.

BigV wrote:

Pie, I want to explore your statement.

BigV, as usual, your arguments are thoughtful and thought-provoking. They certainly deserve a cogent response. Unfortunately, I am heading off on a business trip to Texas in about 20 minutes, so I hope you'll forgive me if I delay my response till I get back (this weekend)? :o
- Pie (off to meet Emily...)

wolf wrote:

You left out teaching you to shoot and forcibly crossing old ladies across streets.

violence, sexism, and ageism, if you apply the ACLU's standards. The terms 'ACLU' and 'standards' should no longer be found in the same sentence. The morally just and absolutely necessary fight for equality that started in the 60s is no longer the ACLU's mission, regardless of what they'd like you to believe. They're more concerned now with keeping their leaders rich and their constituents in a constant state of victimhood. If no one's angry at heterosexual white males any more, the fine folks at ACLU have to get real jobs -- and no one wants that.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Exactly. I didn't feel like I had a choice.

When you're a kid, you don't have "choice" in the adult sense of the word. You don't get to pick your bedtime, you don't get to sass your elders, you have to eat your vegetables. If you want to be a scout, you have to do the salute and the knot-tying and the recited oaths -- it's not a social experiment or a venue for children to feel 'liberated.' The religious subtext to scout rituals is kind of like junior freemasonry. It's all pomp and circumstance, not an attempt to convert anyone to Religion X.

Apologies to followers of 'Religion X,' if such a thing exists.

Kids need structure and discipline and routine. If their parents follow a certain value system, kids are bound by it until they turn 18, at which time they are completely free to say, "You guys are full of shit" and pick their own path (and that of their children). /twocents

The BSA excludes homosexuals? I always thought <i>they</i> were gay.

Everywhere I've lived Boy Scouts are the kids who get ridiculed and beat up on the playground before, during and after school.

You don't have to suck dick to be ghey.

Where have you been? Didn't you get the memo?

Troubleshooter wrote:

You don't have to suck dick to be ghey.

Where have you been? Didn't you get the memo?

Sorry I was distracted by the Thai transvestites in another thread.

I think the BSA has every right to have exclusionary policies. But as an Eagle Scout, their stances on atheism and homosexuality sadden me, and I refuse to have anything to do with them anymore.

BigV wrote:

As much as it is MY money. The statement that the Boy Scouts are funded by you, through your taxes via the DoD is just plain trolling. Puh-lease!

Fuck You Boy Scout!!! Don't tell me I'm just fucking trolling when I make a very important fucking point. You got that?? DOD is MY fucking tax money and I don't want it spent on the Boy Scouts. You got that?? :flipbird:

Bruce for what it's worth i would absolutely agree with you if, A) that is why funding was pulled, and B) they start yanking funding from all of the other non-essential programs and organizations.

grant wrote:

Sorry I was distracted by the Thai transvestites in another thread.

pffffffft! hahhaha

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Fuck You Boy Scout!!! Don't tell me I'm just fucking trolling when I make a very important fucking point. You got that?? DOD is MY fucking tax money and I don't want it spent on the Boy Scouts. You got that?? :flipbird:

I'll forward your remarks to your Congressman, where they possibly could make an impression. Assuming you vote.

Here you go.

Senators and Representatives. You'll have to pick the right Rep yourself.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Fuck You Boy Scout!!!...

Sorry, you're not my type. Try here.

Stick your list up your condecending ass.
I know who my elected reps are...more importantly they know who I am, and how I feel. I'm actively keeping them informed all the time so they know I don't support your little brown shirts. :p

lookout123 wrote:

Bruce for what it's worth i would absolutely agree with you if, A) that is why funding was pulled, and B) they start yanking funding from all of the other non-essential programs and organizations.

You have to start somewhere plucking these parasites off the DOD tit. I'll bet most people aren't aware of where the money goes. That's where the ACLU can help by making this shit public. :eyebrow:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

You have to start somewhere plucking these parasites off the DOD tit. I'll bet most people aren't aware of where the money goes. That's where the ACLU can help by making this shit public. :eyebrow:

I would like to know. I heard an interview with someone on the radio who was explaining that all the services/chores enlisted men used to perform such as KP, laundry, etc. are now subcontracted to private comapanies who charge a friggin fortune and are paid much more handsomely than the guys who are fighting.

I think that is fucked up. I'm sure the guys at the top of that pyramid are buddies with or members of the bush/cheney/binladen consortium.

But can you link to or list any of the other teat suckers? My blood could use a little boiling and I like to keep in the know. Thanks.

The amount of money wasted by our government is obscene. That list would be 500 pages, with footnotes and appendices. Both parties, all branches. Every representative from every district has favors to pay off. Some of those favors have been paid off continuously for 50 years, but have never been stricken from the balance.

I think that is fucked up. I'm sure the guys at the top of that pyramid are buddies with or members of the bush/cheney/binladen consortium.

this is not a new thing with Bush. it has always been there, but was largely accelerated with the massive drawdown in the early '90's. and of course the civilians are paid more - you aren't providing 100% medical, life, legal, education, training benefits as you would for a GI.

lookout123 wrote:

this is not a new thing with Bush. it has always been there, but was largely accelerated with the massive drawdown in the early '90's. and of course the civilians are paid more - you aren't providing 100% medical, life, legal, education, training benefits as you would for a GI.

Point taken, corruption/cronyism isn't new.

I'm still not sure why civilians should be doing the job of the military. I have read that it is getting increasingly hard to find enlistees who are suitable for the military, but still, I imagine an army (in the generic sense) should be able to cook and clean etc for itself.

you aren't providing 100% medical, life, legal, education, training benefits as you would for a GI.

Not so sure were not paying those PLUS a tidy profit to those peoples employer? :eyebrow:

I don't think the migras that they have peeling the potatoes get insurance benefits.

the theory is that someone who serves even one enlistment is entitled to a variety of life long benefits. during the drawdown and through the late '90's it began to make sense that if we can only have X number of troops rather than 2X then we better make them count. they need to be warriors or direct support for a trigger puller. accountants, HR, kitchen help, postal workers, communications, etc. don't have to be warrior trained in most cases - make 'em civvies. they get a larger annual pay package, but fewer benefits. as an added bonus, you have greater continuity on an installation because your civvies aren't PCSing every 2/3 years.

one enlistment does NOT qualify one for lifelong benefits. Even the GI bill expires after ten years. Everything else stops when you turn in your green card. Unless you are injured and receive disability. Other than that, one must retire after twenty years to get lifetime benefits. And those suck, they're not what one gets on active duty. They mostly consist of commissary privileges and MWR access.

I know of which I speak.

how about the VA hospital? national cemetary? VA loans? there are benefits, no matter how small they seem when multiplied by the number of folks eligible it adds up to a very large number.

wolf wrote:

I don't think the migras that they have peeling the potatoes get insurance benefits.

Believe it or not, the potato peelers in the First Gulf War, anyhow, were Arabs. My friend who served in the first wave of the tank assault there said that one of his duties was to patrol the kitchen with his gun by his side while meals were cooked for his company. You never know what Abdul might take it into his mind to slip into the mashed potatoes, right?

Seems like we were better off in the good old days when KP meant peeling the potatoes yourself, not standing with a loaded gun, watching someone else do it.

that is thetruth. when i was in KSA and a few other spots we had pakistani and yemenese contractors for all the mess halls. the entire base went down with food poisoning because of their less than stellar understanding of bacteria. i refused to eat in the chow hall shortly after arriving in country, so by eating fresh baked bread from a local bakery i never got sick.

This has been a very interesting thread, lookout123. Thanks for starting it. There have been a couple of landmarks for me in it. I got a nice compliment from Pie. Thank you very much. I look forward to your replies. I saw posts from Happy Monkey, footfootfoot and mrnoodle with which I agree (at least the second half), to my surprise. That was very well put, both articulate and insightful. I even got sassed by xoxoxoBruce. Hehehe, "brown shirts", I get it. Cute. You should read your own sig.

I read posts that stimulated more questions, about my own motivations and those of my government. Regarding these last two.

richlevy, I was unclear about your seeming exclusion of the armed forces in your statement.

richlevy wrote:

I appreciate the good work of the Scouts. I was a Cub Scout a long time ago. However, as good citizens, the Scouting organization should be the first to understand the need to uphold principals, and one principal of this nation is that individuals should not be forced to have their taxes go to support organizations which actively discriminate against them (except for the armed forces). This includes the use of public resources.

What do you mean, that the armed forces may legitimately actively discriminate? If so, how and why? If not, please help me understand your remarks.

As to the difference between tolerance and being selective versus segregation, that's a very difficult question. In my heart, I think I'm being tolerant and selective when I'm on the inside, and being segregated against when I'm on the outside. That's human nature, I reckon. When is it acceptable and unacceptable? I think more details are needed to make an informed decision. I don't think any scenario beyond the comically simple could be decided with strict rules.

As to the military policy of having soldiers just for the shooting parts, and not for the support parts, I see the motivations for such a strategy. And here at home I think the good largely outweighs the bad. I think in the field, that policy shows it's weaknesses. I am not a policy expert in military matters, or in accounting. But I do get the sense that in dangerous environments, like theaters of battle, that saving money at the expense of defense/offense in depth has proven to have shortcomings. I imagine the Maginot Line--very strong against a frontal attack, but once flanked, no strength behind it. I don't mean this in a tactical sense, but that in the field, I can imagine that it would be a good idea to expect the cooks and the clerks and the mechanics and the medics to be able to fight, if needed.

A) medics can't fight without sacrificing the (purely imagined) protection of the Geneva Convention.

B) the military is allowed age descrimination and sexual discrimination for, i feel, fairly obvious reasons.

C) A large flaw in the "let's hire civilian contractors" push is what we are now seeing and hearing in the media. we have a sufficient number of trigger pullers to take the fight to the enemy, it is the soft troop strength that we are having problems with.

Example: If you have 1,000 trained GI's in skill set "A" and you have global conflicts that require that 100 of them be deployed at all times - you can rotate indefinitely without much problem. at a 6 month deployment you can go 4-5 years without redeploying the same individuals. If you replace 800 of those trained GI's with civilians who are nondeployable then you have to rotate your remaining 200 troops one after another. that burns them out and their are other problems that pop up with the situation.

oversimplified, yes - but an accurate representation of what has happened inthe US military since 1990.

lookout123 wrote:

how about the VA hospital? national cemetary? VA loans? there are benefits, no matter how small they seem when multiplied by the number of folks eligible it adds up to a very large number.

Bah. Just TRY getting treatment at a VA hospital. I did. I am entitled to those lifetime benefits at a VA hospital. It took me eight months just to get an appt to SEE a doctor. Tests would have taken longer had I not kept meticulous records ten years ago. One can die of old age before being treated there. If you don't have a blue ID card, forget it. And they'll tell you so right at the Admissions desk too.

VA loans. Okay, I give you this one. ANY veteran can borrow money, which still must be paid back with interest, albeit lower interest than the general pubic pays to a bank or mortgage company. Nothing is guaranteed however. You still have to qualify and repay. And there are restrictions on the size of the loan too. No multi-million dollar mansions...I'll have to look up the size limit for you. It's something like $235,000 maximum.

Brian

Brian I know that benefits aren't the greatest but they are there. depending on the area, it may be hard to get what is rightfully yours, but that is the red tape around the benefit. i've had dealings with the VA hospitals in chicago and also phoenix. it isn't the greatest experience, but it is there. i worked in a gov't position while in college serving vets (i am one as well) our entire job was to help ANY veteran who walked in A) find a job - some menial, some management B) skill retraining, C) coordinate education benefits, D) assist in health benefits. it was all absolutely cost free for the vet. it isn't exciting and no one was doing cartwheels at the glory of the benefits, but they are benefits, nonetheless. each service does cost something. multiply the services rendered by literally thousands upon thousands of people and you come up to a fairly large number.

now contrast that to a paycheck that you give a contractor. when the job stops, the benefits stop.

and the VA loan obviously has to be paid back. the lending guidelines are more forgiving for the vet though.

Okay, I’m back from Te-has. Everything is bigger in Texas; even the cockroaches. :shudder:

BigV wrote:

While that sounds reasonable, you know in your heart that it is not practical when carried too far. Realistically speaking, the larger an organization is, the more likely there will be a disconnect between the actions of an individual and the actions of the organization.

One needs to look at the purpose and scope of an organization. If I belong to the American Automobile Association, I don’t expect them to have a view on Social Security, or gay rights. If belong to AARP, they might legitimately have an organization-wide view on the former, but not the latter. If I were, say, a retired person, and had a view that was divergent from my parent organization, I would have to sit down and assess the level of divergence, and the importance of that divergence. If my views were only slightly askew, or I didn’t think they were that important (to me or to society), I might let it slide.
Otherwise, I have two options, as I enumerate previously. Publicly voice your disapproval, or leave the organization.

I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. But as soon as the organization expands from one to two and beyond, my responsibility for the actions of other individuals in the organization diminishes somewhat.

Of course individuals are responsible for their own actions! That’s why they are responsible for ALL their choices, including their choices of association. I can’t hang out with racists, not criticize their views, and then say, “Hey, it’s cool – I’m not a racist myself!” I’m not saying one is responsible for all the views of everyone in the organization – that would be impossible. But you are responsible for auditing the group-wide charter, platform or dogma. (Yes, this does apply to religions, too.)

If I fundamentally disagree with the tenets of an organization, then how can I really belong? Does my possession of a membership card indicate belonging? What about my name on a roster? What if the organization changes or I change, am I still part the organization?

That’s the heart of my argument! If you “fundamentally disagree,” you can’t belong. If their views change, I need to re-evaluate. If my views change, I also need to re-evaluate.

Because an idea may be true or beautiful, but by itself, it is inert. Statements reveal more about ideas, but statements can be lies. Actions are the least ambiguous of the three and therefore the firmest foundation upon which to base my decisions.

True. Actions are all that count. Stripping an Eagle Scout of his rank and association for being an atheist, or gay? That’s a pretty lousy action. Saying you’ll do it again, and it’s the “right thing to do”? That’s an egregious statement. Believing that homosexuality is incompatible with being a “moral” person? Repulsive idea. Just like that gang of racists, I can’t hang out with these folks.

I have another question. Do you imply that one may either exit an organization *OR* voice dissent? What if I wish to change an organization? Must I leave? What if the changes I seek are best pursued from within the organization? What if it's an organization from which I cannot easily leave? My family? My gender? My history?

It was phrased as an OR choice in the text to which I was referring. Doing your damnedest to change an organization from the interior is a most respectable way of dealing with such a dichotomy. That’s how I deal with being a citizen of the United States of America. I’ll voice my opposition to what’s currently going on as loudly and as often as I can. My other choice is to exit; I’ll do that only when I’ve exhausted all venues to affect change from my current position.
Of your three examples, I would class two as red herrings – gender and history are facts, not mutable opinions. The first is legitimate. Yes, if my brother is a fascist, and I can’t argue him out of it, I would have to think about whether or not to continue the relationship. (I am currently in a somewhat similar position, though not with my brother.)
[SIZE=1](Or perhaps you can't leave the relationship. You can certainly cross them of the list of people you like and admire!)[/SIZE]

It is by association with others that makes an organization. And what I think and say and do today reflects on all the organizations of which I am a member. But I am responsible for those thoughts, words and actions, not my fellow members.

But organizations do engage in actions. The various political parties engage in actions. The NRA, NAACP, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Catholic Church, the AAA – all engage in societal and legal actions as part of their charter. I’m not asking for an investigation of everyone who has ever been a member – I’m asking for an investigation of the organization itself. Do they represent your beliefs? Do they go against your beliefs?

Pie, by "Loyalty", do you mean placing greater emphasis on status quo than on principles? What if I agree with most of what an organization stands for, but not a small part? What if I am neutral about some ideas?

Then voice your opinion about the points you disagree on! Tell them you are a long-standing member that loves the Society for the Preservation of Domestic Aardvarks, but you don’t like their treatment of Spiny Echidnae as third-class citizens. Make your mark! Write to your Senator. Show up for the rally.
I was trying to illustrate the difference between blind loyalty and true loyalty. The former says "My group, right or wrong!" The latter says "We've got some issues here, folks. Doesn't anyone else see this?" Love it enough to want to change it for the better.

Mutliple the detailed decision making process outlined above by the manifold instances for which it would occur in a large organization, like The Boy Scouts of America, in just one day. Or over a career. It is necessary, not complacent, to remain engaged, critical, and open to ensure that the arc of an organization matches the trajectory of one's ethos. It is my individual responsibility to associate with and respresent the many organizations I am a part of. As long as I am paying attention, I'll do that well, and there'll be a fair match. But I believe perfect fidelity is as unimportant as it is impossible. I'd rather we all be paying attention in the present, and see what happens.

I think we really are on the same page, BigV. My only comment is that I have certain lines I don’t cross. Bigotry in any form is one of those lines. As far as the BSA goes, it's not the bigotry of a few radical members. It's enshrined in their nationwide charter. Unfortunately, that smirch sullies the vast, mostly guiltless majority.

If I had a friend that had crossed that line, I would first try to change their viewpoint, but if they held firm to their position, I would terminate the friendship. I treat organizations the same way. I expect my friends I respect to treat me the same way. If I’m bone-headed about something, argue with me about it, for Pete’s sake!

- Pie

Well, let's look at the NRA.

When then director Wayne LaPierre wrote a fund-raising letter painting all goverment agents as 'jackbooted thugs', former President G.H. Bush resigned in protest.

Some members embraced his comments, and other distanced themselves from them. So, did Mr. LaPierre speak for the entire organization when he placed his comments in a fund-raising letter mailed by the organization?

That's why I never went for the NRA lifetime membership. If they piss me off and I quit (which did happen), it doesn't matter to them. They've already got my money. :(

BigV wrote:

~~snip~~ sassed by xoxoxoBruce.[/url] Hehehe, "brown shirts", I get it. Cute. You should read your own sig. ~~snip~~

I've read it. You'll find out what happens when you abuse that dog if you ever accuse me of being a troll again. :p

richlevy wrote:

Some members embraced his comments, and other distanced themselves from them. So, did Mr. LaPierre speak for the entire organization when he placed his comments in a fund-raising letter mailed by the organization?

If he or the rest of the NRA leadership stood by the comments, then they should all be tarred with the same brush. If they repudiated it, then his comments do not speak for the organization.
What did the leadership of the organization do after the fact? According to a cursory glance at the article, WLaP did make a sort-of apology for his comments.
My personal take on it: way to go, Huge Berserk Rebel Warthog !
- Pie

have you heard the one about the US Senate voting 98-0 to allow the Boy Scouts to meet on military bases and continue receiving support?

yep, it happened within the past week, but not a lot being said about it. can't even find a story about it right now.

Did you see their reasoning?

(Go HERE, then select S8686, then scroll to SEC 1073)

(1) FINDINGS.--Congress makes the following findings:

(A) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(B) Under those powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States to provide, support, and maintain the Armed Forces, it lies within the discretion of Congress to provide opportunities to train the Armed Forces.

(C) The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to defend our national security and prepare for combat should the need arise.

(D) One of the most critical elements in defending the Nation and preparing for combat is training in conditions that simulate the preparation, logistics, and leadership required for defense and combat.

(E) Support for youth organization events simulates the preparation, logistics, and leadership required for defending our national security and preparing for combat.

(F) For example, Boy Scouts of America's National Scout Jamboree is a unique training event for the Armed Forces, as it requires the construction, maintenance, and disassembly of a ``tent city'' capable of supporting tens of thousands of people for a week or longer. Camporees at the United States Military Academy for Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts provide similar training opportunities on a smaller scale.

Supporting the Scouts is supporting national security!

You heard it here first.

I reckon there's considerable affinity between the two organizations. They are structured similarly, they share very much the same values, and I believe that the Armed Services recognizes these things. I believe the chance to plant favorable seeds in fertile young minds for the cost of a base-wide drill can be easily justified as a recruiting expense.

Just what we need, officers that stick tent poles into power lines.
Oh and don't forget the DOD has been supplying them with bullets for years.... but it hasn't helped. :(

Happy Monkey wrote:

Did you see their reasoning?

(Go HERE, then select S8686, then scroll to SEC 1073)
Supporting the Scouts is supporting national security!

(F) For example, Boy Scouts of America's National Scout Jamboree is a unique training event for the Armed Forces, as it requires the construction, maintenance, and disassembly of a ``tent city'' capable of supporting tens of thousands of people for a week or longer. Camporees at the United States Military Academy for Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts provide similar training opportunities on a smaller scale.

Sooooo, does this mean that we can get the military to host Plastic Forks if we can come up with another 10,000 people? :cool:

richlevy wrote:

Sooooo, does this mean that we can get the military to host Plastic Forks if we can come up with another 10,000 people? :cool:

Sweeeeeet! They have the best fireworks too.

We can barely get 10 Dwellars to Forks, much less 10,000.

sycamore wrote:

We can barely get 10 Dwellars to Forks, much less 10,000.

...but what if they could get to drive a tank? :D

I'm IN!!!!!

Sure we could all sit in the sun waiting for Bush to not show up like a bunch of drones. :headshake