Okay, I’ll bite: why did Wasilla Councilwoman Sarah Palin have a copy of the John Birch Society’s newsletter back in 1995?
And why was she cheerfully marking it up in her official photo?
And don’t tell me it’s just a random confluence of events. If the GOP had a picture of Barack Obama within 500 feet of a copy of The Final Call, Larry Johnson would be screaming from the rooftops. So why is Palin so happy to not only not hide the crazy right-wing claptrap, but actually highlight it in her picture?
The JBS is, let us not forget, too conservative for the conservative movement, with a long history of racist and antidemocratic action, all undertaken in the name of liberty. They believe that there’s a shadow government working to undermine the U.S. in favor of a one-world state, headed out of the UN. That the United Nations does not presently have full control of their own building doesn’t faze them; the NAFTA superhighway is going to destroy us all!
Needless to say, that Palin didn’t react to Bircher propaganda with revulsion puts her to the right not just of all Democrats and independents, but the vast majority of Republicans. She’s entirely the wrong person to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, or indeed, within the same universe as the president. Heckuva job, Maverick.
Did you just call her a pig?
While I couldn’t agree more with the assessment of Palin’s fitness for high public office, I have to say I think this kind of thing is a waste of time (especially as there’s plenty of real, solidly sourced Palin dirt to play with). Afaik there’s no evidence that Palin has ever been a Bircher, and there’s no way to prove anything against her merely for having a JBS newsletter. It’s possible that Palin just grabbed a random pile of papers and a pen to lend gravitas to her photo. This one is even flimsier than the AIP story.
(Of course if you can find a copy of her JBS membership card, I’ll sing a different tune.)
It’s not a waste of time. I encourage all left-leaning bloggers to devote their lives to ferreting out the Palin-Bircher connection! There are a still a few scraps of credibility left to consume, after all.
I find it hard to believe. I mean, would the Birchers allow a fan of Westbrook Pegler, who they excommunicated for extremism, into their ranks?
Why bother with guilt-by-association? Aren’t her policies bad enough?
And the score is: Lu 98 words, Thene 11 words. I’ll just let Thene talk from now on.
Andy, I doubt that Palin’s a fan of Pegler. (She didn’t write her own speech; I doubt she knew where the quote came from, or who Pegler was. And it’s possible that the speechwriter didn’t know who Pegler was, either.)
What Lu and Thene said.
And yes, the GOP would certainly run with irrelevant stuff like this — they already have. But I don’t think we should.
Ech. My first reaction to reading about Palin, and specifically the State Trooper controversy, was, “Great, she’s Spiro T. Agnew with two X chromosomes instead of the Y.” But as I’ve read more about her, she’s started to look less like Agnew and more like Greg Stillson, the messianic politician from Stephen King’s The Dead Zone (played by Martin Sheen in the David Cronenberg film) who’s destined as President launch an unprovoked nuclear war unless the clairvoyant protagonist can derail his career. The question I most want to see her asked in a public forum is some version of this: “Nuclear war: horrible, or glorious?” She’s already casually allowed that it might be necessary for the U.S. to go to war with Russia over Georgia’s sovereignty, after all (of course, one wonders whether she’s aware that the nation of Georgia exists, or whether she thought the question referred to an unlikely scenario in which the Russians tried to land troops on the U.S. Atlantic coast in an inverse reprise of Sherman’s march to the sea).
Alex, you do realize that this was in the context of Georgia’s pending membership in NATO, don’t you? Palin was not “casual” about the matter. She was being both truthful and realistic.
Georgia has applied to become a member of NATO. The terms of the NATO treaty obligate all NATO members to defend a NATO ally as if they themselves were the nation invaded. If Georgia’s application to NATO is accepted (over Russia’s objections, but then they’re not a member of NATO), then we would be obligated to defend them if they were invaded regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office. Apparently she’s more up to speed on this topic than the people criticizing her. Unless, of course, you support abrogating the NATO treaty.
“And don’t tell me it’s just a random confluence of events. If the GOP had a picture of Barack Obama within 500 feet of a copy of The Final Call, Larry Johnson would be screaming from the rooftops. ”
lol
That was a good work day laugh for me right there.
To bad this women and the possibility of us voting her in are not humorous at all
Which is why Georgia should not be in NATO. I can’t believe we’re even considering that.
In regards to the NATO issue: I think that conservatives who favor Georgia’s NATO membership are going to have a hard time arguing both:
1) Of course we shouldn’t have got ourselves directly involved in a shooting war with Russia over this most recent conflict.
and
2) However, it’s perfectly reasonable to commit ourselves to direct involvement in a shooting war with Russia in the event of any further conflict.
If the Georgia/Russia conflict hadn’t involved some level of provocation by Georgia, that would be one thing, and the pro-NATO-membership faction might have a few more legs to stand on, but as it stands, the argument seems to be “if we promise to always back them up, they probably won’t ever need it,” which seems … unlikely.
—Myca
The Bircher denial of Palin’s involvement (it’s on Politico) is actually kind of entertaining for its lack of self-esteem. The Bircher leader tries to sound belligerent but essentially says, “We spammed every Alaskan official with our nutty crap, and none of them paid attention.”
Here’s a suggestion.
If you
1) hear an accusation directed at a Republican
2) which, had it been directed at your favorite politician, wouldn’t significantly change your opinion of her,
3) then please don’t pass it on.
If Obama, or Boxer, or Camejo (my favorite, RIP) had been photographed with a copy of the JBS mag (or the Socialist Quarterly, or whatever) on their desks a dozen years ago, it wouldn’t change my opinion of them one bit.
So why would I expect this sort of thing to change Palin’s supporters’ minds?
p.s. Jeff, do you read the comments to your posts? Just wondering…I don’t think I’ve ever seen you post a response.
I do post responses, though I’ve been busy today.
And don’t get me wrong — this, by itself, is not enough to say anything specific. But it’s a data point, more evidence that Palin is far to the right of not just the mainstream, but the GOP as well.
Jeff, I think this is dumb. It won’t change anyone’s mind. It just makes it look like you can’t find anything substantive (or important) to criticize about her. Hell her stupid answers to spontaneous questions. (e.g. construction bonds) are more damning in IMO.
Word, Joe. She’s not a moderate and never claimed to be… she was appointed to get the conservative base on board. Palin looking ultra-mega conservative will not make her unappealing to those who she appeals to. That being said, if well-substantiated, proof that Palin is part of the right’s fringe could serve as impetus for non-conservatives who aren’t all that enamored with Obama to get to the polls and vote against her.
I doubt she knew where the quote came from, or who Pegler was
That seems to me to grant a extraordinary license for harum-scarum. Particularly when addressing 30 million people.
What’s “harum-scarum”?
I do think Palin should be held accountable for saying the quote, in that she should be asked if she thinks it was right to quote a radical anti-Semite in her big acceptance speech. But I suspect what she’d (or her reps) would say is that they just didn’t know who Pegler was — and I suspect that would be the truth.
This is something legitimate to hold against her, because it says something about the competence of McCain’s campaign, and the lack of depth displayed by both Palin and her running mate McCain.
(It’s also a good idea because holding politicians’ feet to the fire on stuff like this gives them an incentive to vet their quotes better in the future. )
But I don’t think it’s legitimate, on the evidence we have, to attribute a desire to promote Pegler to Palin.
ETA: It’s also yet another media double-standard in this campaign. If Obama had favorably quoted Pegler, it would be a big deal in the media.
What’s “harum-scarum”
Recklessness. And also, a dreadful Elvis Presley movie.
If Obama had favorably quoted Pegler, we’d have been treated to hearing that “this was not the Westbrook Pegler that I knew”. Poor Westbrook. Is there any chance that someone with a name like that wouldn’t turn out nuts?
I can’t believe this thread.
Here in the south, the Birchers were only one half-step up from the kkk. (I first heard them described as “the klan, but with books.”) The ubiquitous “US OUT OF UNITED NATIONS!” billboards from the 70s, were all theirs.
Are we really supposed to ignore it when a future-VP reads Bircher literature?
Good god, no wonder we are losing this election.
You know, there have been comic cons I’ve exhibited at where dreadful comics, that I wouldn’t be caught dead reading, wind up in front of me as I sign or speak. This is because people hand me things, and I’ve got a lot to do and a lot of people to speak with, so rather than argue with them or even looking at what they’ve handed me, I just say “oh, thanks, I’ll look at this later” and then put it on top of the pile in front of me.
I hate Palin’s politics as much as anyone does, and I know you’re right about the Birchers. But despite my bias, I can see that this photo doesn’t prove a thing. Swing voters, who are less anti-Palin than I am, aren’t going to see this photo as proof of anything.
I don’t think it makes it more likely that we defeat Palin if we make a big deal of stuff like this. I think it reduces our credibility, and thus makes it harder to get better-supported arguments against McCain and Palin taken seriously.
Current polls show Obama is winning the election. McCain got a good post-convention bounce out of a flashy VP selection, but it seems to have faded.
(Of course, things could still change, alas.)
Don’t listen to Amp! Start researching your Palin-Bircher blogs! Spend the weekend on it! Not on voter registration!
But I don’t think it’s legitimate, on the evidence we have, to attribute a desire to promote Pegler to Palin
I’ll concede the point. But I do think this is a much different matter than someone, say, praising Henry Ford’s entrepreneurial spirit and finding out later about Ford’s virulent anti-semitism.
Racism was Pegler’s raison d’être, not a subsidiary character flaw. He wasn’t praising small-town virtue in the quote uttered by Palin. He was using “small town” as a synecdoche for “white patriotic Americans.”
The enthymeme to “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity” is “unlike our large cities.” Whether one is a fan of Pegler that’s a pretty nasty sentiment.
Here in the south, the Birchers were only one half-step up from the kkk. (I first heard them described as “the klan, but with books.”)
Could you elaborate on that? I don’t know much about their history, but I haven’t been able to find any substantive dirt on them, racewise.
And as far as I can tell, they’re no further to the right than this blog is to the left.
Only the John Birch society doesnt think the John Birch society is racist. In the small town where my parents grew up in East Texas public members of the JBS and the CCC were private members of the Klan. More to the point, I think the idea that opposition to the Civil Rights Act is a racist position is fairly uncontroversial.
Positions and groups that are as “far to the left” on race as other groups that are far to teh right on race are not moral equivalents in my book.
Precisely. It’s not only a waste of time but actually harmful. Thanks, Amp.
Knowing very little about the JBS, I can’t comment, but I agree with the point about moral equivalency. My guess is that any two people here have different political views in some area, and similar ones in some other area. I for instance am pro-choice but not an absolutist, and tend to annoy extremists at both ends; otoh I am pretty much an absolutist about same-sex marriage (I’m for it) and behavior in private between consenting adults (it’s none of my or anyone else’s business), about which last I’ll bet the libertarians here would agree with me — and Amp, and most of the lefties here.
(I forget: have we done the Political Compass test here before? I think so. I come out at -6, -6 — roughly: I never come out with exactly the same numbers twice because the questions are deliberately black and white so you’ll have to split differences.)
(Lu, I get 5.5, -5.2 – dead centre of the left libertarian square. I was moderate about the bulk of the first four pages, then a raving extremist on the last 2).
I’m Economic Left/Right: -6.50; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23.
Andy, I agree that the statement “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity” carries some pretty nasty implications — and that there’s a lot of racism and anti-Semitism lurking behind the contempt for big-city folk, at least in some Republicans.
Racist Republicans aren’t currently your problem.
(In fairness, the underlying study shows Republicans with even higher levels of ill feeling towards blacks – but they weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway.)
Is it possible to make any positive statement about small-town Americans that wouldn’t carry “nasty implications”? If Obama said “people from our urban cores are good folk, with savvy, sophistication and ethics”, would that be him being anti-white and anti-Christian? Seems silly to me, but YMMV.
I came out around the same place as Angela Merkel. I’ve always thought of myself as a centrist German woman.
-1.62/-5.23. Right of the Daili Lama, south of Kusinich.
That’s the way we like to think of you too, Robert. And as an Extra Added Bonus you can get a free presidential back rub.
Score! One volk, one reich, one backrub!
+1.0, +2.15
Aroundthebend claims that he know of JBS members in East Texas who were also KKK. The JBS would automatically expel a KKK member from its membership. Aroundthebend probably doesn’t know that it was The JBS took on the Klan and sent Delnmar Dennnis, out on a speaking tour to expose the Klan. Mr. Dennis’s testimony led to the conviction of a Klansman. The JBS had many black and white speakers in the South during the 1960s. Our efforts helped to prevent racial turmoil.
The JBS has always welcomed men and women from all races into its ranks. If Aroundthebend can provide me with names of these folks he claims are JBS members and Klansmen, I will guarantee that their membership will be terminated.
Hal Shurtleff
Given that Palin has played footsie with Alaska First, it wouldn’t surprise me if she had also played footsie with JBS. I think that she travels pretty far with a number of fringe-right groups but is too politically ambitious to have formal ties with them.
Appearances do matter, though. Does anybody know if the Boy Scouts seated behind the podium *in uniform* when McCain announced Palin as his pick have been reprimanded yet? Because their appearance of endorsing McCain has cost our Scouts the opportunity to help assisted living residents reach the polls on 11/4.
Yes, they do. Unfortunately, however good the intention, talking up unsubstantiated and probably unsubstantiable wild rumors gives our side the appearance of desperately grasping at any straw we can find to try to discredit Palin. We shouldn’t do this, and, with all the solid data already out there on Palin, we needn’t.
I think some people may be frustrated that even after all the legitimate bad news that’s come out on Palin, we’re still seeing quotes to the effect of “I’m going to vote for her because we’re both moms.” We need to keep in mind that about 40 percent of the electorate will vote McCain/Palin even if there’s irrefutable proof that they eat small children for breakfast. We’re not talking to those voters, and they don’t care anyway. We need to target the swing voters and keep pounding away at the real stuff — it’s the economy, stupid — not wasting our time on chimeras.
(I wouldn’t have expected to be quite that close to Amp. Sometimes I amaze myself.
(Apparently Ron is also a German woman. Guten Tag, Ron!)
Does anybody know if the Boy Scouts seated behind the podium *in uniform* when McCain announced Palin as his pick have been reprimanded yet?
A matter of hot debate on the Scouting lists. National Council policy is that Scouts and Scouters in uniform can be present on the podium at events such as the Democratic and Republican conventions for flag ceremonies, but then must clear the deck before the partisan activities start. Announcing his VP pick was most definitely a partisan activity, and they should not have been there.
I don’t know what local Council those Scouts belonged to. At the least, the Council office (if they heard about this) should have reprimanded the unit or units involved. It may be that no reprimand was issued because no one is able to identify who those Scouts and Scouters were.
I have no idea if the Scouters (adults registered in the BSA) simply didn’t understand National policy, or understood but didn’t care, or didn’t realize what the timing of what was going on was and thought they were supposed to wait for some signal or something and got caught off-guard.
As one of America’s best known patriotic organizations, BSA members have helped present the flag at both the Republican and Democratic national conventions and at numerous other national, state and local events for most of their history. I did not see them on stage at this year’s DNC. I don’t know why they were not there. I do know that at the 2000 DNC the California state delegates booed the Scouts who were on stage – it made the news, and I have personally corresponded with a Scouter who was there and witnessed it.
Eh.
The minute the scouts got on board the ‘gay people are dirty’ train, they made their political bed (to mangle the fuck out of a metaphor). It’s foolish to imagine that they’re in any way non-partisan any more, and it’s foolish for them to expect to be treated as if they are.
They’re an organization that condones hate and discrimination based on sexual orientation, which, to my mind, makes them just about a perfect fit for the McCain campaign.
—Myca
PS: To expand a bit on what I mean, what I’m saying is that this is a political ‘question’ that’s facing our nation right now: “Is it morally acceptable to discriminate against gay people?”
The McCain campaign in specific, the Republican party in general, and the Boy Scouts of America fall on one side of this issue.
The Obama campaign in specific and the Democratic party in general fall on the other.
One group believes that this form of discrimination is (broadly) acceptable, another (broadly) doesn’t. They’re publicly taking sides on a current political issue.
I think that the first group is making a bad mistake, aligning themselves with some evil ideas, and putting themselves on the wrong side of history, but regardless, their choices are their own.
—Myca
-4.50. -4.82
Fun test.
“Is it morally acceptable to discriminate against gay people?” The McCain campaign in specific, the Republican party in general, and the Boy Scouts of America fall on one side of this issue. The Obama campaign in specific and the Democratic party in general fall on the other.
No, they don’t. Barack Obama is opposed to gay marriage, favoring civil unions.
Saying that the parties are on opposite sides of the issue requires drawing a line between them that has little relevance to the question you ask. John McCain believes that it should be OK to light hobos on fire, and the government should give out free gasoline to hobo-burners. Barack Obama says it’s OK to light hobos on fire, but that the gasoline must be paid for by private individuals. This is not the two candidates being on opposite sides of the question “is it OK to burn hobos?”
Barack Obama believes it to be morally acceptable to discriminate against gay people, specifically, for religious reasons. He draws different lines around the types of discrimination he’d permit than John McCain does (no government discrimination), but there is no credible way to believe he is flatly opposed to discrimination without also alleging him to be a huge liar in his public statements on the issue.
“I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.” – Barack Obama, 2008
Ironically enough, Obama’s position on gay marriage is pretty much my position, and for similar reasons. Well, without the triangulating, “please vote for me gay people, but please don’t not vote for me conservative black religious people”, spin part.
Well, yes, that’s why I said broadly.
I don’t like Obama’s position on gay marriage, but he is significantly to the left of John McCain, who opposes not only gay marriage, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Furthermore, when it comes to adoption, employment non-discrimination, hate crimes, and ‘don’t ask don’t tell’, the differences are clear.
Like I said, I don’t like or share Obama’s position on gay marriage, but I’ve also seen too many right wing liars pretend that there’s no difference between Obama and McCain on gay rights and discrimination, and there really, really is.
—Myca
More information:
John McCain on the human rights of gay people.
Barack Obama on the human rights of gay people.
The minute the scouts got on board the ‘gay people are dirty’ train, they made their political bed (to mangle the fuck out of a metaphor). It’s foolish to imagine that they’re in any way non-partisan any more,
Actually, it’s foolish to equate “take a social position consistent with one of someone else’s political beliefs” to “agree with all of someone else’s political beliefs” to being a partisan of that someone else’s political party; “an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.” There’s plenty of people in the BSA who disagree with it’s stance on this point. There’s plenty of Democrats in the BSA. By no means is the BSA a partisan organization.
and it’s foolish for them to expect to be treated as if they are
The minors who were on stage that night in California were there as invited guests. If it was foolish for them to expect to not be abused when they showed up it speaks quite ill of the Democratic Party.
Any complaints the California delegation had with the presence of the Scouts should have been taken up with the Democratic National Committee’s organizers. Only a bunch of thoughtless cowards would yell at a group of kids.
Only a bunch of vicious child-abusing fucks taking unforgivable advantage of impressionable youth would pledge a bunch of kids to hate and exclusion and put them into a situation where they get called on their shit, so yeah, I guess there’s some blame to go around.
—Myca
And, just to clarify, my ‘Eh’ in post #39 wasn’t about the reaction to the scouts at the Democratic event, it was to the presence of the scouts in uniform at a political McCain event.
I don’t think that booing a bunch of kids is a good idea. I think of them the same way I’d think of kids at a ‘white power’ event … unfortunately brainwashed by adults who care more about their hate than they do about taking care of the kids.
My ‘Eh’ about the McCain thing, is, as I said, because I don’ t think there’s any point in pretending that the scouts don’t have a political stripe these days. If they want to be treated as non-partisan, they should start acting non-partisan.
—Myca
No wonder you’re in need of a comedy fix, Myca. You live in a world full of “child-abusing fucks” and relatively few Lightworkers such as yourself. What a burden it must be to be so much more good than everyone else, so good that you are even able to explain why screaming at children serves the Cosmic Love.
I said:
Robert lied:
Wow, way to distort, Robert. Taking a cue from McCain?
As I said, I disapprove of booing kids. I do, however, think that teaching kids that ‘gay people are dirty’ is child abuse.
Just as I would think that teaching them that ‘black people are dirty’ is child abuse.
You may disagree with either or both statements, but there we are.
—Myca
Knowing how these things work as I do; someone has an event – say, the local School Board is dedicating a new school. They either call up a local Scout leader that someone knows or (as in the case of the 2000 Democratic National Convention and I’ll bet the McCain event) they call up the HQ of the local BSA Council and say “Hey, we’re doing this,we’d like the Scouts to present the flag.” Local Council passes the word out “This is happening, does anyone want to do this?” Some Scouter sees/hears about it and says “Sure, we’ll do it, where and when?” and off they go. Where they expect to be treated with hospitality. It’s common for organizations of all political stripes to do this, it’s not limited to Republicans.
The presence of those Scouts and Scouters on the stage when McCain made his VP announcement was not “The BSA backs the Republicans and this VP pick”, it was “The Scoutmaster fucked up and didn’t get them off the stage. He or she should have known better.” As we say on the Scouting lists, “Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt.” Don’t make one person’s mistake that was explicitly against policy out to be a partisan declaration by a national organization.
And of course I do disagree with the concept that the BSA is teaching kids ‘gay people are dirty’ – but then, as you say, there we are.
Oy, here we go again.
I doubt if Scouters sit around the fire on camp-outs saying, “Now, boys, if we ever find out that anyone is gay, we have to make sure not to let him join in any
reindeer gamesScouting activities.” As we’ve previously discussed, the topic probably comes up rarely if ever.Otoh, from the National Council web site:
Now, I’m not sure exactly how they define “homosexual conduct,” but it’s clear from the legal cases mentioned on the same page that admitting to being gay would do it. As far as I can see, therefore, “gay people are dirty” is a fair translation of “homosexual conduct is inconsistent with [being] clean in thought, word and deed.” So even if the topic never comes up directly with the kids — unless, presumably, a troop member turns out to be gay — the BSA is bigoted, pure and simple, and in my book that’s reason enough to refrain from supporting them in any way, no matter how bad I may feel for the kid who comes to my door innocently selling Christmas wreaths. If enough people refuse to support them and refuse to let their kids participate in such a foul organization, maybe the national council will change its tune. It is a cop-out to say that local troops have no choice, they have to follow the rules. No one is putting a gun to their heads and telling them they have to be Boy Scouts.
(Admittedly, I’d have a lot more trouble with this if I had a son who wanted to join. I do believe I would still stand on principle here.)
The question crosses my mind: what if the leader or members of a troop suspect that a member is gay? Are they allowed to go through his backpack? Give him the third degree? Harass him unmercifully? It doesn’t seem to me like a very healthful environment for any boy of whatever sexual orientation.
Oh, and of course the Democrats were wrong to boo the kids.
And just because the Boy Scouts and the GOP agree (broadly) about homosexuality, it doesn’t follow that the Boy Scouts are GOP partisans. As I said before, I’ll bet Brandon and I agree on keeping the state out of private bedrooms, but I’ll also bet we differ on just about everything else. Obviously I don’t think the Boy Scouts lend legitimacy to any political party, and I’d like to see both parties recognize that.
Btw, about the Boy Scouts’ being barred from helping voters get to the polls on Election Day — can they not do it as private citizens or as members of some other organization, not as Boy Scouts?
Because their appearance of endorsing McCain has cost our Scouts the opportunity to help assisted living residents reach the polls on 11/4.
Original Lee, what was that all about?
The Scouts used to be involved in “Get out the Vote” campaigns a lot. It ended up being discouraged because a lot of people were perceiving it as being targeted to particular locations/neighborhoods that would favor one candidate or another – in other words, it was being perceived as partisan to whatever party was in the majority in their area.
Because their appearance of endorsing McCain has cost our Scouts the opportunity to help assisted living residents reach the polls on 11/4.
Original Lee, what was that all about?
The Scouts used to be involved in “Get out the Vote” campaigns a lot. It ended up being discouraged because a lot of people were perceiving it as being targeted to particular locations/neighborhoods that would favor one candidate or another – in other words, it was being perceived as partisan to whatever party was in the majority in their area.
Lu asked:
The question crosses my mind: what if the leader or members of a troop suspect that a member is gay? Are they allowed to go through his backpack? Give him the third degree? Harass him unmercifully? It doesn’t seem to me like a very healthful environment for any boy of whatever sexual orientation.
You’re right, it wouldn’t be. That’s why the answer is “None of the above.” You can suspect all you want – you’re not allowed to ask or do anything to determine a member’s sexual orientation.
There was an incident at Camp Yagoog years ago. A Scout on summer camp staff there was asked by the Camp Director if he was gay. The Scout answered ‘Yes” and was fired. He complained to National. National directed him to be reinstated with back pay and for the Camp Director to apologize.
I’ve had one leader and one kid who I suspected to be gay. I didn’t do a damn thing about it in either case, as per both National policy and my own inclination. None of my business.
Winging it, I got -4.25/-4.36, pretty much in the smack dab middle of the bottom left square. I guess that makes me an average liberal in the international sense, and a raging commie anarchist by the contemporary American sense.
I will now go back to ignoring another thread about the Boy Scouts.
Yeah, we don’t need another discussion on the merits of the BSA’s membership policies. I just wanted to point out that the presence of the Scouts at the VP announcement was an individual screwup, not an organizational partisan position.
RonF, sorry about the delay in answering your question – I had no Internet access for a while.
The situation is this: Our Boy Scouts have to get permission to help the residents of a nearby assisted living center get to the polls, which are in the school part of the community center next door. We have to get permission from both the ALC director and the head election judge for the site because the Scouts are with the residents up to the point where the poll workers take over, which is inside the no-campaigning perimeter. This was a rule instituted a long time ago, and nowadays nobody remembers exactly why, but of course because the rule has been in place for so long, it’s set in stone. They are supposed to be in uniform so that they are clearly identifiable as Scouts because part of the arrangement with the ALC is that they start telling residents in October to expect a Boy Scout when they sign up as needing help to get to the polls. I suspect that only the 18-year-olds would still be welcome to help out in mufti if we can work out the details.
Anyway, after Labor Day I called the head election judge for the polling site, and got a NO answer for the first time ever (and our troop has been doing this for 35 years). Why?
“I saw those Boy Scouts behind the podium when McCain picked Palin. Y’all are supposed to be nonpartisan, and now I can’t trust you to be nonpartisan. Even if you swear on a stack of Bibles, a lot of people saw them on TV behind McCain, and I don’t want to take the chance that somebody will think I’m trying to get everybody here to vote for McCain.”
What about our Girl Scouts, then? (Our Girl Scouts give out the “I Voted” stickers and run errands for the poll judges and poll workers.)
“Honey, if I say no to the Boy Scouts, I can’t turn around and say yes to the Girl Scouts. Sorry.”
Incidentally, those Scouts behind McCain did not participate in the flag ceremony at all, as far as I could tell. They wandered in about 10 minutes before McCain did and appeared to take their seats right away (i.e., they were not redirected to the podium from the audience, nor did they appear to take seats out of camera range and then move behind the podium later). If I had recorded the event on my DVR, I probably would have been able to suss out the troop number and Council, because there was a clear but fleeting view of their left sleeves when they turned to go their seats. There were two adults and two boys, but one of the adults was the one on camera most of the time.
WRT the anti-gay policies of BSA:
Our troop takes the position that National can say what it likes about various issues, but the relationship of National’s policies to the actual running of a troop is very similar to that of the national teachers’ unions versus the running of a school. We currently have one boy in our troop who is almost certainly gay (1 out of 25 is about the national average, IIRC), but nobody is telling him can’t be a Scout or discriminating against him because of his presumed sexual orientation, as far as I can tell, and certainly none of our leaders ask any of the boys which way they swing. Maybe this is just our version of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but we don’t enforce the National policy, and there are many other troops that are like ours.
But if that same Scout had walked into the Director’s office and said, “hey, guess what, I’m gay,” the Director would have been able, indeed obliged by National policy, to throw him out on his ear forthwith? That is a weird organization.
If I understand Ron correctly, as long as the boy doesn’t out himself, and no one else outs him with compromising pix or the like, you are following National policy to the letter. The catch is (assuming that this boy is indeed gay, or speaking of any boy who finds himself in this predicament, as many must) that the boy has to deny an essential part of his identity to continue as a Scout. Alternatively, if the boy comes out or does anything overtly gay, you have to either throw him out of the troop or knowingly violate National policy, either of which would be wrong.
(As we’ve also discussed before, the same calculus applies to a Scout who on mature consideration decides that he doesn’t believe in God or isn’t sure if he believes or not. National would have to change this policy as well in order for me to support the Boy Scouts in any way.)
Wrt get-out-the-vote efforts: are the Scouts the only organization that could do this? Could the slack be taken up by, say, the local League of Women Voters, aided by any volunteers who present themselves? (I believe the LWV goes to great lengths to avoid any appearance of partisanship and does participate in things like this.)
It’s the way segregation works, apparently modeled on “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
It’s cool to join, as long as you ‘pass,’ and pretend you’re not who you are.
—Myca
Ron, were there any direct journalistic accounts of this booing from a mainstream news organization? My memory may be mistaken, but as I recall, the primary source for that is an article in the far-right-wing paper The Washington Times.
(I do know that you also mentioned anecdotal evidence. But even well-intended anecdotal evidence is unreliable.)
Robert, comment #47 was a personal attack, and I’d prefer you not do that on “Alas”. (In tone, you were no stronger than what Myca said in #45 — but Myca was attacking a public organization, not another poster on this forum.)
“Robert, comment #47 was a personal attack, and I’d prefer you not do that on “Alas”. (In tone, you were no stronger than what Myca said in #45 — but Myca was attacking a public organization, not another poster on this forum.)”
I’d add to that — Robert straight-up owes Myca an apology, both for the personal insult and for the fact that it was based on a misinterpretation or twisting of Myca’s words.
Folks, we’ve discussed the BSA’s membership policies ad nauseam elsewhere. I answered a couple of questions of fact, but I don’t see rehashing the merits being particularly useful at this point.
Lu, I can see where the election judge would be worried about what other people had seen. It’s just damn unfortunate. I wonder if National’s attention has been drawn to this. You should document your experience (perhaps even with a statement from the local election judge if he or she is willing) and forward it along to Irving (with copies to your local Council and Region offices). Some pressure should be put on to find out who this is and make sure that something is done about it.
Amp, it was also reported on BNET here. It’s reported elsewhere as well, but they all seem to be feeding off of the Washington Times report. While you may not like what you perceive as a bias at the Washington Times (I phrase it in this way because I know nothing of them myself), the article names a specific delegate as having made signs and quotes two other delegates by name. I would expect that if 3 people were misquoted there’d be some repercussions or denials.
Now, you may discount my correspondence with an eyewitness as “anecdotal”, but from my viewpoint he is as credible as any reporter.
My 47 was based on Myca’s post where he characterized screaming at children as “calling them on their shit”. It was posted just as he then revised the remark to say that he wouldn’t say that screaming at children was “a good idea”.
Myca never actually went so far as to condemn screaming at children until he responded to my 47. If that’s his final answer, then I apologize for insinuating that he thought it was OK to scream at children.
It says a lot that you think the possibly mythical ‘booing of kids’ is more worthy of censure than actual segregation, Robert.
—Myca
“then I apologize for insinuating that he thought it was OK to scream at children.”
And where’s your apology for the personal remarks? As unforthcoming as your willingness to admit error?
Mandolin, the “personal remarks” don’t warrant an apology. If you check the archives of this site, you will find many instances of me retracting statements or acknowledging error on my part, so your opinion there seems contradicted by evidence.
Myca, you are correct that segregation bothers me very little. As old-fashioned as it may be, I believe in the individual right of association and choice; I do not believe the Scouts should be forced to accept people whose behavior or morals they find objectionable, and with the same strength I believe that you should not be forced to accept people whose behavior or morals YOU find objectionable (whomever that may be). At bottom, I see no way to justifiably hold on to my right to reject, without granting that right to others, even if I see their use of the right as misguided. (Spare us, please, the tired argument that your discrimination doesn’t count, because you only want to discriminate against discriminators and bigots and horrible people.)
Some Democrats want to use that right to reject the Scouts and exclude them from Democratic events. More power to them; that is totally appropriate. It would be polite, however, to make that determination ahead of time and refrain from inviting the discriminated-against group, rather than yelling at them when they get there. They seem to have worked it out this time; there weren’t any Scouts in Denver that I saw.
Oh, Robert, you know that’s silly.
Nobody’s arguing that the scouts should be compelled to admit gay people.
They’re arguing that their fully legal, fully permissible decision to engage in the segregation of children is vile.
It’s also not ‘illegal’ to boo kids on a stage.
And yet the possibly mythical one, affecting at most a small group, really really bothers you and the incredibly well-documented one, affecting an entire community, doesn’t. Like I said, that says a lot.
RonF, now I’m confused. Upthread you said that the incident at McCain’s event was much discussed on Scouting boards, but now you’re wondering if National knows about it? Or do you mean National needs to know about our election judge refusing to let the Scouts help with a GOTV effort? If the latter, we reported it at Roundtable and are letting it go through channels. Surely somebody recorded the event and can freeze-frame the instant where the troop numbers were visible.
There are a few – and I mean a few – professionals on the Scouting boards, but as far as I know they’re all at the local Council level. I’m not aware of any of them at the Regional or National level monitoring the boards.
What I meant was that you should notify National about your unit getting shut out of a GOTV effort. As far as Roundtable goes, I would not count on a report there wending it’s way up the chain to National. Roundtable is a volunteer event and sometimes the communications between volunteers and professionals is kind of like the blood/brain barrier. Something like this would have to make that jump and then would have to engage your District Executive enough that he or she take the trouble to bounce it up the hierarchy, with people taking enough interest at each step to keep it going. I wouldn’t count on it if I were you.
“Mandolin, the “personal remarks” don’t warrant an apology.”
Yes, they did. Ampersand said you were out of line, and I said you needed to apologize. You refused, choosing to be snide instead.
You’re banned from the site for a month. Goodbye.
Um, did he just get banned because he reacted poorly to this? Seriously?
I am no fan of the BSA; in fact, I dislike them. But I have difficulty imagining that many people here would fail to react in anger if someone referred to a group to which she held allegiance (and in which she actively participated) as a “bunch of vicious child abusing fucks.” Are the posters and mods who are trying to somehow distinguish between the “personal attack” on Myca and the “non personal attack” by Myca cited above really serious?
I mean hell, I’m an atheist and I support atheism (part of why I dislike the BSA, FWIW). Mandolin, so are you, right? If someone referred to atheists as “a bunch of vicious child abusing fucks” in a conversation with me here, I sure as shit would take it personally. Are you saying that that sentiment would be wrong, and are you saying you wouldn’t ban someone who said that to you in the course of an argument on Alas? Based on your history i suspect you would ban them right away, which leaves me confused as to why you would expect anyone else to take it.
I dunno. For someone who just–clear as day–got accused of being a member of and supporting an organization which is made up of “vicious child abusing fucks,” I think Robert’s reply was actually fairly restrained. Assuming there is at least some modicum of objectivity, if there was a line crossed it was by Myca.
Banned people are banned, even if they are breaking the ban for the purposes of flounce.
Actually, Sailorman, it was Robert’s response that Mandolin has a problem with, not RonF’s.
I do think that I crossed a line, and for that I’m sorry. I should have made my case more dispassionately … but I think my error was in rhetoric not content.
The issue that I keep running into is that … well, if we were talking about NAMBLA, and I referred to them as “vicious child abusing fucks,” I doubt anyone would bat an eye.
How about if we were talking about all those pictures we see of the ‘white nationalists’ who dress their kids up as mini-fascists, decorate them with swastikas, and take them to white pride rallies? There, too, if I called them, “vicious child abusing fucks,” I think that there would be general agreement.
I used the words I did because I think that teaching kids that ‘gay people are dirty’ and teaching kids that ‘gay segregation is okay’ is child abuse. The same way I would consider it child abuse if we substituted the word ‘black’ for ‘gay’.
Why do people react differently to these words when applied to the BSA than they would if they were applied to some ‘white pride’ group’? Because there is general agreement in the US that racial segregation isn’t ‘okay’, but we have yet to reach that agreement when it comes to gay people.
I mean, fuck, man, we’ve got a serious presidential candidate who says that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt kids! How fucked are we that that can be considered acceptable?
—Myca
1) Sorry Robert/Myca for name switch; edited.
2) Myca, I’m all of a sudden realizing that I am about to get yelled at for discussing a mod decision outside an open thread. (unless you’re a mod; i don’t recall.) So I will keep this short and respond to you elsewhere as directed: You will note that I didn’t originally comment on your comment; it didn’t bother me that much on its own (and still doesn’t.) It isn’t that I think your comment was particularly objectionable as it is a heated issue. It just makes no sense at all that your comment was OK and Robert’s was ban-worthy, unless I am completely missing something. Or that he would be required to apologize, and you wouldn’t. Yeah, I know, private blog, no objective standards required… but this seemed way past normal Alas style.
your response boils down to “but I really don’t like the BSA!” Which, well, duh. Most folks here don’t. that’s not my point.
I am, but you’re right, taking it to open is better.
—Myca
I was under the impression that “vicious child-abusing fucks” referred only to the specific people who teach kids that gay people are dirty and then put them into a situation where they’ll be rather emphatically corrected. I don’t see how the label could be construed to apply to BSA members in general, many of whom we all agree aren’t bigoted.
Here is a message I rec’d on 8/29/08 from Jim Nolan, scout executive with the Tecumseh Council in Ohio:
“Thanks for the feedback. The Scouts were supposed to do a color guard ceremony before Senator McCain took the stage. The leaders were informed of the BSA policy ahead of time. We will have to be more careful in the future.”
For the record, BSA policy states: “Scout uniforms shall not be worn to political events or rallies, protests or demonstrations where its appearance could reasonably be used to imply BSA support for a particular political cause or candidate.”
from http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/08/29/sns083008scouts.html:
“Local Scouts providing McCain color guard. Three local Boy Scouts are taking part in the opening ceremonies in Dayton where Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is having a rally today, Aug. 29. The Scouts will provide the color guard for the ceremony, said Tecumseh Council Commissioner Jeff Honefanger.”