News-Record.com

I've changed my mind. Let Oli speak, and change the Boy Scout uniform color - having all the kids wearing brown-shirts would be a unifying event for America.

"How do we explain this to our children?"

If I had a kid of that age and in the boy scouts, I'd explain it to him like this:

"The sole purpose of a fundraiser is to raise funds. Old Ollie will help the boy scouts raise a lot of funds".

You may be surprised at how perceptive today's youth are. I think they will have no trouble at all grasping this concept.

There is hardly any way to view the choice of Oliver North to speak as anything but an intentionally polarizing selection. As an Eagle Scout whose deceased father served over 30 years in scouting, I have to say I am terribly disappointed. I hope those who shell out the money for the event plan to keep their wallets open, because I bet other sources of donations will now unfortunately dry up.

The only people who think Colonel North is "polarizing" are those who do not agree with his viewpoint.

As we have discussed here and on other forums, at great length, North's many contributions to his country far outway anything elese he's ever done. And as a matter of fact, the reversal of his convictions means he is legally not guilty.

The North negativists must think he will try to indoctrinate the kids in some far right political vision. I think North will give them valuable insight on such subjects as Duty, Honor, God and Country. I think that's the REAL reason some people object to his appearance.

Bubba sez: "The only people who think Colonel North is 'polarizing' are those who do not agree with his viewpoint."

Thanks, Bubba, for defining "polarizing."

But you are ignoring the fact that some people who agree with North's general political views are objecting to his presence in this context, too, because of his history of scandal, and/or because his political views are a a defining part of his public persona, and Scouting is supposed to be a non-political group.

Bubba also says: "The North negativists must think he will try to indoctrinate the kids in some far right political vision."

No, I don't think the content of his speech has ever been the issue, it certainly has not been for me, and I've been blogging about this for a month. This is not a speech for kids anyway -- it's a high-dollar fundraiser on a school morning.

I would guess that he'll give a perfectly fine speech. That's simply not the point.

His character and strident partisanship make him unsuitable to speak for Scouting.

Legal does not always equal moral.

As an Eagle Scout whose deceased grandfather spent 60 years in Scouting I don't think the North speech is going to have a hill of beans effect on Scouting or it's funding. There may be a few people who dissociate but their absence will be absorbed by others who join.

People have short memories and the Scouts are resiliant and popular. Once the event is over it dissapears and is forgotton and the Scouts have a pile of money.

The kids are not going to be affected by North in any way shape or form.

The brownshirt military talk is foolish nonsense.

Hugh, you're right on the brown shirt stuff -- it's silly, and proof of Godwin's Law of web conversations, that Hitler or Nazis are sure to be invoked sooner or later. A corollary is that the invoker automatically loses.

I don't think the anti-Ollie side loses because of that crack, but it isn't very helpful.

I disagree that there won't be longterm ramifications, or at least don't share your certainty.

If this event is a one-off, sure. But if this marks a harder political turn on the part of the local Scouts, a lot of people -- including me -- will over time decide to withhold our support.

The group will change, and no longer be broad-based, but deliberately narrower. And that will be a shame.

But like you, I have a longtime loyalty to Scouting, and hope that this is a blip -- or a learning opportunity -- and that in the future I and my family will support Scouting as we have done for generations.

"His character and strident partisanship make him unsuitable to speak for Scouting."

Once again, you're entitled to your wrong opinion, Ed.

As far as "legal" not aways equaling "moral"-- that is a personal value judgment.

The actions you fault him for taking were the right thing to do according to many people, Carol.
That makes the actions moral in their eyes.

The question is this: Whose morals become the guiding factor here?

Oliver North is a convicted criminal. His convictions, all felonies, were overturned because he helped "can" some others. Whether or not one agrees with his politics, he is unfit to be associated with The Boy Scouts of America.

"Appalling". "Terrible choice"."Polarizing"."Strident partinship". Brown shirted nazis???...Pure BS.

'Ol Ollie will do the Boy Scouts proud! Altough I have never been a regular contributor to them except to toss in a couple of bucks here and there, I will, in the future, help them out all I can to help offset the 'I hate Ollie' people who will boycott them because of this.

A general rule of thumb: if Rosemary Roberts is offended by someone/something, it's a pretty safe bet that it's worth my support.

NeoCON,
You never disappoint.

Obviously, the DD thhinks his/her/it's morals are the only ones that can be applied.

Why am i not surprised?

"There may be a few people who dissociate but their absence will be absorbed by others who join."

"I will, in the future, help them out all I can to offset the "I hate Ollie" people who will boycott them due to this."

These statements actually help define and support my contention that this choice is "polarizing." It's odd to me that people react negatively to the word, but yet actually agree with me. Oh well.

"The sole purpose of a fundraiser is to raise funds. Old Ollie will help the boy scouts raise a lot of funds"

The true sign of the conservative: the ends justify the means.

"if Rosemary Roberts is offended by someone/something, it's a pretty safe bet that it's worth my support. "

Another sign: opinions based on emotions and received wisdom rather than objective evidence and intellect.

As far as the BSA is concerned, North is a good match. The organization is biased and intolerant of atheists and homosexuals. There is no basis in objective evidence that either of these groups is, a priori, bad for the goals of scouting, to develop young people to take their place in society. It's a world view that is small and petty in scope. This group is based on fear of the unknown and a reluctance to learn anything new.

"Another sign: opinions based on emotion and received wisdom rather than objective evidence and intellect"...

Where would we be without these ivory tower elitists?

"This group is based on fear of the unknown and reluctance to learn anything new."

According to your fellow liberals who post here, homosexuality is anything but "new and unknown". To listen to some of them, homosexuality is responsibile for civilization, itself.

The Boy Scouts choose not to experiment with the homosexual lifestyle, nor cater to the athiests. This does not make them bigots and homophobes.

It DOES make them the target of ivory tower liberals who detest all that they stand for.

I'm wasting no more time in contacting the local scout leader in my area and offering my support for this group of people who have been raked over the coals by the elitists and militant homosexuals for standing up for tradition and family values.

Ollie is neither a homosexual, a liberal, nor an athiest. THIS is where the true rub lies with Roberts and her ilk. All imo of course!!

Mr Cone only. You are very upset that Mr. North is speaking, yet your silence is deafing on Joseph Kyle and Jay Bennish who are using public funds to rape the minds of a school children that have no choice but to listen to them. Second we will agree to disagree on Ward Churchill, this guy makes more money in a month than the average family in NC makes in a year. I have saw him on tv 4 times this weekend a damn good reason not to get the flu. All you can to is watch tv. Did enjoy the ladies basketball.

Dog (if I may be familiar), the reported actions of those school teachers in faraway places seem wrong to me. Not sure what that has to do with a conversation about local Scouting, though.

You seem to know a lot about Ward Churchill, who I thought had faded back into deserved obscurity after his moment of infamy. What is the source of this princely income of his to which you refer? What TV shows was he on this weekend?