News-Record.com

Barry,

Let your nephew's parents rear him, not you. Your little discussion seemed to be slanted if one used the parameters put forth on another thread about polls. FOXNews is the perfect place for North, not speaking to the Boy Scouts.

I'd be interested in how you would present Bill Clinton if he were the speaker. Would it have been as sugary?

I have to wonder...if a 6-year-old seems smart to Barry...

When Bill Clinton got caught with his pants down (quite literally) people screamed about how this was such a bad example for kids and how do we explain the situation to our children. Now that the boy scouts are using an acknowledged liar as a fundraiser, suddenly we're hearing about the importance of forgiveness. I'm wouldn't worry about explaining this to a six year old, but I would wonder what kind of message it is sending to a 16 year old. There's a larger issue here, however, and that is the fact that the leadership of the boy scout council doesn't seem to care about the possible message. Of course, we preach honesty to the scouts, but when it comes to pulling in the big bucks, it's just not important.

And to Astro Boy: Good hit!

To the folks who posted above me, GREAT JOB!

I have to agree whole heartedly with spooge about there being a larger issue; for me it is about money and the importance placed upon that. If the morals of the BSA have dropped to that disgustingly low level, then there are serious problems. Another issue presented deals with what a 16 year old thinks about all of this and the message being read by said 16 year olds.

Where is the HONOR in the local BSA leadership now? That is another question to be dealt with. Those are the issues that will be dealt with in society in the next 5-15 years. That is when we will see the results of this greed brought forth.

Shalom

As far as Clinton and the whole Ollie North stuff, we wouldn't have to worry about explaining this to 6 year olds if the media would stop sensationalizing everything to such extremes. I can guarantee you that when I was 6, I could care less about what the president was doing or who some fund-raiser selected to speak.

I envy the young and innocent and hope they can be prevented for as long as possible from caring about any of this.

"I have to wonder...if a 6-year-old seems smart to Barry..."

The six year old is obviously smarter than all our Usual Suspects who continue to obsess over the "suitability" of Ollie North appearing at the recent Boy Scout fund raiser.

Question: Do the Usual Suspects require a test for suitable sanctimony for entrance into their society?

bubba, why ask the question about questions for entrance to the supposed group you note? Are you going to seek membership?

Shalom

OK, throw this question into the mix. Forget for the moment the debate over whether Ollie is a suitable speaker. Why didn't the BSA council even acknowledge parent concerns? They never had the courtesy to address the parents who saw a problem with this. The parents are the ones who buy large quantities of popcorn and tote their scouts around to functions and meetings and camping trips. They act as leaders, organizers and assistants. The council wouldn't be able to get anything done if it weren't for the willingness of parents. I'll give you my own take on it: The local BSA council doesn't care.

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned yet that membership and participation in BSA is voluntary.

Also, if tickets were sold for this event then people attending not only did so of their own free will, but they did so because they wished to hear what the man had to say.

I in no way support the decision to have Olli as a speaker, but then again I didn't want to buy a ticket either.

So because it's voluntary that means that the BSA council has no responsibility to its membership or to its own established code?

Besides the fact that scouts pledge to be honest and Ollie's honesty is suspect at best, they also pledge to be courteous and the BSA council didn't have the courtesy to address this issue.

"bubba, why ask the question about questions for entrance to the supposed group you note? Are you going to seek membership?"

It was a question asked to elicit a response, which you diligently provided. It was also rhetorical in nature. But you already knew that, didn't you, Darryl?

I honestly don't see it, spooge.

I am not a member of the scouts. I have no children in the scouts. The only connection that I have with the scouts, is that I hear about them occasionally, get asked to buy their popcorn, and that they get some money from United Way (who gets some money from me). Very tenuous relationship.

What do I care who the Scouts choose to speak? They have their standards. They decide who meets their standards and who doesn't. They decided Ollie did. Why should we really care? If someone doesn't like him, don't go listen. Don't buy a ticket. If you think he sets a bad/immoral example, look for another organiation for your children. But for the parents or people that think he sets a good example, good for them. They will take something from this positive.

If, however, we are outsiders who want to comment as to who their speaker is when we have no interest of any kind in who they choose, other than just who we personally like or dislike, then I say let it go. If the Brownies want to invite Ward Churchill, more power to them if they think it would be a good thing for them to do. If the Moose Lodge wants to invite David Duke, what the heck is it to me?

Yes, the council does have a resposibility to promote their values to their members, but again, by choosing Ollie, they are implicitly taking the stance that he espouses good virtues. Whether we believe that or not, they do. Let them suffer the ramifications or reap the rewards as to whether their community will agree.

I, and I suspect many others, simply do not have a dog in this fight, as I see the issue. Parents can choose which organizations they agree with for their children and which they do not. Columnists aren't needed for this.

swanks, if the good people sit idly by and let situations like this with the General Greene BSA Council go unchallenged, then the good people deserve what they get.

I am reminded of the words of Rev. Martin;
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

This is what happens when good people fail to speak up and stand up!

Shalom

Kinda off topic, but then maybe not.

Why do the Boy Scouts continue to sell that terrible tasting "Trails End" microwave popcorn? At least when I buy Girl Scout cookies, they actually taste good!! I know why they call it "Trails End"---because you'd have to be at the end of the trail to eat the stuff!

Forget the felon, Oliver North, get a better product to sell for a fundraiser and then you wouldn't have to bring in a criminal to help you raise money.

Darryl,

You and I must be seeing the issue in a completely different light. What Rev. Martin was discussing was the Nazi's forced Ghettoization and internment of the Jews. I see this as very different from an admittedly controversial speaker coming to speak at an event where tickets are sold. I do not see any logical basis in your comparison.

I also do not understand your comments about "good people" letting this go by unchallnged. Having a disagreement on whether Ollie espoused admirable traits and is fit to speak to the boy scouts is hardly determinitive as to whether someone is a good person.

The boy scouts have decided to let him speak. That is their decision. That is not your decision, or mine. Or even the "good people's". It is theirs. We have no say in who speaks there, nor even the contents of their speach. If we did have that control, we would be censors.

Swanks,
What about the popcorn?

I am definitely with Darryl here. The Boy Scouts are an institution. They come out against homosexuals, then bring in a right wing, convicted felon, idealogue, who usurped the Constitution and brought discredit upon a Presidency.

QUESTION:
What is not right with this picture?

ANSWER:
Objectivity

Yeah, the scouts are an institution. But I don't see how that has any bearing on anything, unless they are a governmental institution, which I do not think they are.

If they were, then I would concede a very valid point to you as to a governmental institution hiring a speaker which presents virtues to which you are opposed. The government should not be so controversial. The scouts, and the troop leaders, however, are not the government. Therefore they can be as controversial as they want to be. Again, if a nongovernmental institution wants to hire Ollie North, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill or whoever to speak, that is the decision of that group, not mine.

Do the scouts have a duty to be objective in their speakers? NO!!!!!!! They choose those who they think are good role models. For every "hero" they choose they do not have to then choose a "traitor" just to keep things even.

Wanting to keep certain people from speaking in public at a purely voluntary and nongovernmental event is censorship.

As for the popcorn, my wife seems to like the chocolate covered popcorn they sell, but I find it a bit stale myself.

STALE! YES, STALE IS THE WORD! IT TASTES OLD AND STALE AND SEEMS TO BE AN INFERIOR PRODUCT. The microwave packages pop up to be dry and with no taste---reminds me of air popped corn. They need a new vendor as I love GS cookies, because they are good and they help the Girl Scouts. The popcorn just sucks---and it is expensive too. I don't mind paying for a superior product, but paying high prices for subpar product makes the old Demon Deacon's blood boil. The lions clubs sell high quality brooms and I buy them---and they last. Heck, blind people made them too! The popcorn tastes like a piece of OSB plywood from Lowes. I welcome any other comments about the popcorn as maybe we can help the BSA so they don't have to bring in convicted criminals or right wing idealogues to raise money.

Ha, now we have the solution. Get them to hire an MBA, have that guy or gal draw up an effective business model complete with 5 and 10 year projections and a cost-benefit analysis of their products and they will not have to rely on Oliver North.

You make a good point. Girl scouts, with their world renown thin mints, could teach them a thing or two. I mean come on, those things practically sell themselves!

First, this posting comes late. I had made a posting earlier today and like one of my fellow N&R bloggers, when I clicked "post," a screen popped up that said I needed to either register with typekey or sign-in if I were registered. I will not go into the words that ran through my mind at that point.

Second, I did not complete the person's name who made the "They came" piece. Properly, it is Reverend Martin Niemoller.

Now, swanks, Niemoller was not just writing about the Jews in Europe from 1933-1945. Niemoller was writing about ANYONE who was viewed by the National Socialists (Nazis) as a threat. That threat could come in ANY form or fashion.

What Niemoller is saying is that VERY FEW stood up to the oppression and totalitarian tactics of the Nazis. Finally, it was too late to say anything for anyone because there was essentially no one left to speak up/stand up.

My intention in comparing the North speaking engagement with this is that "good people" need to speak out about the dichotomy between the stated mission/ideals/principals of Boy Scouting and the intended speaker, Oliver North.

I called Oliver North a traitor nearly 20 years ago and I stand that statement. The only thing is he was never charged with treason. Remember, Nancy Reagan spoke out against good ole Ollie and what he and he alone had done to her husband!

I realize that the final decision to allow this criminal who had his conviction overturned rested with the General Greene Council of the BSs. However, that does not mean that people cannot disagree and voice the opposition to the choice. I am NOT advocating for the control to say who can and cannot speak at BS sponsored events.

I am saying that "good people" need to stand up/speak up when travesty's such as this situation occur! To sit by and not voice opposition equates us with the same very people Niemoller referred in the piece listed in one of my previous posts.

Shalom

Thanks for the post Darryl,

However, I still see no rational basis in the comparison of dissent in the face of the Nazi roundups with the speaking of Oliver North. Oliver North speaking for the boy scouts in no way, shape or form threatens anyone. Either physically or a threat to their rights. Period. If you think that is incorrect, please let me know and I will consider your points.

You do not think that North is a wholesome symbol of this country. Great. He is no threat though. He is just a man that has an aura of controversy. Nothing more. Do not make anything more of it. Do not make this molehill into Mt. Everest. Oliver North's speach to the scouts is not oppression. Of any kind. Not even close. By allowing him to speak in no way alters anything. Drop the rhetoric, it is not needed. I find that over-the-top rhetoric weakens one's cause much more than it helps it. Comparing verbal opposition to Nazi's with verbal opposition to the boy scouts next speaker is, to me, over-the-top rhetoric.

Seeking to squelch the speach of those with whom one disagrees is a much more Naziesque approach than just alowing the fellow to rant. You say you do not want to prevent him from speaking, just voice opposition. Why? It is on someone else's property, on thier time, and is not illegal. Let it go. Who are you to say who should speak to the scouts? Who am I to? It is simply not our call. No matter how my tender feelings may be hurt by someone, where they go and who they speak to is not my concern.

Again, I ask you to quantify your "good people" comments. You seem to think this is a travesty. You also seem to think that good people should speak up against travesties. But not everyone thinks that this is a travesty. By not thinking this is a travesty, it is not determinitive of a good person.

swanks, I have said all I can say and provided quantitative evidence to support my viewpoint.

What we have is an impasse. We see this issue differently. I can live with that. Can you live with me speaking about the travesty of inviting someone like Oliver North to speak to the General Greene Council of the BSA? For me, that is like asking Lorena Bobbit to speak at a Viagra Symposium.

Shalom

Darryl,
Did you attend the Bill Moyers speech the other night or did you catch it being broadcast this afternoon on UNC's NPR station? It was great, and some of your words sounded as if you had attended. Moyers implored people, such as you and others, to stand up to the folks who have taken our country away from us--the religious right and the conveniently religious politicians.

No DD, was not able to attend. Nor did I hear it on NPR. Hmm, what does that say about me?

Moyers and I do have a commonality....we have SBC roots. I am not sure where Bill is now with the SBC. As noted either in this or another blog, I am a "recovering" Southern Baptist!

Shalom,
Darryl

Darryl,
Moyers basically "preached" on taking America back from the fundamentalists who have hijacked American religion.
He is doing a documentary on the money trail from Abramoff to DeLay and he cited facts galore to back up how the religious right benefitted from the entire Abramoff/DeLay money scheme.
Very good stuff, but unfortunately, too many of the SB's around these parts have funny hair and link God to "W".