News-Record.com

The BSA has been headed in the direction of political reactionism for a long time. It's sad... I loved being a leader for over 6 years, but I think they took a wrong turn a while back. Now, they wouldn't accept me, and I wouldn't bother to try to sign up anyway.

Perhaps Ed would prefer Kanye West dressed as Jesus Christ to address the Scouts? Or maybe some good Communist leaders from The World Can't Wait?
Col. North served his country bravely and honorably as Marine officer. He was awarded the Silver Star medal for bravery in Vietnam. Hmmm...seems Sen. John Kerry's service in Vietnam should override any objections to his left wing position, but Col. North's Vietnam service should be ignored and he only be judged by his right wing position?
Liberal hypocrisy rears it's ugly head again.

Nowhere did Ed indicate he did not respect North's service to our country. However, since North admitted he lied to Congress and subverted our laws, he hardly seems an appopriate role model for scouts.

Well, Patrick, the senior Democratic senator from West Virginia, Robert "KKK" byrd was a Ku Klux Klan leader some years ago. I don't see anyone protesting at his speaking engagements. There's a huge moral difference between lying to Congress about a program designed to save American hostages versus the KKK's horrendous and despicable efforts to deny citizens their civil rights because of skin color.

North -> protest
Byrd -> no protest
North -> lied to Congress
Byrd -> KKK
KKK worse than lying to Congress
Ergo, no protest of North

Jaycee, that is without a doubt the worst logic ever used on an N&R blog... and that's saying something.

Chewie:
Good argument.
Jaycee:
So, what's your point?

My point is that Ed Cone's commentary, etc., is always politically motivated from the left. He wouldn't protest any leftist political hack, such as KKK Byrd, but he protests Col. North because North is a conservative.
I think North is more moral than Byrd, but Cone protests North in spite of Byrd's reprehensible past.
Ergo...Byrd must be an upstanding moral figure because Ed Cone won't protest him speaking.

Uh, excuse me, but there's a vital point that I think is being missed here. When I was a Scoutmaster, I thought it was a cardinal rule of Scouts that they would not get involved in partisan politics. Now we see the local council inviting one of the most partisan of figures, who makes his living by talking politics, to come here and speak to them.

Scouting used to be about developing leadership and social skills, using lessons learned in outdoor and service actitivities. Personal choices about religion and politics used to be (supposedly) left alone as a matter of personal conscience. That was the set of values I held dearest in my years of volunteering.

Now, after seeing all the bigotry and partisanship coming to the surface, I'm glad to have left it. They really need to reevaluate their choices.

My failure to protest the hypothetical speaking engagement of Byrd aside...I'm troubled by North's role as a partisan commentator, and by his role in a serious subversion of the Constitution in Iran-Contra.

At heart, my problem is with politicizing a youth group that is supposed to be open and inviting to a wide range of kids and adults.

Jaycee, I know you don't believe this, but I would not welcome a overtly partisan commentator from the left, either. I would welcome, say, President Bush.

This is not about scoring political points, it's about changing an organization that generations of my family have joined and loved.

Ed:

Just chiming in here, but I thought North subverted the Boland Ammendment to the War Powers Act, not the Constitution.

See more here

Mr. Cone, you don't even know what Col. North intends to speak about. How can you pre-judge the nature and content of his presentation?
I've known many political figures that do not speak of partisan politics every time they open their mouths. I doubt former Pres. Jimmy Carter spouts political rhetoric while he's nailing together a stud wall on a Habitat house.
From what I've heard and read, Col. North is more about leadership than politics when he appears before groups such as this. And he was a decorated military leader.

JayCee, he's an active paid political partisan as well as a contoversial figure who was embroiled in a major scandal. In my view, and in the view of many who commented at my site -- including some political conservatives -- this renders him unsuitable as a speaker at a Scouting event.

I say this with regret, as someone with a love of scouting and a multi-generational attachment to the organization.

It is my opinion. If you wish to support the event, or the Council that feels North is an appropriate guest, go for it. I will not be doing so.

I just sent a donation to the Boy Scouts.

I have heard Col. North speak at several scouting events and other non-political events. He is an outstanding motiviational speaker and I feel that in the situation with the scouts his talk would be more in the lines of leadership, motivation, doing ones best rather than any hint of politics.
I would ask also, how many scouts actually know anything about Col.North other than what their parents have told them or what perhaps they have read concerning the man in the flyers which the scouts have handed out. They may have perhaps watched him on TV as an embedded reporter or on one of his shows about the history of the military, which by way are really good shows unless you are a writer of revisionist history.
I would ask Ed if he has even met the man much less heard him speak at such an engagement. I have done both so what about it Ed.

I've never seen him live, but I don't doubt for a moment that he's an effective speaker -- that's simply not the issue.

He is a divisive and politically charged character, which makes him a poor choice for a Scouting event, and he is seen by many as being of dubious ethical character for his actions during Iran-Contra, which also makes him a poor choice for the Scouts.

To say that most Scouts don't know who he is and what he's done seems like an odd argument to make -- it doesn't change who he is and how he's perceived by a lot of people.

Scouting is supposed to be non-partisan, he's a strident partisan. For me, that's a problem. If you want to support the Council, have at it. I choose not to do so.

Well, Mr. Cone, disgraced former Pres. Bill Clinton is also a paid political partisan and controversial figure who personally generated a huge scandal involving his moral turpitude. But he gets huge fees to speak, and I'm sure he's a great motivational speaker. How come you don't take his appearances to task as you do conservative speakers?
Your public disapproval of Col. North is based on your own partisan politics, and you do so without having knowledge of what he will say or how he will say it.
The word "prejudice" means to pre-judge.

Actually, JayCee, if you read the 90 or so comments on this subject at my blog, you'll see writers with a mix of political viewpoints, including conservative ones, expressing some concerns about North speaking in this context. You will also see people defending the decision to invite him.

There is of course no problem whatsoever with North speaking, or Clinton speaking, to groups in this great and free country of ours.

The issue in this case is context. As I've said to the point of exhaustion, as someone with longstanding affection and loyalty to the BSA, I do not find North to be a suitable speaker for that group.

You disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine.

Mr. Cone, your opposition to Col. North is based on your political feelings and has nothing to do with the as-yet unknown content or context of Col. North's presentation. So, you're prejudiced against Col. North based solely on your left wing political slant. That is just wrong in so many ways.
Chances are that many of the young people who'll benefit from the motivational aspects of Col. North's appearance don't know of his political affilitations and don't care.

Jaycee, you are now repeating yourself pretty much word for word, which I guess means that the conversation has reached a conclusion.

I would add that your argument that "liberals" object to North (although it ignores the evidence I presented that non-liberals also may have objections) proves the point that I'm trying to make: that North is a politically-charged speaker, which is exactly why he does not belong at an event sponsored by the Boy Scouts, an organization supposedly welcoming to all families -- even (shudder) liberals.

Mr. Cone, I'm repeating myself because you apparently don't understand how your liberal thinking overides everything else in your life. Maybe if enough people explain it to you then you'll begin to recognize it.
Just because you view everyone in an "us vs. them" context in no way takes away from Col. North's positive influence as a motivational speaker.
Your opposition to him is not based on what he has to offer, but your liberal bias and hate against those that hold different views. That's common among liberals these days, unfortunately.
So who "belongs" at an event that welcomes ALL families? And who's decision should it be? Yours, or someone less biased and prejudiced than you? Today's typical liberal thinks he "knows" what's "right" for everyone and is hell-bent to make it happen, regardless of how negatively it affects our society. You fit into that category nicely.

Jaycee, You have not addressed the substance of my objections. You have only told me that my opinion does not count, because it is different from your opinion.

You say, with no evidence to support it, that I have "Hate against those that hold different views."

What a sad and curious way to define others. I don't hate people who hold different views. I have an opinion about who should speak to the Boy Scout group with which my family has generations of involvement.

You recognize North as somebody who strikes some people in a negative way because of his partisan views. That's one reason he shouldn't be speaking to the Scouts. And as noted several times now, he also strikes some people who might share his views as an inappropriate speaker in this context because of his rhetorical bite, and his record of scandal.

Obviously, as someone with long and affectionate ties to Scouting, I feel that my opinion on this subject is worth stating. I am not on the invitation committee, I don't have a vote, but I am a past and potential supporter of the Council, and I'm happy to have brought this subject into the realm of public discussion.

Your disagreement is part of that discussion. Your need to make generalizations about people who disagree with you, and your incorrect and hostile assessment of my own views, do not in my opinion add much to that conversation.

Mr. Cone, my assessment of your left wing slant and feelings towards those that disagree with you come from reading comment after comment from you on many different subjects. Your comments are always negative against conservatives, positive towards liberals, and in the vein that only liberals should decide ANYTHING because they know what's right and nobody else does.
I didn't say that your opinion does not count, I only commented on the nature of your opinion and the manner in which it is stated over and over and over again on subjects far and wide. It is a liberal point of view. You clearly state that your opinion on Col. North is based on nothing but his political personna, without regard to his value as a motivational speaker.
Your argument has no substance, as you do not know what Col. North will say. You are pre-judging the man based on your feelings about him politically, which, unfortunately, flavors most of your comments on any subject.

Jaycee,

We disagree about North's suitability as a speaker to a Scouting group. I've discussed the basis of my objections, and those of others, including some self-described conservatives. These objections go well beyond disagreement with his political viewpoints, and fall chiefly in two areas: that a highly partisan spokesman of ANY stripe shouldn't address an inclusive non-partisan group; and that his involvement in a serious scandal makes him unsuitable for a Scouting event. Again, you disagree. That's fine.

But again, I find your characterization of my worldview to be inaccurate. I certainly do not think, nor do I make a habit of writing, that "only liberals should decide ANYTHING because they know what's right and nobody else does."

In my many years as an opinion columnist, as a blogger, and a commenter, I have worked NOT to make sweeping statements about "liberals" and "conservatives." I try to judge issues on their merits, and political figures on their character, actions, and positions.

I'm sure that from your point of view, I skew liberal. I also suspect that we agree on many issues and share many values. I find the simple division of the world into fixed camps to be counterproductive and inaccurate. I try not to engage in it, but I notice that those who do see the world that way often assume that others do so as well.

Like a third grader with a college textbook: not gonna get it. Not this year, anyway.

In a survey a year or so ago the news anchors for the major news networks smugly considered themselves "neutral" on issues when they report. I think we know the reality of that.
Mr. Cone, your bias blinds you to the fact that you are biased.

Jaycee, are you paying attention at all? I have never once claimed not to be biased -- I'm an OPINION COLUMNIST. I get paid to voice my OPINIONS. I'm not supposed to be neutral, nor do I want to be. I try to bring an informed, passionate point of view to my work -- but it's my voice. That's why my column runs on the OPINION PAGE and my blog is called EdCone.com.

On the matter of Ollie North, it's not my politics that color the question -- As I wrote in other comments, I'd welcome George W Bush or Colin Powell as speakers. You still have not addressed the objections to North by professed conservatives. At this point, I won't ask you to try.

Ed, since you admit that have never heard or seen Col North live and in person you certainly draw a lot of inference about how he will present anything that he speaks about. I did attempt to tell you that I have heard him speak AT Scouting events and in NO WAY was he as you perceive him to be. Your perceptions are just that, perceptions not based on actual facts.
"to say that most Scouts don't know who he is and what he's done seems like an odd argument to make" Why odd Ed, because you say so? It is certainly not an odd argument, in fact not an argument at all it is a simple statement of facts. Most young boy scouts do not know anything about Col North with the exception perhaps of his TV show, which is history, unrevised by the revisionist. Knowing only that would certainly not slant their view to such a biased one which you have. Having never heard him speak at such an event, you have no idea of what he would speak about, nor how he would affect the young scouts except your perception of such.
This statement"it doesn't change who he is and how he's perceived by a lot of people" sums up your opinion, and it is based on perception which I have found in my life time can be wrong. That is the difference in our thinking Ed. You perceive a thing only in the light of what you have read, or been told. I base mine on reality, on hard fact, not perception. There is a vast difference. Perhaps you should try it sometime instead of having your "pat" answers for everything and repeating them over and over like a broken record." that North is a politically-charged speaker, which is exactly why he does not belong at an event sponsored by the Boy Scouts,"
"I do not find North to be a suitable speaker for that group."
"he is a divisive and politically charged character, which makes him a poor choice for a Scouting event
he's an active paid political partisan as well as a contoversial figure who was embroiled in a major scandal. In my view, and in the view of many who commented at my site -- including some political conservatives -- this renders him unsuitable as a speaker at a Scouting event."

I suppose if you continue to repeat a perception often enough it becomes the truth, at least for some it may, but I prefer to base my opinions on facts, first hand, and reality. Perceptions can have a very tragic ending.

There is an old SEast Asian story about the "true hammer".
It seems that a builder once had a box of finely crafted hammers in his possession. They were beautiful and all of different sizes and colors to identify the size and use of each.
The buillder became so enamoured with one particular "red'" hammer that he perceived it to be the "only true hammer" and he attempted to use it for everything.
It mattered not that the "red" hammer was too large to drive very small finishing nails into a beautiful piece of cabinetry. It mattered not that the hammer was not suited to drive the large spikes needed to hold the walls supporting the cabinets.
The builder would always reach into his box of wonderful hammers and choose the "red" hammer. And so it went from job to job.
The cabinets were ruined by the builder using the "red" hammer on finely built cabinets to drive very small nails. The walls were weakened by the builder using the "red" hammer on the spikes need to support the walls which in turn supported the cabinets. But never mind the outcome, for the builder had used the only "true" hammer. His perception of how the "red" hammer could be used was so clouded by his love for this truely finely crafted hammer that his work was no longer effective and the walls and cabinets fell destroying the other in the fall.
The demand for his work soon diminished because he was so blinded by his perception that he was no longer considered to be a master builder. He soon had to sell the wonderfully mastered hammers in order to eat and to live but he held tightly to the " only true hammer".
One day the builder was not seen in the village and the elders went to check on him. They found him in his shop, clutching to his beloved "red" hammer, the "only true hammer", dead of starvation.
The elders marveled how he had allowed his perception to lead him to this tragic end.

Mr P -- what you say is undoubtedly true, that a person with a record of contempt for the law and a job as a partisan commentator might well give a wonderful, apolitical speech on a given topic.

The question is, should we disregard his record, and his carefully cultivated public persona, when hiring him for the job?

I, and many others, would say not.

You may disagree.

By the way, my "perceptions" about North's record are based on facts -- his place in history is quite well documented, as is his role as a columnist and TV commentator.

Mr P -- what you say is undoubtedly true, that a person with a record of contempt for the law and a job as a partisan commentator might well give a wonderful, apolitical speech on a given topic.

The question is, should we disregard his record, and his carefully cultivated public persona, when hiring him for the job?

I, and many others, would say not.

You may disagree.

By the way, my "perceptions" about North's record are based on facts -- his place in history is quite well documented, as is his role as a columnist and TV commentator.

Try as I might, I can not find any outrage from you about Dr. Kambon on his speech at Howard. This school receives tax dollars.Were can I find your article on this????

I do not know anything about the Howard speech you mention, Doug.

However, in general, speaking to a college is quite different from speaking to a Scouting group.

Again, I don't have any problem with political or even tendentious or controversial speech -- it's the venue and the occasion that is at issue here.

Ed I refered to your perceptions of him as not being suitable for speaking to scouts. His past belongs in the past, just as does many other great people. The majority of people today have no clue as to his past. To continue to condemn one based on past is certainly not the "liberal" outlook,even though I hate that label and I do not believe it should be the outlook of "conservatives" , what ever that means. If we judged people on their past records then we would certainly have a very small number who are free from some wrongdoing. Actually I can only recall one who was totally free of such but I beleive he was crusified by those who only wished to shut him up. They also failed.

Oct 14,2005.Howard U.
Dr Kambon quest speaker.
Subject
Extermination of white people off of the face of the earth. I going to try to email this to you.

Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, MrP, but North has shown no contrition whatsoever for his serious offenses. Chuck Colson he is not.

Beyond that, he is a paid and highly visible political partisan today, which (have I mentioned this?) I think renders him unfit for this particular job.

I know, you disagree. Perhaps it is time we accept our differences on this one, and move on.

Doug, got the email, thanks. What a nut job. Any comparison to Ollie North is unfair to North.

"Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, MrP, but North has shown no contrition whatsoever for his serious offenses."

....gee, Ed....next time Col. North is in town, will you hear his confession, and give him absolution? That will make it all right with you, won't it?

Well, I'm not really in that line of work.

Since it was the public he swore to serve that he betrayed, I think some public disavowal of his misconduct would be more fitting on the contrition front.

But he'd still be a partisan commentator, so I still wouldn't want him to speak to the Scouts.

Can we quit now? We disagree about this. It happens.

I am a longtime Scout who believes it was a mistake to invite Oliver North as the speaker at a Scout banquet. It is not a catastrophic mistake, I am not even close to quitting because of it. However it is a mistake because Oliver North is a conservative political commentator, not that there is anything wrong with that. Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, James Carvelle, Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist would all be poor choices too. Depending on one's politics, each of those might be great role models, but a bad choice as speakers for an organization that avoids political causes.
Scouting has always emphasized teaching boys time-tested character traits of self-reliance, honesty, trustworthiness and self confidence. I like the idea that people from vastly different perspectives have Scouting in common. John F. Kennedy, Neil Armstrong, Donald Rumsfeld, John Glenn, Sam Nunn, Ross Perot, Bill Bradley and Gerald Ford all can remember sitting around a campfire on a Boy Scout camping trip. Somehow I find that a very comforting image. Scouting's founder, Baden Powell, said the aim of Scouting was to help boys, independent of political questions, get his fair chance of happiness and success in life. There are plenty of organizations where people can go to debate political causes, lets not take Scouting away from the boys.

I lost all respect for the Scouts when I learned they take money from "researchers" who conduct "ethnography" by foisting surveys, observing behaviours and generally encouraging consumerism, to the point that Girl Scouts can earn badges for shopping experiences! All the data collected is then sold to marketring departments of major retailers and manufacturers. One common tactic is to "empower" kids while dissing most adults who fail the "cool" test. They even have run such "studies" at public schools.
(read Juliet Schor, for examples, in her book "Born to Buy")

Ollie North fits the mold as a super-patriot who went against the authorities (who just don't get it). The little bopy scout who never grew up, never showed remorse for flouting the Constitution, and remians befuddled that his superiors, under whose aegis he acted, didn't back him up. On that score, at least, he is onto something. I hear "Falling to Pieces" and "Crazy". I am inclined to say, "Patsy".

MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE