July 24, 2006
Philadelphia ID's The Real Enemy
Not that you'd expect much more from one of the most corrupt, inept Democrat-controlled governments in the nation.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
08:32 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What really surprises me about the whole gay v/s straight thing is it is about sex. Not that this is really a surprise. What I mean to say is, why is sex a deciding factor for any group especially when it is a group of children. Sex, sexual orientation, should not be a topic of discussion in scouting. The mere fac the city govt. is allowing this to be an issue is an abomination. Get out of our bedrooms, and get back to work cleaning the streets and protecting the citizens from harm. And, BTW, get the lesbian out of your office. Sexual orientation has no place in govt.
Posted by: Cmunk at July 24, 2006 09:11 AM (7teJ9)
2
"What really surprises me about the whole gay v/s straight thing is it is about sex. Not that this is really a surprise. What I mean to say is, why is sex a deciding factor for any group especially when it is a group of children."
Unfortunately for the gay "movement" and for the Boy Scouts, gay identity is defined by their sexuality and nothing more.
I also think the lamentations over the sexual politics concerning kids of Boy Scout age (elementary and middle-school age) is largely inappropriate anyway. Its not like the Boy Scouts get together every week to talk about their sexual identities, or to bash gay people.
Unfortunately for the gay "movement" and for the Boy Scouts, gay identity is defined by their sexuality and nothing more.
I also think the lamentations over the sexual politics concerning kids of Boy Scout age (elementary and middle-school age) is largely inappropriate anyway. Its not like the Boy Scouts get together every week to talk about their sexual identities, or to bash gay people.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 24, 2006 09:32 AM (yT+NK)
3
The Boy Scouts don't get it. We're talking about Filthadelphia here. Just drop an envelope off at Mayor Street's office and make sure it's stuffed with plenty of pictures of dead presidents.
I'm sure that if the envelopes keep coming, there will be no further problems.
I'm sure that if the envelopes keep coming, there will be no further problems.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at July 24, 2006 09:34 AM (3nKvy)
4
Whoops. Let me clarify this, because it came out wrong:Unfortunately for the gay "movement" and for the Boy Scouts, gay identity is defined by their sexuality and nothing more.That is, the gay movement's identity. The Boy Scouts, as a result of this, are dragged into a dialogue about the sexual preferences of children, which is unfortunate.
Sorry for the confusion, if there was any.
Sorry for the confusion, if there was any.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 24, 2006 09:36 AM (yT+NK)
5
I understand what you are saying. I agree. There is no place for sexual politics when it comes to scouting.
If you are 18 and in scouting, it is time to move on. You are no longer a boy. Make room for someone else.
Try keeping your sexual preferences to yourself too. Why should scouting have to change to accomodate your lifestyle, when all you had to do is keep it to yourself.
If you are 18 and in scouting, it is time to move on. You are no longer a boy. Make room for someone else.
Try keeping your sexual preferences to yourself too. Why should scouting have to change to accomodate your lifestyle, when all you had to do is keep it to yourself.
Posted by: Cmunk at July 24, 2006 09:42 AM (7teJ9)
6
Do the Girl Scouts allow lesbians to join and to lead troops? I haven't looked into it - if anyone knows, drop in and discuss.
I was just wondering, since I've not heard much on that front - its the same argument with different genitalia. Its the Boy Scouts who always seem to catch the flak.
I was just wondering, since I've not heard much on that front - its the same argument with different genitalia. Its the Boy Scouts who always seem to catch the flak.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 24, 2006 09:56 AM (yT+NK)
7
The government has no place discriminating against anyone due to their sexuality, no matter how disgusting or immoral their particular choices are. Given that, they also have no business just giving out land to any particular group, but to give it to a group that discriminates against a particular segment of society (which, by the way, is the Boy Scouts' constitutional right) implies an approval of how they operate.
This presents a problem to any public operation or involvement in any private organization. Private organizations have the right to discriminate; public organizations do not. The mixing of the two would turn a private organization into a toothless, boring and utterly bland organization with little (if any) standards.
It is proper if the city government evicts the Boy Scouts; it has no business supporting either the Boy Scouts or, if it were ever to come up, any so-called "gay rights" association. As far as the government is concerned, neither of these things should be supported by public funds or "public" lands.
I do not mean to suggest that the acts of this particular city council are motivated by this proper justification; but the end result is the proper one, even if the people who did it might be dispicable and deserving of scorn for their suspect motivations.
This presents a problem to any public operation or involvement in any private organization. Private organizations have the right to discriminate; public organizations do not. The mixing of the two would turn a private organization into a toothless, boring and utterly bland organization with little (if any) standards.
It is proper if the city government evicts the Boy Scouts; it has no business supporting either the Boy Scouts or, if it were ever to come up, any so-called "gay rights" association. As far as the government is concerned, neither of these things should be supported by public funds or "public" lands.
I do not mean to suggest that the acts of this particular city council are motivated by this proper justification; but the end result is the proper one, even if the people who did it might be dispicable and deserving of scorn for their suspect motivations.
Posted by: MiB at July 24, 2006 10:02 AM (SsNTi)
8
Actually the Girl Scouts do discriminate against men. Unlike the BSA which allows women to serve in adult leader capacities, men cannot serve in any leadership positions in the GSotUSA. Apparently it's OK with the left to discriminate against straight men, but not gays.
As for the 18 year old gay man, he would be considered an adult leader, and not a scout. Leaders cannot be gay as it violates the BS Oath and Law. If a leader comes out the closet, they are subject to dismissal. Leaders are examples to be followed.
As for the 18 year old gay man, he would be considered an adult leader, and not a scout. Leaders cannot be gay as it violates the BS Oath and Law. If a leader comes out the closet, they are subject to dismissal. Leaders are examples to be followed.
Posted by: Privateer6 at July 24, 2006 10:31 AM (pdpus)
9
MiB -
Most of what you said is absolutely true - I am aiming more at the motivations and political overtones of this effort on the part of the city gov't.
I would add that there are racially discriminatory groups in government (CBC, for example), that have fingers in the public dole. Affirmative Action is another example of a form of arbitrary government-sanctioned discrimination. The discrimination is there - it depends on who's doing determining of what "discrimination" is to be defined as.
On its face, it just doesn't seem terribly important to me that the Phila City Council "wins" this battle. That's my overall assertion. I can totally appreciate the public funds/public property argument; I am disheartned that the Boy Scouts are the ones that are painted as in the wrong for their positions concerning the conduct and beliefs of their members.
Most of what you said is absolutely true - I am aiming more at the motivations and political overtones of this effort on the part of the city gov't.
I would add that there are racially discriminatory groups in government (CBC, for example), that have fingers in the public dole. Affirmative Action is another example of a form of arbitrary government-sanctioned discrimination. The discrimination is there - it depends on who's doing determining of what "discrimination" is to be defined as.
On its face, it just doesn't seem terribly important to me that the Phila City Council "wins" this battle. That's my overall assertion. I can totally appreciate the public funds/public property argument; I am disheartned that the Boy Scouts are the ones that are painted as in the wrong for their positions concerning the conduct and beliefs of their members.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 24, 2006 10:41 AM (yT+NK)
10
I agree with MiB, but this is an absolute interpretation on the part of the City Council - totally un-necessasary unless your out to make a point or score points - and given Philly's problems - a distraction (deliberate).
But you know - it doesn't bother me anymore.
Groups like the BSA, Catholic Charites, Salvation Army, faith based educational institutions (and the list goes on) should no longer have any association with the government of the United States Of America on any level - Fed, State or Local.
These are cultural institutions developed over time as part of a unique cultural history/identity - ours.
In this nation's march towards multi-culturalism - we must realize and accept that WE ARE a seperate and unique culture. it is our responsiblitiy to nuture, support and defend our institutions and keep them pure in accordance with our cultural identity.
Our institutions must become more politically active in the new age of identity politics.
The BSA issue is purely symbolic - It is a statement that they are no longer an acceptable part of others New America. I can live with that.
But you know - it doesn't bother me anymore.
Groups like the BSA, Catholic Charites, Salvation Army, faith based educational institutions (and the list goes on) should no longer have any association with the government of the United States Of America on any level - Fed, State or Local.
These are cultural institutions developed over time as part of a unique cultural history/identity - ours.
In this nation's march towards multi-culturalism - we must realize and accept that WE ARE a seperate and unique culture. it is our responsiblitiy to nuture, support and defend our institutions and keep them pure in accordance with our cultural identity.
Our institutions must become more politically active in the new age of identity politics.
The BSA issue is purely symbolic - It is a statement that they are no longer an acceptable part of others New America. I can live with that.
Posted by: hondo at July 24, 2006 01:06 PM (MVgHp)
11
In a way, it may work in the BSA's favor if they disassociate with public facilities. The private nature fo the organization can then come forefront again - in addition, perhaps the stench of government corruption , politicization and these annoying "cultural clashes" would occur less frequently.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 24, 2006 01:18 PM (jWYAe)
12
Interestingly, an agreement was made in 1928 by the same body that now apparently intends to unilaterally change the terms. Even though the property belongs to the city, what legal issues arise from the fact that the agreement has continued to be in effect for 78 years? I know that in many places, the issue of allowing someone, knowingly or unknowingly, to use some portion of your property for - say 20 years - for something such as a shortcut - legally can mean that you have forfeited ownership of that portion of your property (if taken to court over the issue by someone who has benefited from that use). In this case, the city council approved and entered into an agreement to allow a specific entity (the BSA Chapter) use of the property rent free for perpetuity. One might argue that that is a clear contractual agreement as it would at least be implied that the intent by the 1928 city council was plainly stated to allow the organization use of the property forever. If specified in the council's minutes for that meeting and not amended, that would seem to be a binding contract. The only caveat I could see would be whether municipal law allows future councils to place further restrictions and/or negate the 1928 action.
Not a lawyer, but????????????????
Not a lawyer, but????????????????
Posted by: MIkeW at July 24, 2006 01:39 PM (OELIr)
13
Hmmmmmmmm?
Sounds like a good case on a completely different issue - maybe Philly can buy out it's obligation.
Sounds like a good case on a completely different issue - maybe Philly can buy out it's obligation.
Posted by: hondo at July 24, 2006 01:43 PM (MVgHp)
14
While in Phillie last December for the Army/Navy game, my husband and I toured the Liberty Bell. Just across the street from the exit was what looked to be an historic building with a plaque on a pole outside it. I went over to read the plaque and it said something like "this is the block where the first gay pride parade started"... So, kitty corner to Independence Hall and across the street from the Liberty Bell someone in government thought it appropriate to put a plaque in honor of gay pride! Has anyone else ever noticed that plaque?
Posted by: Babs at July 24, 2006 02:54 PM (iZZlp)
15
Better question - should anyone care?
Posted by: MiB at July 24, 2006 03:13 PM (6jwxg)
16
The problem here is Philadelphia politics. Think Fight Club meets GodFather meets Wag the Dog and toss in a few hits of acid and you have Philly politics. Philadelphia is in the midst of a nasty crime wave, they instituted a curfew for minors but it's kind of stupid when cops are blaming Judges who are letting guys caught with 60+ guns on them free in a few hours and the judges are blaming cops for not pressing the charges right etc. It's pretty much Mayor Street playing the fiddle while Philly burns.
http://freedomofphiladelphia.com/archives/70
http://freedomofphiladelphia.com/archives/70
Posted by: Logan at July 24, 2006 04:20 PM (wKyQY)
17
No - no one should really care. Why?
The plaque is important to a separate culture than our own. If anything - just be indifferent to it because it is meaningless to us.
The Liberty Bell is important and has meaning to our culture - appreciate that for what it is. The other culture is rather indifferent to it (and some hostile to it - something to do with "old dead white men"). Don't worry about what they think and feel - its not important to our culture. Who knows - maybe in some future scenario we'll relocate it.
Sometimes that other culture feels the need to "tweek" or try to provoke us (as in the placement) - don't be - just another reason to walk away from them.
Some of you still cling to the believe that this is "one nation under God" - it use to be, but its not really anymore. Its more like a giant administrative region that utilizes the same currency and tax forms - even language is an issue of dispute.
Don't get upset or angry - it was inevitable - dissolution may loom in the future - hopefully it will be civilized and amicable and seen as best for all parties.
The plaque is important to a separate culture than our own. If anything - just be indifferent to it because it is meaningless to us.
The Liberty Bell is important and has meaning to our culture - appreciate that for what it is. The other culture is rather indifferent to it (and some hostile to it - something to do with "old dead white men"). Don't worry about what they think and feel - its not important to our culture. Who knows - maybe in some future scenario we'll relocate it.
Sometimes that other culture feels the need to "tweek" or try to provoke us (as in the placement) - don't be - just another reason to walk away from them.
Some of you still cling to the believe that this is "one nation under God" - it use to be, but its not really anymore. Its more like a giant administrative region that utilizes the same currency and tax forms - even language is an issue of dispute.
Don't get upset or angry - it was inevitable - dissolution may loom in the future - hopefully it will be civilized and amicable and seen as best for all parties.
Posted by: hondo at July 24, 2006 04:25 PM (MVgHp)
40kb generated in CPU 0.0169, elapsed 0.0367 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0283 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0283 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
