Tuesday, September 18, 2012

No Merit Badge for You!

Remember a few months ago when the Boy Scouts announced that No Gays Allowed was now their official policy.  No gay kids, no gay scout leaders or employees.  No gay need apply.  And they declared they were doing this to "protect the children."  So some fabulous young scouts were out on their keisters, along with some fabulous scouting leaders.

Then the L.A. Times comes out with an exhaustive report after "examining 1,600 confidential files dating from 1970 to 1991 [and] found that Scouting officials frequently urged admitted offenders to quietly resign -- and helped many cover their tracks."  [that] "Volunteers and employees suspected of abuse were allowed to leave citing bogus reasons such as business demands, 'chronic brain dysfunction' [???] and duties at a Shakespeare festival."  And that "The details are contained in the organization's confidential 'perversion files,' a blacklist of alleged molesters, that the Scouts have used internally since 1919.  Scouts' lawyers around the country have been fighting in court to keep the files from public view."  And, "In about 400 of [500] of those cases -- 80 percent -- there is no record of Scouting officials reporting the allegations to police.  In more than 100 of the cases, officials actively sought to conceal the alleged abuse or allowed the suspects to hide it, The Times found."

Well, sure.  I can see the problem.  When you're getting a merit badge in wilderness tracking, for example, the first thing you learn is you must correctly identify the right footprint.  No good rushing off on a deer track if you're hunting a panther.  So, listen carefully, Scout leaders:

1.  There's gay people.  2.  There's straight people.  3.  There's pedophiles.
You can be a gay pedophile.  You can be a straight pedophile.  But the key word there is:  pedophile.  That's who you're supposed to be looking for, not gay people. HUGE difference.. 

So, no merit badges for you.  You've been tracking the wrong people. 

Oh, America, Get Over Yourself!

Thanks to the media and America's generalized narcissism, a whole lot of us are getting all riled up over those crazy Muslims, wringing our hands and saying, O, O, why do they hate us?

Well, first of all, many of them actually have a long, long list of perfectly valid reasons and if Americans bothered to read much history, they'd understand the list very well.  But, secondly, a whole lot of the DeathToAmerica! foofarrah in the streets, the "Arab Street," isn't about America at all; it's about local politics -- who's going to prevail in a newly liberated country.  Will it be the conservative Salafists?  A more moderate group? Secularists?  Another dictator?

And, as any political organizer knows, having a great hot-button trigger that's easily understood is a great way to get a good turnout. Remember in New York when a group of Muslims wanted to build a mosque near Ground Zero?  That was a perfectly legal, proper thing to do in the Land of  Freedom of Religion, right?  Remember how perfectly decent people suddenly lost their marbles and turned into raging, ugly, racist bigots, snarling and hissing about "muslim murderers", and etc.  Shameful.  Disgraceful.  But there it was: Americans coming unglued, having an irrational, emotional, ugly, bigoted flare up over . . . what?  Another group of Americans who just wanted to build a house of worship.

And Americans are now having a fit over another group of people having an irrational, emotional, ugly flare up over . . . what?  A crappy, ridiculous film.

This is what a certain percentage of people always do. Including Americans. So, get over yourself.  You're also no better than you ought to be either.

Awwww, Mitt.  You don't love us freeloading bums anymore, do you? 

So Mitt finally spilled the beans of his heart:  He thinks 47% of us lazy, good for nothing citizens, are a bunch of tax-shirking freeloaders who want to loaf around all day eating bon-bons and waiting for our government checks.  That we "pay no income taxes," are "dependent upon government." and we're all food-stamp black welfare queens who are going to vote for Barack Obama no matter what Romney has to say.

Well, first of all, Mitt clearly didn't see last week's Time Magazine's cover story on "Subsidy Nation," a brilliant exploration of how everyone in the country is on the mooch -- farm subsidies, energy subsidies, infrastructure subsidies, tax breaks -- subsidized everything that touches our lives. (That electric bill you just paid doesn't begin to cover the real cost of getting that power to you.  Ditto your water bill. Fill your gas tank?  Take off the gas/oil subsidies/tax-breaks and you'd have heart seizure watching the pump ratchet up the real (unsubsidized) price per gallon. Hospitals, public health, streets, airline safety, schools, public safety, you name it, every bit of it is communally subsidized by all of us.  Which will come as a shock, no doubt, to privitizing Ayn Randers of all stripes, including Paul Ryan, bless his heart.)

True, Mitt forgot to note that all us 47% moochers were paying payroll and sales tax, something The Mitt might have overlooked since he may not be familiar with getting an actual "payroll check" as opposed to a "dividend check."  And I'm sure he forgot the fact that those moochers who did pay income tax were taxed at a higher rate for their income than he was.  And, yes, he likely overlooked that, according to the Tax Policy Center, over half of those moochers who paid no taxes, "more than half were elderly and more than a third were not elderly but had income under $20,000.  Which means that "about half of those were off the rolls because they had low incomes."

So, in MittWorld, people who are so poor they don't hit the income tax threshold are moochers.  Noted one wag on the New York Times comment page, "He's talking about the 47% who clean his toilets, do his laundry, drive him around, clean the hotels, pick the fruit and vegetables.  Maybe if Mitt and his snobby pals paid a living wage, the working poor wouldn't need food stamps.  He really does look down his nose at the rest of us."

Ya think?      


Alon Perlman said...

Meanwhile in the bon boonies not far from you, plays out La Comedia di Creston. A Circus of fleas.
And the dogs tail gives a wag.

Ridi, Pagliaccio,
sul tuo amore infranto/odio è infranta.
Ridi del duol che t'avvelena il cor.

The paglacci - Put on your costume

While out of my mind!
I do not know what I'm saying
and what I do!
And yet it is appropriate to make an effort!
Bah! Are you not a man?
You are clown!

Put on your costume
The people pay and they want to laugh.
Laugh, Clown, and everyone will applaud!
Change into laughs
this spasm of pain;


Laugh, Clown,
your love/hate is broken.
Laugh at the grief that poisons your heart.

Alon Perlman said...

Re Scouting; true true, always be prepared- but the lesson will be lost on the senior scoutmasters.

These aren’t Panter hunters- they are Squirrels hiding bad nuts After all; this isn’t about individuals who took a solemn vow but then gave it up for worldly temptation, failing the fight against their private demons. It’s about an organization that conspired at it’s highest levels to protect its image and their personal power by withholding evidence and covering up crimes of its errant members. And this organization was founded only a hundred years ago- but where else have we seen this?

As for 1st Barron Baden Powell turning-in-his-Grave-in-Kenya-

As for why they hate us? Our research shows 10 civilians killed for every "Legitimate target" killed by drones, and yet THAT is not why THEY hate us. So I love how you put it without quite going into the wishey washy-“everyone is equally to blame” although-“This is what a certain percentage of people always do. Including Americans.” Comes close to that
"So, get over yourself. You're also no better than you ought to be either”.-Your closer is perfect. We are the free democracy with unfettered individual access to information. WE ought to know better than to have our cherries picked and prechewed for us.

But I'm here because I just had to add this. Since I mentioned in passing bin-laden-romney-obama two weeks ago. Implying that while, Obama gets credit for killing Osama, but wasn’t expecting that would sway the extremes- And no; I don’t spend time on political blogs or listen to news reports since I follow this blog and get the random feeds every time I open my email. Not unless I’m following a line of research. In this case triggered by the 15% response relevant to public opinion.

I firmly believe that this question was included as a “push poll”- A question offering a choice that is impossible/improbable from the outset, in order to create an alternate universe with legitimacy for that choice.

Rachel Maddow did not address the underlying push polling question issue at all. She stated; “why ask the (Romney VS Obama) question”, and answered “I do not know”.
this contains the data that 18-30 age group and ultra liberals and even some African Americans, did fairly poorly on this question, indicating that a zero response (Romney killing bin laden) would not be expected and a 6% positive response as a “Background” against which to compare the groupings , with “ultra conservatives” taking the cake at 15%.

So to circle the al Hariri – Somewhere right now, a blog/article is being published about how “The “X leaning media” is making a to do about the meaningless comments of a rodeo clown to disparage and divert from the real issues”- when in fact, our media streaming commercially driven “new is better” has been snow ploughing the ongoing actual shooting war(S), the economy and the actual affiliations and records of our politicians to the margin.

And unfortunately the "47%" core belief system which you describe so well, becomes a passing misunderstanding. Just another peanut lost in the shuffle. (Homage to Churadogs’ 9/16 comment)

So let’s expect more irrelevant clown stories, as more peas and nuts are shoved into more and more shells and cups on the overloaded back ally folding table that is the state of American politics today.

Sandra Gore said...

Do you know if the Girl Scouts have the same kind of issues? I don't recall hearing much of anything about Lesbians, molesting of girls, etc. Does it go on, but not talked about?

Your point about pedophiles is so right on target. It takes a certain kind of mind to be sexually attracted to children - or to enjoy exploiting someone helpless. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Churadogs said...

Haven't heard a peep from the girl scouts. They don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation like the boy scouts do. But girls are held to appropriate behavior standards, not being, i.e. gay girls are welcome in the scouts like straights (again, unlike the Boy Scouts) BUT inappropriate behavior can get you kicked out. And if any gender/orientation issues do come up among the girls, leaders are instructed to make sure the girls know that it's an issue that needs to be discussed within their families, not at girl scout meetings, etc. In short, a sort of don't ask, don't tell, you are valued just as you are, but behave yourself, take such matters up with your family and concentrate on being the best girl you can be while participating in the scouting experience. It's the sort of focus and standards the Boy Scouts should be doing, but aren't, which is too bad. So, once again, GIRLS RULE!! I guess.