From the Seattle News Fax ... 11/29/2000
The only mention I could find at LATimes.com was that Other police departments in San Diego, Chicago and Tempe have already taken similar action ....
I should mention that last week, the big boss of my division called us all together to find out why our United Way charity drive (apparently) bellyflopped. There was the typical complaints about the competitive aspect of the giving (give more than the Joneses upstairs, eh?), but that's only part of it, since the competition was the primary reason for giving. (Yes, it's that sad.) Anyway, a number of people pointed out that the United Way in our county has ties to the Boy Scouts, ad nauseam, fill in the argument from there.
I recall that I was disappointed when none of the glitterati that threatened to ditch their retreats at Vail after Colorado passed Amendment 2 against homosexuals. Of course, the courts made that unnecessary, but I, personally, still would have lived up to my pledge if I had been one of the brats that made the promise. After all, would I really want to live among neighbors I found to be so bigoted? Would I want my Hollywood dirty money contributing to a bigot's tip jar?
After Washington ditched affirmative action, we lost a couple of fair-sized conventions, but since one of them was a civil rights organization, local conservatives poo-poohed the protest by dismissing the conventioners as disgruntled, anti-white racists.
At any rate, I have to admit, I'm kind of impressed. BSA loaded the pistol and shot itself in the foot; I would imagine the financial burden of continuing operations in the Los Angeles area is going to be, well, difficult, at least at first.
But, in the end, what do we think? I, personally, support the Council's actions. And, yes, I do feel a tinge of regret for the thousands of Angeleno boys who will not receive whatever benefits the former LA-BSA relationship offered. However, I think we see an important issue rising here: Does proper intent license impropriety? That is, if you're someone like the Boy Scouts, who trumps up your positive work as your reason to stay in business, have you any responsibility to put individual moral assumptions aside in favor of the perspectives of the society you serve? If you rely on the positive things you give children to inspire people to support your movement, do you not owe some consideration to what the broader public you serve considers positive? (As a very remote and removed parallel, I recall a young schoolmate of mine trying to explain to me that I was wrong about the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan, apparently, was all about men taking responsibility in their families and so forth. Great, guys. If that's really what you are about, do you not owe it to the rest of us to realize that we think the white-power bit is more than a little irresponsible, if not plain stupid?)
I think the Boy Scouts will get their way, in a sense; the gay-rights movement will probably back off the Scouts, now. Of course, they'll just shift the pressure to the institutions which support the Boy Scouts, but I always did agree with Obi-Wan Kenobi: Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows? (Feel free to correct that sentence to match the script, if you need.)
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
The only mention I could find at LATimes.com was that Other police departments in San Diego, Chicago and Tempe have already taken similar action ....
I should mention that last week, the big boss of my division called us all together to find out why our United Way charity drive (apparently) bellyflopped. There was the typical complaints about the competitive aspect of the giving (give more than the Joneses upstairs, eh?), but that's only part of it, since the competition was the primary reason for giving. (Yes, it's that sad.) Anyway, a number of people pointed out that the United Way in our county has ties to the Boy Scouts, ad nauseam, fill in the argument from there.
I recall that I was disappointed when none of the glitterati that threatened to ditch their retreats at Vail after Colorado passed Amendment 2 against homosexuals. Of course, the courts made that unnecessary, but I, personally, still would have lived up to my pledge if I had been one of the brats that made the promise. After all, would I really want to live among neighbors I found to be so bigoted? Would I want my Hollywood dirty money contributing to a bigot's tip jar?
After Washington ditched affirmative action, we lost a couple of fair-sized conventions, but since one of them was a civil rights organization, local conservatives poo-poohed the protest by dismissing the conventioners as disgruntled, anti-white racists.
At any rate, I have to admit, I'm kind of impressed. BSA loaded the pistol and shot itself in the foot; I would imagine the financial burden of continuing operations in the Los Angeles area is going to be, well, difficult, at least at first.
But, in the end, what do we think? I, personally, support the Council's actions. And, yes, I do feel a tinge of regret for the thousands of Angeleno boys who will not receive whatever benefits the former LA-BSA relationship offered. However, I think we see an important issue rising here: Does proper intent license impropriety? That is, if you're someone like the Boy Scouts, who trumps up your positive work as your reason to stay in business, have you any responsibility to put individual moral assumptions aside in favor of the perspectives of the society you serve? If you rely on the positive things you give children to inspire people to support your movement, do you not owe some consideration to what the broader public you serve considers positive? (As a very remote and removed parallel, I recall a young schoolmate of mine trying to explain to me that I was wrong about the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan, apparently, was all about men taking responsibility in their families and so forth. Great, guys. If that's really what you are about, do you not owe it to the rest of us to realize that we think the white-power bit is more than a little irresponsible, if not plain stupid?)
I think the Boy Scouts will get their way, in a sense; the gay-rights movement will probably back off the Scouts, now. Of course, they'll just shift the pressure to the institutions which support the Boy Scouts, but I always did agree with Obi-Wan Kenobi: Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows? (Feel free to correct that sentence to match the script, if you need.)
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
