Robert E. Lee Boy Scout Council, Richmond, VA, to be Renamed. More PC for the Boy Scouts...

WRVA Radio ^ | 5/13/03 | VMI70

[let us cross over the river]

re: Nathan Bedford Forrest....ya can't send a Tennesseean to do a Virginian's job !

Even though he was the best cavalry man in the Confederate army.

[Ligeia]

Related threads:

Lee's Name Surrendered by Scouts (RTD)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/911411/posts

Where Are the Great Southern Leaders of Old?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/911986/posts

Scouts' change of patch criticized
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030515-1660504.htm

Patrick Badgley
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published May 15, 2003

A decision to disassociate Robert E. Lee's name from Boy Scouts in the Richmond area has critics saying Scout leaders are shunning a man who was the embodiment of American values.

"They could not find a better representative for Boy Scouts than General Lee," said Brag Bowling, commander of the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a former Boy Scout. He called the Confederate leader an "American hero" who is greatly respected and viewed as an honorable man by people of all races around the world.

King Salim Khalfani, Virginia director of the NAACP, hailed the decision made last week by the Robert E. Lee Council executive committee, which oversees 24 counties and four cities throughout central Virginia.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported yesterday that committee members made the change to fulfill the Boy Scouts mission of being all inclusive.

Mr. Khalfani said the council welcomed the change and felt no pressure to become more politically correct.

"It's not a slap at Robert E. Lee," he said. "But we don't want to deter any individual from joining the organization."

Mr. Khalfani also said the change would now encourage people to join.

Following the executive board's "overwhelming" vote for change, the council will get a new name in June 2004 and remove from Scout uniforms a logo bearing Lee's name.

The Boy Scouts of America is split into councils that direct troops and often use icons from regional history as part of their titles.

Executive board member Robert Tuggle told the Times-Dispatch the council still regards Lee as an "outstanding man, leader and influential person," and is open to suggestions from the public on what the council's new name should be.

Mr. Tuggle also said the council dropped the name, used since 1942, to try to represent the entire population, not because of political pressure or because of Lee's character.

Mr. Bowling disagreed, saying the council made the decision to be politically correct, not for financial reason or to attract more members.

He still supports the Boy Scouts, but said the leadership was "weak and caving in."

"Here's a group that has been PC'd to death, and now they're turning around and doing the same thing," he said, referring to the legal battle in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the organization could bar homosexuals from being troop leaders. The group also has been accused of discriminating against nonreligious boys because their parents are forced to sign a Declaration of Religious Principles.

He thinks many of the Richmond-area's roughly 22,000 registered Scouts and 7,500 leaders support using Lee's name, but said the Sons of the Confederate Veterans will not push the council to change its mind.

This is not the first time a debate about Lee has divided the Richmond area. In 1999, Richmond City Council member Sa'ad El-Amin objected to the city's plan to put a mural of Lee on a floodwall along the Haxall and Kanawha canals. Council members eventually decided to use the portrait to depict a part of Richmond's history.

At the time, Mr. El-Amin compared Lee to Adolf Hitler and said he did not deserve honors because he supported slavery.

Mr. Khalfani said Lee's name should have been removed from the council years ago, and he would not be surprised if parents pulled their children from the Scouts because of the decision.

"It's a funny thing here in Virginia, because the Confederate side is still fighting the Civil War," he said.

=====

I suppose the American Indian names of scout camps are next. If notable Southern historians continue to leave the battle for heritage recognition to the media whose only soundbites and rolodex contacts have SCV in their titles, the Virginia history they love to tout for tourist dollars will be eradicated and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Where are all the historians of note who got all riled up and drove Disney out of town when the Mouse wanted to build a theme park centered on American history. Their rallying cry at the time was that there should be no theme parks when visitors could experience "the real thing." It won't be long until there's not much, if anything, left to experience.

If they've lost their pride in Virginia, perhaps they should find another place to live not quite so offensive.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=robert+e+lee+boy+scout+council+richmond

[Gianni]

DiLorenzio may have an anti-Lincoln bias, but if he said the sky was blue I wouldn't argue. I doubt finding a counterexample to his brief on protectionism will be an easy task.

[Gianni]

In fact, those who peddle protectionist nonsense these days tend to be one of three things:

It never ceases to amaze me how many idiots can be stacked one atop the other in "the blue zone."

[Gianni]

I tried to pursue the argument that proportionality of abuse in its distribution has no bearing on whether or not it constitutes 'abuse,' but that must've fallen by the wayside 30 or so posts ago.

Kind of like saying you can't be against wife-beating so long as it's uniformly performed by all.

[stainlessbanner]

At the time, Mr. El-Amin compared Lee to Adolf Hitler and said he did not deserve honors because he supported slavery.

Unbelievable. Why would the Boy Scout Council assosicate with somebody such as El-Amin?

Apparently elamin is not familiar with Godwin's Law

[GOPcapitalist]

Dealing with you it's easy to understand what Schiller meant when he said, "Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain."

Oh that's real cute. Did x teach you that one?

So you can take your Tommy DiLusional quotes and stick them where the sun don't shine because that's all they're worth.

Now that must have come from Illbay. Funny. The behavior of your fellow brigade and ex-brigade members seems to be rubbing off on you. I suppose you'll be posting cut n' paste ad hominems from Wlat next!

[GOPcapitalist]

Leaving aside the insults and the smart-ass remarks that our posts have degenerated to, please explain this quote of Tommy's. Why are exporters the only ones who have to swallow the costs?

First off, that's not a quote of Dilorenzo. It's from a college level economics textbook. Second, it does not say that exporters are the only ones that swallow the costs of a tariff - it says that they are the ones who are hurt the most because they, more than anyone else, cannot do a thing about it to pass on the costs. Third, the reason this is so has to do with the fact that exporters are ultimately unable to avoid the economic costs of a tariff, which is in the destruction of trade.

The Northern wheat farmer is no more able to add to his price to cover his additional cost for imported goods than is the southern cotton exporter.

You are missing the issue entirely, non-seq. The northern wheat farmer may indeed have to pay higher prices because of the tariff, but that is not where the worst cost of it occurs. Tariffs hurt exporters the most because they kill off trade. If trade does not happen, exporters do not make money. The south made 75% of the nation's exports and had an economy that made its money almost entirely off of them. If you kill off trade, the region that gets hurt the most becomes a simple matter of mathematics. Which do you think it will be? The region that provides 25% of the nation's exports or the region that provides 75%?

[Huck]

To demand approval from the whole of the body politic prior to secession, one would have to believe that the will of the people meant the will of the people of respective states for the purpose of ratification and amendment, but something entirely different for the purpose of secession.

I didn't say I would demand approval from the whole. I said I would demand that the decision be made by way of a process agreed upon by all. The Constitution itself was not agreed upon by the whole, if that is to say unanimously. But the Continental Congress, which was at that time the "body of the whole", delegated to the Framers the task of fixing their general government. That they did.

To review the facts, they did a complete overhaul, to the point that the Congress, upon receiving it, agreed that the best course was to send it out to the states for them to decide on it for themselves. The Constitution contained its own provision for ratification. That provision was met, and so the Constitution became law, and the Continental Congress, the body of the whole, provided whatever organization was required for the transition.

That is self government. Republicanism. The Constitution became the law of the land, by ratification upon the highest soveriegn authority. The Congress was at the center of the entire project. At the appropriate time, it was sent out to the states and dealt with according to its own provisions. End of story.

The notion that any state at any time it pleases can sever itself from its national government makes a mockery of the whole system. Madison was wasting his ink.

[Non-Sequitur]

DiLorenzio may have an anti-Lincoln bias, but if he said the sky was blue I wouldn't argue.

An anti-Lincoln bias and a history of deliberate falsehood and/or sloppy research. If DiLorenzo said that the sun rose in the east and set in the west I would double-check him.

[Non-Sequitur]

Second, it does not say that exporters are the only ones that swallow the costs of a tariff - it says that they are the ones who are hurt the most because they, more than anyone else, cannot do a thing about it to pass on the costs.

And why are they, more than anyone else, unable to pass on their costs? That's the question I keep asking without getting an answer? The cotton farmer was at the mercy of market prices and so what the wheat farmer and the factory laborer. None of them could arbitrarily raise their prices to make up for a hike in tariff. All were equally hit.

Tariffs hurt exporters the most because they kill off trade.

How did a hike in iron tariffs kill of cotton exports? Did the textile manufacturers suddenly stop making cloth and switch to iron? Did the tariff on iron cause a glut of cotton on the market and ruin the price? Where is the connection? Did the high tariff's of the 1840's cause cotton exports to drop?

[Gianni]

I didn't say I would demand approval from the whole. I said I would demand that the decision be made by way of a process agreed upon by all.

I think the difference is more subtle than what you're making it out to be.

Once the national government has become abusive of its power, it has abrogted the constitutional contract it has made with "the people." Had the states of the South gone to the state legislatures to garner approval, would that have been sufficient? Something tells me that you would still not be happy.

[Non-Sequitur]

I tried to pursue the argument that proportionality of abuse in its distribution has no bearing on whether or not it constitutes 'abuse,' but that must've fallen by the wayside 30 or so posts ago.

That's because you were making no sense. Proportinality is what you want it to be seems to be the gist of your arguement. If you are paying 5% of the tax on a larger income than I'm paying 95% of the tax on you seem justified in saying it was abusive to you.

[Gianni]

Right, this whole sidebar with DiLorenzio's credibility is moot, we're on a tangent.

The question at hand is whether or not the government was abusive of its tarrif power. A quick look at the Constitution might help:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Does protectionism fit into one of those categories?

[Non-Sequitur]

Does protectionism fit into one of those categories?

The Constitution does not say that the tariffs cannot be protectionist in nature, nor does it define what protectionist is. All it says is that it must be applied uniformly throughout the country.

And on the subject of protectionism, the Morill Tariff as passed also placed significant duties on molasses, raw cotton, sugar, tobacco and tobacco products, and naval stores. All items that the south produced in quantity. Did not the Morill tariff provide a protectionist safety net to the south as well?

[catfish1957]

Ever notice that Wlat does not answer the hard questions like this one. As I said many times before, if everyone would ignore this liberal disruptor, he'd go away pouting. He thrives on making people angry.

All Wlat and his group of pseudointellects are, are du disruptors who base their arguments on their best talent.....the abilty to cut and paste and the speed of light. He never has impressed me.

In fact, he reminds me of a gnat......irritating, but harmless. Let's continue to celebrate our southron heritage, and ignore the jerks who whiz in our punch.

[Gianni]

If you are paying 5% of the tax on a larger income than I'm paying 95% of the tax on you seem justified in saying it was abusive to you.

I don't see how I could make this any clearer. The position that you are arguing - that a tarrif (or anything for that matter) - can't be proclaimed abusive by those who it affects the least is a non-starter, isn't it?

It seems I've provided ample corralaries to disprove this, but you keep on. Let's look at your example further.

Example 1:

The congress passes a law that those with incomes above $30K have to pay 95% tax, while those under the limit pay only 94% tax. According to the Non-Seq theory, the 94% rate is, by definition, not abusive.

Example 2:

Let's say that our no-longer-constitutionally-bound government decides that, instead of socialist ("progressive") distribution of taxation, it is going to choose something completely random and, thus, more "fair." It goes on to implement a law that anyone who's last name that begins with "L" is going to pay 95% income tax for 2004, with others paying 5%. Each year thereafter, a letter will be drawn out of a 'lucky lotto' machine to choose which last-name-letter gets to pay 95% while the rest pay 5%.

So, by your "logic," any action by those who have a last name beginning with "M" is completely unjustified.

[Gianni]

The Constitution does not say that the tariffs cannot be protectionist in nature, nor does it define what protectionist is. All it says is that it must be applied uniformly throughout the country

You've got it backward: The Constitution does not authorize tarrifs that are 'protectionist in nature' unless they fall into one of the mentioned categories:

1. Pay debts.
2. Provide for the common defense and general welfare.

The Whigs (and the Republicans that followed) had no pretentions that the tarriffs they would impose had to do with either of these things. The Constitution musn't just not prohibit something, it must specifically authorize it.

[Non-Sequitur]

The position that you are arguing - that a tarrif (or anything for that matter) - can't be proclaimed abusive by those who it affects the least is a non-starter, isn't it?

I never said that you couldn't proclaim it abusive. You can proclaim anything abusive for any reason you want. I have said that since the south was paying a disproportionately small amount of the tariff then their claim of abuse does not make sense to me and the idea that it could be the primary reason for the southern rebellion is hard for me to swallow.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Constitution does not authorize tarrifs that are 'protectionist in nature'...

Read the Morill tariff . The legislation provided for the payment of outstanding treasury notes and authorized a loan in addition to fixing tariffs. That seems to meet your definition of the Constitutional purposes of a tariff and disputes your claim that the Republicans made no pretense of it being for any other purpose. Tariffs were implemented first and foremost to fund the government. They had, as an additional purpose, the protection of domestic industries, including the ones in the south, but did not in any way violate the Constitution.