Stones Cry Out

Here’s a report about the controversy a private club has found itself embroiled in.

The Boy Scouts of America will get no reprieve from controversy after a contentious vote to accept alcoholic boys as Scouts.

Dismayed conservatives are already looking at alternative youth groups as they predict a mass exodus from the BSA. Alcoholics-rights supporters vowed Friday to maintain pressure on the Scouts to end the still-in-place ban on alcoholic adults serving as leaders.

"They’re not on our good list yet," said Paul Guequierre of the Human Rights Campaign, a national alcoholic -rights group. He said the HRC, in its annual rankings of corporate policies on workplace fairness, would deduct points from companies that donate to the Boy Scouts until the ban on alcoholic adults is lifted.

Now, you may be wondering why you didn’t hear about this particular scandal, and the reason is it hasn’t happened. I just took a news article and replaced every mention of the word “gay” with the word “alcoholic”. All of a sudden, it sounds absolutely nuts, doesn’t it? Should the Scouts be allowed to discriminate against alcoholics? Set aside for the moment that the drinking age is such that it would exclude boys in the Scouts age range, would the Scouts come under fire for not allowing boys who are what you might call “practicing alcoholics” into its ranks? Would any human rights group fault them for having a ban on alcoholic adults as Scout leaders?

The plain fact is, no, they wouldn’t. The official policy of the Boy Scouts of America is that alcohol is not permitted “at encampments or activities on property owned and/or operated by the Boy Scouts of America, or at any activity involving participation of youth members.” Certainly a troop leader showing up drunk wouldn’t be tolerated. They’ve made that rule, and no one (that I know of) is coming down on them for it.

And yet the Human Rights Campaign and others have been pressuring the Scouts to set aside their ban on homosexual boys in Scouting. Why? Well, because they’re born that way, as our culture keeps reminding us, so to discriminate against them is unfair and bigoted, right? And yet, there is research that shows conclusively that alcoholism is, in part, genetic as well. In fact, there is more evidence of that than there is evidence of homosexuality having a genetic component. It’s being studied, but right now, nothing is at all conclusive, unlike the way the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism describe the genetic link.

If they’re born that way, and if being born that way means no one can discriminate against that trait for any reason, well, is that a Pandora’s box you really want to open?

At its core, the ban on gay Scouts was partly a moral stance, with the Scout Oath including a phrase about being morally straight. It was also partly an issue of general sexuality. Would you want your boy sharing tent with a girl? Or, more generally, with someone who may be sexually attracted to him? Consider this.

And while the Scouts have lifted the ban on gay Scouts, they’ve kept it for Scout leaders. The HRC doesn’t like that, either. Let’s think about this. Those priests that got accused of molesting boys can now trade out their collar for a khaki shirt and become a Scoutmaster. What would the HRC think about that?

Woo hoo, 5 days in a row.

1. Of sign and symptom.
2. Data mining has defenders … a question not asked (that I’ve seen)  is how the Feds convinced those numerous corporations to provide access … what sort of perks. IRS kid gloves or Justice Department patent war favors? Hmmm?
3. Talking legality (more here)… 51% is “reasonably sure” … Let’s see the politically neutral IRS isn’t … why are you so sure the politically neutral NSA is?
4. Putting that and drones in a larger context here.
5. Strange jewelry.
6. Exists. Hmm. Regrettable perhaps?
7. Of Scient(ology) and cinema.
8. “Government” here is not the feds … it’s your school board. If you don’t like it, gosh, you can actually do something about it (or if you do like it … you can support it).
9. The “science is settled” and some plots of those settled predictions. Sounds like settled doesn’t mean what they think it means.
10. Remember the atheist meme, “religion is the opiate of the masses” … well not so much, eh?
11. Of games and brains.
12. Of tech and terror.
13. Happiness fail.

G’day.

1. The super sekret plan revealed. (someone is slightly unimpressed)
2. A candidate.
3. A lung recipient selected. See, it is about who you know.
4. Immigration thoughts.
5. Of man and elephant.
6. Evil in our time.
7. A book noted.
8. Some IRS spending tidbits.
9. English history and HBO series ties.
10. A bike race.

Good morning. Yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah

1. More IRS tricks and missteps.
2. A 14 y/old photographer and some of his pictures.
3. Le Tour and changes in the last century.
4. Some of the  groups not audited by the IRS, ’cause they didn’t have “Constitution” in their tagline.
5. Testifying in regards to IRS investigation.
6. Zooom.
7. Game warden and his guns.
8. Modern healthcare … as we move into the “who you know” regime.
9. Hitler and language.
10. Teh race card, and an example of not getting it at all.
11. The surprise exam.
12. Mistaken notions on what constitutes war noted.

I would have thought that, by this time in history, it would be no big deal, but apparently a Cheerios ad on YouTube featuring a black father and white mother was getting so many racist comments that they disabled commenting. Watch the ad and decide for yourself. I find it utterly unobjectionable.

A family down the street from us at our previous house was black & white, and I once heard them referred to by another neighbor as "salt & pepper", which I took as derogatory rather than descriptive (knowing the guy who said it). And we met, through homeschooling channels, a black and white couple that described to us the racism they encountered when, for example, the white wife applied for an apartment and everything was going smoothly for weeks until the black husband showed up to look at the place, and suddenly nothing was available.

This is 1950s/60s stuff. I would have thought we’d have learned by now. But here’s the thing. We still have neo-Nazis, and that 1940s stuff. We still have ideologies and twisted thoughts from, frankly, the beginning of time. We will always have racists. We will always have sin surrounding us. But we can’t think that this defines our culture.

The problem I see now is that being for a public policy like voter ID is equated to hateful comments on interracial couples. Since racism still exists, it is considered the driving force behind so many issues, and stifles actual conversation.

Yes, racism still exists, but not at all like it used do. (Could we have had a black President in the 50s or 60s?) It is a fringe (but, unfortunately, vocal) element at this point. Don’t dilute the term by using it where it’s not warranted.

Good morning.

1. Why does Communist chic survive?
2. This is not unrelated to the prior link.
3. Feminist victory, Pyrrhic?
4. Privacy, laws broken, and consequence.
5. Money wasted is money wasted.
6. You might have a drinking problem when …
7. A “disconnect between rhetoric and reality” … when it is intentional we call that lying.
8. Food for thought (HT).
9. Tobacco, harm, and common misconceptions amongst MDs.
10. Military promotions.

From this week’s sermon.

Forgiveness is not:

• Minimizing or excusing an offense.
• Subjecting yourself to continued abuse.
• Only an emotional response.
• Assigning blame.
• An act of weakness.

Forgiveness is:

• Giving up rights to retaliate.
• Healing internal abuse.
• A choice involving thoughts, emotions and actions.
• Taking responsibility to remove sin, regardless of who did it.
• An act of inner health.

Another day, another ???

1. Coming soon, to a watercooler discussion near you.
2. “much more lavish” … another plug for small businesses, which certainly have none of that lavish crap.
3. Syria and stop digging.
4. A homily … and a cherished gospel story.
5. When the proud papa is an artist.
6. A poll in the UK.
7. Economics and …, a quote.
8. Rules.
9. Your President in action … or is that inaction.
10. Of government spending and debt.
11. The left’s anointed spokesperson and his foot in mouth disease.
12. Freedom of speech in Wales.
13. That’s very funny … other funny videos by the same guy can be found as well.
14. Witness and evidence in the Pakistan.

Good morning.

1. Averages.
2. A interesting prototype for a toy.
3. A quote … which is not unlike the phrase I occasionally tell my kids when the utter the “I’m bored remark” (which oddly enough rarely comes to my ears now). My reply invariably is that “your boredom is a problem with you not the universe which you inhabit.”
4. Warming and causes … a suggestion.
5. Nuptials to remember.
6. Regarding visiting Mars.
7. Frequent visitor noted.
8. Mainstream education moving online?
9. Experts they are not.
10. Fishing the adage, “Give him a fish …” which brings to my mind the always humors Christopher Moore addition “turn him into a fish and his family eats for a week” from Lamb.
11. Mad skillz.
12. Time after time (HT).
13. Post boomer?
14. For the burn your money crowd.

Monday Mr Burgess-Jackson posted a short ethics question:

You are a doctor. You have five patients, each of whom is about to die due to a failing organ of some kind. You have another patient who is healthy.

The only way that you can save the lives of the first five patients is to transplant five of this young man’s organs (against his will) into the bodies of the other five patients. If you do this, the young man will die, but the other five patients will live.

Is it appropriate for you to perform this transplant in order to save five of your patients?

I’d like to propose a variant, because I don’t think the doctor (“do no harm”) should ever consider this as given. (below the fold) Read the rest of this entry

Yo.

1. The tip/top of the iceberg.
2. Holder and the lying game … in a word, weak tea … supported here and here.
3. More on Holder here.
4. A commencement address of note without inappropriate jokes (HT: Mr Burgess-Jackson).
5. Yikes.
6. Put that same metric on Mr Obama and Mr Kerry (the last two Democrat Presidential) and they too “did nothing”.  But I doubt Mr McElwee would say they did nothing. Why might that be?
7. Brendan points out some of the real failings of consequentialism. I might add that a wise friend of mine equated asceticism with prayer.
8. The capstone of the liberal media not doing so well.
9. Coming to a zoo near you in a decade or so.
10. Fine tuning.
11. Marriage, France and a speech.
12. So will that end the homicide bombers terror trend?
13. A lock.
14. A quote.
15. Another.
16. Twitter travels in time.
17. A short film, beware the dust in the air.
18. Academic mediocrity and our President.
19. A film noted.

Tonight I return the Internet black hole, I’m trying the third hotel (and final) in the area to see if they, unlike the others, have “high-speed” internet that is faster than dialup.

1. An ethics question.
2. “Other weapons systems” … equals drones?
3. Fur yur amoozment.
4. Not a co-conspirator.
5. Fine tuning comes to inflation.
6. 13 years ago, Honda sold a 1 liter three cylinder inline powered car … still waiting.
7. And you tell the wife, parents, and children of the dead patient you “did no harm”? This isn’t an ethical dilemma.
8. Of names and men.

OK. Remember today, first off … do no harm.

I hope everyone had a good memorable Memorial day. If you want to read something patriotic, I often recommend the first chapter or two or the Book of Ruth. Ruth’s declamatory statement to Naomi strikes me as the essence of patriotism.

1. I have to confess, unlike many readers, I find the likability of the protagonist important, for example that was a reason I couldn’t stand the Thomas Covenant series. The protagonist doesn’t have to be likable I guess, but it really really helps if there is someone who is likable.
2. Legal-like moonshine.
3. Law and drones continued.
4. Academic failings.
5. Theodicy and Presidential statements … so do you think Presidents and other politicians actually read the context of the verses they choose? Did this President do so?
6. Liberal hack and … uncivil as well? Don’t worry the liberal hack thing will keep him is moonlight job as a NYTimes pundit and liberals stapled to the cause will never believe he might say or do wrong.
7. Scandal in India.
8. Future’s so bright and all … maybe.
9. Star Trek, sliced and diced (spoilers aplenty) (HT Ms (slightly) Mad Minerva).
10. Bars of the uneven kind.
11. PEDs and a mountain.
12. So … you’re in Nashville. Where to go? What do do? How about this?
13. Benghazi the narrative in local context.
14. Not a lot of running on warships, eh?
15. A very bad day.

Henry II had a stalwart friend and assistant in Thomas Beckett his chancellor. When there was a chance to elevate Thomas to a position of arch-Bishop of Canterbury Henry did so, thinking he’d have a close ally in the Church. What he didn’t realize was that Beckett was loyal not to him as his chancellor but the office … and when he was head cleric … he was likewise loyal to his office and no longer a close friend and ally of the King. In a frustrated rage (and Henry had a temper) Henry famously hollered  “will someone not rid me of this meddlesome priest” … and two knights took him at his word, rode forth in the night to Canterbury and slew the Bishop in cold blood at the altar, an act which shocked and horrified both England and their King who never actually intended this act to be carried out.

The left in general and the left elite in particular see themselves as the faithful guardians and representatives of the people. A popular movement arising naturally belongs within their party, not the opposition. When this occurs it is an affront to their long held assumptions that the ordinary folk are their constituents and this movement is a betrayal (just talk to a gay conservative as to how liberals treat with them … for a party that thinks that harsh words against oppressed groups are harmful, they are mighty quick to use them themselves).

Mr Obama has joked about using the IRS as a political tool, he’s remarked how Tea Party members were nefarious, he’s publicly called out persons and groups to be targeted by liberal pressure. Low and behold a few knights ride out to do his bidding. Actually more than a few, but who’s counting. Apparently we are to believe there was no connection between his attitude, the atmosphere he encouraged in his administration and its behavior. History if I remember, finds Henry culpable for the consequences of his remarks. History likewise, will likely find Mr Obama culpable for the spate of government overreach and partisanship it demonstrates …

On the other hand, it seems calls for “impeach the bum” keep coming from the right. Uhm, a few points to this remark:

• Biden? Geesh
• The President is tried in the Senate, by Senators not a few of whom have Presidential aspirations and for which a majority share the same political party as the President.
• Which means, the only actual good that would come of impeachment is … that it would shut down the federal government for a month or so.
• and finally, Biden? If that doesn’t frighten you, nothing will.

Oh, wait. Point #3 might be the actual point. Impeachment even without conviction would be likely to hamstring the President during and afterwards … and he’s not going to be convicted so the Biden threat isn’t very real.

The latest breakthrough in stem cell research turns skin cells into stem cells just as useful as embryonic stem cells, without the ethical issues. Adult stem cells and induced stem cells, while still able to become many other types of cells, still had some limitations. Researchers are saying, however, that stem cells using this new method, are just like embryonic.

We are getting to the point that using actual embryos is going to be completely unnecessary. It’ll be almost medieval to suggest using them, when skin (which is the largest organ in your body; did you know that?) are able to produce what’s required. I wonder how much the advance of methods to create embryonic-like stem cells was pushed forward by George W. Bush’s restriction of embryonic stem cell lines that could be used. Bush, then, was not anti-science, but pro-ethical-science.

US researchers have reported a breakthrough in stem cell research, describing how they have turned human skin cells into embryonic stem cells for the first time.

The method described Wednesday by Oregon Health and Science University scientists in the journal Cell, would not likely be able to create human clones, said Shoukhrat Mitalipov, senior scientist at the Oregon National Primate Research Center.

But it is an important step in research because it does not require the use of embryos in creating the type of stem cell capable of transforming into any other type of cell in the body.

The technique involves transplanting an individual’s DNA into an egg cell that has been stripped of genetic material, a variation of a method called somatic cell nuclear transfer.

"A thorough examination of the stem cells derived through this technique demonstrated their ability to convert just like normal embryonic stem cells, into several different cell types, including nerve cells, liver cells and heart cells," said Mitalipov.