If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
Lockheed-Martin cuts ties to Boy ScoutsPage Title Module
Again this has zero effect on 99% of the scouts in the nation.
I have yet to see any impact on my program based on issues from these large donors cutting off the funds.
So we get rid of a few more DE's or admin support in the office. Explain exactly what they do for me??????
I enter my own charter info,
I enter my own advancement info
I give my charter money to the District membership chair, a volunteer.
I make my reservations by calling the camp directly
I never received the books or shirts for the boys in need as promised.
I never received the boy talks or flyers for my packs recruitment.
Not exactly sure what that big building full of people do.
Initial comments shown are not particularly supportive of Lockheed. Suspect they may get more backlash than they expect, especially being where they are. Good thing we have you here Merlyn to make sure that you rub these irrational decisions in the faces of those with whom you disagree. Too bad that building what they do, there is little room for any seriously effective public backlash.
I like this comment someone posted to the news article: "Perhaps Lockheed should stop selling their planes to Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi, Oman, Indonesia, Singapore, UAE, etc. because of there religious bias. Let's at least be consistent."
The night this hit the fan (Thursday?) I spent some time flipping between CNN and Fox listening to the all-to predictable opinions on this. I can't say I'm a big fan of DD, but I will catch snips of the show here and there. Honestly, I find it repetitive. Watch two episodes and you know everything you need to know about the show. But I gotta think if you enjoy watching 13-year-olds run around in the woods doing silly thing and having fun, you will at least have an appreciation for these guys doing basically the same thing. I appreciate that they always close the show with a family meal, a prayer and a Scoutmaster's Minute-esque moral to the story. Come to think of it, the show covers about five of the seven parts of a good troop meeting.
After watching the coverage of the DD flap, I turn in. TwoCubMom was already asleep with the TV on E! or whatever cable channel she watches. As I turn in Chelsea Handler's show was on. The topic being discussed by Chelsea and her co-hosts was the various forms of sodomy they feel compelled to perform as single women. The language used was just as explicit as that used by Phil Robertson. They also chose to display a "training kit" featuring a selection of devices of increasing diameter which could be of use to women who find themselves similarly situated. I was struck by the remarkable similarity of what was described by Handler and Robertson (minus the visual aids). The difference was that Robertson described it as a sin. Handler promoted it as being necessary in order to get a second date.
So, Moose, where is the outrage with how Handler & Co. expressed their opinions? Where are the conservative protester calling for Handler's suspension? Why aren't the professional NOW spokeswomen on CNN decrying the objectification of women? Keep in mind this wasn't an unedited interview but the approved, edited, broadcast version of her show. Perhaps the graphic description of a particular sex act isn't the issue, but is, in fact, Robertson's belief -- shared by about half the US population, according to polls -- that some sex acts are sins.
Why is it those who promote base behavior are cheered and given contract extensions and those who speak against it or profess conservative traditional view toward it lose their job and are vilified in the media?
Used to be that freedom of expression meant when someone expressed an opinion contrary to your own you were free to state your opinion to the contrary. Over time reason prevailed and the truth became apparent. No longer. Now, when someone expresses an opinion contrary to the prevailing media narrative, the Keepers of All Things Politically Correct come down in force with personal and economic attacks on the individual,
If one doesn't like Phil Robertson's opinions, state your own and explain why he is wrong. The truth will become apparent.
Where they both employed by A&E???... Different networks, different attitudes.. If the conservative branch didn't vocalize distaste for it, I would be surprised.. I can tell you that MSNBC recently lost Martin Bashir over his comments. although he apologized for them. And what the conservatives said he said was not what he did say.. It is just that you can mentally make the leap of what he inferred.. Martin Bashir they stated voluntarily stepped down.. We will never know though, sometimes voluntary resignation is forced upon you, but it is an easier cleaner transition.. Also MSNBC terminated Alec Baldwin for comments he made, since his show was only 4 weeks old, they didn't soft tap around it.
I liked Martin Bashir.. If what the conservatives said he said was true, I would have agreed it was crass.. But, I didn't find what he really did say all that awful, yet a little over the top.. Yet, had MSNBC suspended or fired him for it, then that is their right.. Even with Martin Bashir having apologized.. I saw none of these same people who take issue for a network suspending (not firing) someone as totally unfair to their free speech, picking up the same stance on the firing of Martin Bashir or Alec Baldwin.. In fact know a lot of the same people say Martin should have been fired, but Phil should not be suspended. They didn't like what Martin said, they agreed with what Phil said.
So when is freedom of speech something your employer can restrict, and when can they not restrict it?
All I can say is each network, really each company can choose how to handle employees who verbally cross the line.. If you are a public spokesperson for the company, I would not be surprised if you have signed some form of agreement on how you conduct yourself, your attitude and your speech..
But, you have the freedom to voice your opinion to the network or anywhere else if you find the words offensive or not..
Oh, Basement was referring to the Duck Dynasty guy. I get it now. I have never seen the show and never knew the guy's name before, so it really means nothing to me. (When the thing first started, I kept seeing "Robertson" and thinking, oh, Pat Robertson said something anti-gay, what else is new? Oh, Phil, not Pat.) I don't care what he says, or whether he does or doesn't have a tv show. (Now, if one of Pawn Stars guys said something stupid, I wouldn't be happy. But from the random comments they make when they are talking about historical items, I am guessing they are pretty middle-of-the-road, or at least that is how they portray themselves.)
I don't understand anyone's surprise or Merlyn LeRoy's sadistic enjoyment for bringing this to our attention. Publicly traded companies have policies that reflect the law. Their donations need to reflect those policies too. If anything, I'm surprised the donations continued as long as they have continued.
This should be no surprise and Merlyn should take no enjoyment from it. Scouting is a good program that helps kids. Today's political battle between adults damages those the program and the kids we serve.
Ya know ... I'm okay with that. If parents want to form scout groups under secular organizations, that's fine. It is just unrealistic to expect churches to sponsor youth groups that don't support their teachings. Personally, I would be fine camping next to another unit that is sponsored by an atheist group. But I would not want my sons joining that scout unit as scouting as far as I've been involved has very very much had a strong reverent aspect.
For me and my family, scouting without reverent is like eating a hamburger without the meat. It's not scouting. The funny thing though is we have many kids out our scouting group that it just doesn't matter. They do fine and they are very welcome. But if you want to pick a fight and protest what the church teaches you won't be welcome. It's sort of obvious.
I should mention that I've seen many kids who state they are atheists and they are in scouting. It's normal for a teenage kid to explore all facets of their lives. And, it's not in our place to get in their way.
It only becomes an issue when people want to change the organization because of their personal beliefs. Then, it moves from the individual exploration to a conflict with the organization. At that point, no one wins.
Thanks Fred, I agree.
As for Duck Dynasty, I'm all for allowing the guy to speak all he wants to and let the market take care of it. But for now he'll have to speak all he wants to on his own nickel although I think he's free to buy a network if that's what he wants to do. Until then he can probably still open his heart and show his love of mankind to the public all he wants in more interviews - I'm fairly certain there will be plenty of offers to allow him to expand on his thoughts.
As for me, I've never watched the show...guess now I won't ever. But I'd rather let him speak and the market respond than the network to dictate from above.
Thank you. As for Duck Dynasty, I think it is slightly different in that the Duck Dynasty guys are on A&E as entertainers and does not reflect the A&E politics. Those shows are a view into the lives of specific people and we learn and are entertained by watching those shows.
Same as TCL is not promoting bigamy when it broadcasts the Sister Wives show.
Same as Discovery channel is not promoting the Amish with Amish Mafia and they are not taking a pro-gun position with the show Sons of Guns.
Same as History channel does not promote using pawn shops when it shows Pawn Stars.
Same as TV channels not promoting trashy lives when they broadcast Jerry Springer.
"Edgy" comics make far more inappropriate comments on cable TV than Phil Robertson ever has, and they get a pass. Miley Cyrus can simulate sexual positions with a married man and smoke a joint onstage and no one gives a crap. Express a view shared by most Christians - that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that we should hate the sin but love the sinner, even as we acknowledge our own sinful nature (Robertson's stated views, which are reasonable), and the network blows a gasket.
The Robertsons were always intended to be the punchline of a joke by A&E. When they became so wildly popular, A&E had no idea what to do other than to ask them to tone down the prayers that ended each show, and to try bleeping words to make it look like they were cussing. The people who are criticizing the Robertsons for "stereotyping" people are happy to ascribe their views to the fact that they and the people of the region they came from are illiterate, inbred, backwards, hookworm-infested hillbillies. Ironic, no?
Clearly, the A&E execs who panicked when they got a call from GLAAD are free to do what they want with their network (although their moral outrage did not prevent them from profiting from the "Duck Dynasty" marathon they are currently running.) I think they were surprised at the level of the backlash they received, and the popular support for Robertson. If the A&E insider source quoted by Entertainment Weekly is accurate, they are already backing down from their public posture and will continue to employ Phil Robertson. Underarmour, one of the show's sponsors, has stated that they stand by the Robertsons' right to express their religious viewpoints. Cracker Barrel restaurants, which made a knee-jerk decision to pull all Phil Robertson merchandise from their gift stores, got so much negative feedback from their customers over this last weekend that they did a 180, apologized, and said they will continue to sell the merchandise. Perhaps they realized that there are more heterosexual duck hunters who like camo who go to their restaurant than homosexual political activists.
That's huge, as a rebuke to the political power of GLAAD. I can't think of a time when a major corporation has knuckled under to Political Correctness then reversed themselves due to consumer outcry. It will be enlightening to see what happens, as GLAAD's moral authority has been challenged. Do they back off, claim victory and cut their losses, or redouble their efforts to gain the moral high ground and reassert control of the public agenda?
So yes, corporations are free to do as they wish within the law, and yes, they will have to deal with the consequences if they make decisions that their customer base finds repugnant.
Miley was dragged through the mud, made a laughing stock, parodied, etc. after her performance with a married man (who got off lightly). Why would you claim nobody gave a crap about her?
Gilbert Gottfried lost his job as the voice of the Aflac Duck for cracking jokes about Japan after the quake.
The PR Rep for Barry Diller just got fired for tweets about race, rape, and South Africe.
Mel Gibson had to fund his own work after a few drunken anti-Semitic outbursts.
Robertson made some anti-gay comments, he also made some Uncle Remus level inane statements about blacks in the South that make him sound like an idiot.
When you make your money in the public eye, you have to be ready to face the consequences when you get quoted in certain ways.
Now - where this will all end, who knows. The next season is already shot and ready to air starting in January. This whole enterprise has resulted in massive publicity, and it will be fun to see how much more or less viewership, sales, etc. there is.
The difference is that Cyrus was making a lewd performance, and is still receiving awards, in the public spotlight, and raking in the dough. She is positioning herself as a "feminist" for her actions. In the circles in which she travels, that's considered a win. Gottfried, Diller, and Gibson were not making statements about their religious beliefs. (Gibson is a member of a small schismatic sect which broke away from Catholicism, but the views he stated are not part of their church's doctrine and he isn't considered anyone's employee.) Robertson was making an expression of religious belief and is an employee of A&E, and such statements are covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as I'm sure his attorneys and A&E's attorneys were aware. A&E was acting outside the scope of the law in making the threat.
1- Lotsa folks who never heard of Duck Dynasty will now tune in to see what the dust-up is about.
2- Phil and DD may part ways with A&E. They've had similar arguments in the past:
"When A&E decided to add bleeps to the show to add "spice", Robertson went to the network and told them to not make it seem like they use profanity, as they do not. Also, while they did not cut prayers, they did cut out the part of Robertson's prayer where he said "in Jesus' name". When A&E told them that they did not want to offend the Muslim population, Phil asked, "What year is it?" They replied "2012." He pointed out that the year was 2012 A.D., or in the year of Our Lord. He asked them why they would take someone out who the entire universe is based on. He also asked A&E how many Muslims were watching Duck Dynasty."
Other networks are knocking.
Phil is just a good ole Southern boy (net worth between $5 million and $15 million) who turned down a chance to play NFL ball (interfered with hunting season) who doesn't mind people thinking he is stupid (Masters in education from La Tech). That's why we Southerners talk slowly. We are stoopid. (I had an uncle who painted his dog to look like an alligator so he could charge Yankees $5 to watch him wrestle it...)
Lockheed's decision is a major blow to Atlanta area Scouts, including my 9 year old Bear. We have been looking forward to the merit badge programs at Lockheed for years, which would have begun with Webelos next year for our family.
Lockheed is one of the crown jewels of the Atlanta area merit badge programs. Few other institutions match them for quality of offerings to Scouts of all ages. They have a well developed and long standing outreach program for children.
I have a low opinion of any company or group that is willing to hurt children to make a political point. This is cruel. If Lockheed wanted to withdraw funding from the national organization (where most of the money goes to overpaid executives anyway) that would have been an acceptable way to make a point.
But to tell a bunch of kids, including my nine year old son, who have been looking forward to this that they all of a sudden can't go because of decisions made by adults in which they had no part is small minded and nasty. If I had the opportunity to speak to the head of Lockheed, I would suggest he grow a pair. Hurting kids like this is never ok, for any reason. It is incredibly unbecoming for grown men to treat kids like this. I am angry on behalf of my son.
On the other matter....
I think Phil Robertson is completely entitled to his own personal religious beliefs, as they were stated. It is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to suspend or fire anyone because of their expression of a personal religious belief.
I'm sure A&E were very well aware that the Robertson family are Christians. One of Phil's sons is a pastor. The entire Robertson family is involved in many Christian outreach ministries (Operation Christmas Child, etc.). For them to suddenly suspend/fire one of them for quoting a Bible verse and stating that the Bible forms his own personal belief about sexual relations and marriage, while also stating that he loves and respects everyone who does not share his belief, is stunningly stupid. Is A&E actually surprised that this family reads the Bible and bases their personal lives on it?
Amazing how those who scream "tolerance" the loudest are actually the most intolerant people I've ever seen.
I'm with Phil. The Bible forms my basis for my own personal behavior, too, to the best of my ability. I believe in monogamous hetersexual marriage, too, in my own life. Why would this be anyone else's business? How do my personal religious choices have any effect on people who don't share my beliefs: whether gay, unmarried, or whatever? Their personal lives are not my business, and my personal life is not their business. Can't we all get along?
I find it amazing that people outside the Christian church have so much trouble dealing with doctrinal differences when so many of us within the church deal with them just fine. I am Protestant. I have many Catholic friends. We have different beliefs on some very central parts of life (reproduction) and faith (transubstantiation, intercession by priests, etc). And yet we get along just fine. We respect each other. They don't try to change my beliefs, and I don't try to change theirs. Why can't GLAAD and similar get a grip and understand that we don't have to be identical to get along?
Well said and I agree. I do wish Lockheed could just let the kids keep attending merit badge and activity pin sessions. It's a zero budget line entry for them. They provide space without routing $$ for support. Plus, it's probably a huge internal positive for their employees and employee moral.
I also fully agree with the statement that those who scream tolerance are the most intolerant people. That's my experience too. The memory that's most ingrained in my head is similar. Several members of a theater I was part of would go out to dinner. We each paid our bill and left a tip. It was those who screamed for the democrat party that would use the excess tip that many of us left to reduce their own tip to zero. Got to the point that we would pay separate because those complaining about the 1% would not pay their own fair share. My same experience with tolerance too.
Also reminds me of a relative of mine. Huge democratic party supports and the first to pull out the calculator to figure out the 10% tip to the penny. And they are the same ones to yell about bigotry and social injustice.