1. Now THIS is an unethical troop leader!
Law enforcement authorities in Kentucky are are currently looking Leah Ann Vick, 26, a Girl Scout troop leader who appears to be on the lam after picking up a large order of yummy Girl Scout cookies for her Wilderness Road chapter as well as, it is believed, orders belonging to other troops in Pikesville, Kentucky.
Vick was supposed to pay for the cookies once they had been sold—their value is $15,000— but she never returned, nor did she drop off her troop’s cookies with her scouts. She has disappeared, apparently taking the cookies with her. She has been indicted by a Pike County grand jury on a charge of “felony theft by unlawful taking.” Vick faces up to ten years in prison if convicted
This will not end well. I fear that she will finally be caught, weighing 300 pounds with incipient diabetes, wedged in a revolving door as she desperately stuffs the last Thin Mints into her mouth….
2. The Insufferable Arrogance of “The Resistance”
The New York Times gleefully described a satirical one-night-only “documentary drama” assembled from edited transcripts of the Senate confirmation hearings for members of President Trump’s cabinet. Titled “All the President’s Men?,” produced by the Public Theater and London’s National Theater, it featured such actors as the politically objective Alec Baldwin as Rex Tillerson and Academy Award Winner Ellen Burstyn as that heroic figure, Elizabeth Warren. This event was, of course, progressive Trump-hater masturbation, and the Times reports that the “liberal audience laughed and groaned and occasionally whooped…then rose for a standing ovation.”
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. However, the fact that David Remnick, editor in chief of The New Yorker, was one of the performers tells us all we need to know about that alleged journalistic enterprise’s ability to be fair and objective about the President, as well as how blatantly journalists now proclaim their anti-Trump bias as virtue-signalling.
The Times also observed this:
“It’s unlikely that the real Mr. Tillerson paused for a laugh after championing his honesty by saying, “You are aware of my longstanding involvement with the Boy Scouts of America.”
This is signature significance, showing us the utter loathsomeness of Mr. Baldwin and also the audience this production pandered to. Tillerson deserves nothing but praise for his work with the Boy Scouts of America.
He was a Distinguished Eagle Scout, a Silver Buffalo Award recipient and past national president of the organization. Tillerson has remained a devoted advocate of Scouting throughout his professional life, making time to attend national-, council- and unit-level Scouting events for almost half a century. In 2015, at the National Order of the Arrow Conference in Michigan, told 5,000 Eagle Scout that Scouts must have personal integrity:
“People trust you. They count on you.Your personal integrity, once established and earned, people don’t have to think about it. They know. They know you. They know you’ll do the right thing every time.”
Rex Tillerson’s maternal grandfather, Ray Patton, had been a Scout in the early days of Scouting and later led the troop in which Rex’s father, Bob, also became an Eagle Scout. After World War II, Tillerson’s father became a Scoutmaster and Order of the Arrow lodge advisor in Wichita Falls, Kansas. He eventually quit his job, with a reduction in pay, to become a Boy Scouts of America district executive. Young Rex Tillerson became a Cub Scout and his mother was his den leader. Eventually Tillerson became an Eagle Scout, was inducted into the Order of the Arrow, attended the 1969 National Scout Jamboree, and joined an Explorer post. Like his dad, he served on camp staff for several years, stopping only when he had to pursue summer jobs that supported his coursework at the University of Texas. When not studying engineering, he was active in Alpha Phi Omega, the Scouting-affiliated service fraternity.
Tillerson’s activity in scouting waned until he had children. Then he became active again, serving as Cubmaster twice and as an assistant Scoutmaster. His son, Tyler, is the third generation Eagle Scout.
When Tillerson moved to Dallas with Exxon, he joined the executive board of the BSA Circle Ten Council and eventually joined the National Executive Board. Before becoming national president, he served as honorary chairman of the Generations Connections program, the special project of the BSA’s 100th anniversary celebration that commended how Scouting values and traditions are shared across generations.
Tillerson used his influence to urge the organization to change its rules on youth membership to allow gay youth to be Boy Scouts. His efforts were instrumental in passing a rule change, which Tillerson advocated in a speech at the May 2013 National Annual Meeting of the BSA. That rule states, “No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.”
Go ahead, mock Tillerson and the Boy Scouts, you repulsive, arrogant, ignorant assholes. What have you done to help boys and young men learn ethical values like being “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent?” Most of you don’t follow those values yourselves….if you even know what they mean.
Scouting saved my father’s life. As a poor kid whose father had abandoned him and whose mother had to move around Kentucky, not because she had stolen cookies, but because it was the Depression and she had to raise a child by herself, Jack Marshall Sr. joined a Scout troop where he met four lifelong friends who, along with the Boy Scouts, taught my father the values and developed the character traits that made Dad a war hero, an exemplary father and husband, and a brave, honest and remarkable citizen, neighbor and human being. He openly credited Scouting for teaching him right from wrong and life competency skills, far more than school could or did. I did not take to scouting, much to Dad’s disappointment, but I learned from my father what Scouting had taught him.
How dare a miserable creep like Alec Baldwin mock the Boy Scouts or another man’s dedication to the organization? What kind of disgusting human being thinks that Scouting is an appropriate target for mockery?
They—Baldwin and his audience, and the Times— do this because they are all self-bolstering jerks, reveling in their assumed superiority when they are, in fact, revolting. This is one of the (many) fatal weaknesses of the “resistance”: they are objectively repulsive, and often more repulsive that the man they seek to destroy. The Boy Scouts have not been perfect, and adapting to a changing culture has been a challenge that the organization has not always handled well. Nonetheless, they have earned society’s respect, both for what the Scouts seek to accomplish, and the lives they have changed for the better….like my father’s, and through him, my own.
Any individual, group or newspaper that thinks Scouting is a punchline, and that devoted volunteer work for the BSA isn’t admirable should have no credibility, and deserves only contempt and scorn.
President Trump is truly blessed by the loathsomeness of his enemies.
Source: CNS News
56 thoughts on “Scouting Ethics: The Cookie Thief And The Loathsome Left”
Jack wrote, “Now THIS is an unethical troop leader!”
The article in the link says, “Authorities also confirmed that Vick has been using “several different addresses” in eastern Kentucky since going on the lam, making it that much harder for law enforcement to track her down.”
This could be jumping the gun. There could also be foul play on someone else’s part that stole the cookies from her, is using her identity, and has done something to her. It’s a strange world we live in these days, we can ‘t rule out other possibilities too early.
Me no think foul play involved. Bad lady stole cookies. No one steal lady’s identity. Me not know anyone would so thing like that.
Nom nom nom nom nomnomnom
Isaac, you sound like your mouth is full of cook…er, uh, that is, marbles.
Is it possible that the mockery at Tillerson’s reference to his Boy Scout association is not about the Boy Scouts, or even Tillerson’s involvement with the Boy Scouts, but because they see the reference as a false rationalization? For example, if someone does great ethical work in one area of his life, but does incredibly unethical work in a different area of his life, does he get to claim personal integrity by ignoring the unethical things he did and only cite the work worthy of praise? My guess is that the resistance sees Tillerson’s work in the oil and gas industry, his personal net worth, and his ties to Russia as proof positive that he is unethical. Thus he could not make claim to personal integrity or honesty, no matter what he did elsewhere.
The same people who think that Tillerson’s work with Scouting is fair game for mockery, ostensibly because of the juxtaposition of those good works and his work in oil, are willing to hold up Pocahontas Warren, who is the champion of minorities and the lower class alike, but only after denying some of them the affirmative action spots she filled by lying about her ancestry.
I’m just saying.
And before all the cries of “But Jeff: That’s not the same thing, and you’re a racist!”
First off: To the latter. Get bent, firmly, over a barbed wire fence, where Beelzebub himself can merrily sodomise you with a sriracha-coated pitchfork.
Second: You’re right! It’s worse. Nothing in the boy scouts precludes someone from working in the oil industry later in life. There’s no hypocrisy there. Warren however, is the kind of person that every progressive should actively hate. The average person goes through life, perhaps not cognisant of their relative privilege, perhaps they don’t know that because of bias, they might occupy the position of someone more qualified, but less privileged. Warren knew the theories, she knew what she was doing, and she did it anyway. Apparently, it’s OK to dick over underprivileged people, so long as the end result is someone who deeply cares about them, right?
hahahaha, I made a similar comment after the death of Scalia and the outpouring of hate that followed. Btw, the insult is often “Fauxcahontas” to imply her ancestry claim is bs.
Trump branded her, like Lyin’ Ted and Little Marco, I cannot possibly resist.
Ahh, so you’re saying you aspire to be more like Trump?
I’m gonna be yuge,
Obama said everyone should aspire to be like Trump!
Trump also called her “Goofy Elizabeth.”
That one didn’t work–it was like “New Coke.”
For the second time this week, I am in awe. First Paul and now you, HT. A “sriracha-coated pitchfork”? Classically hilarious. Thank you.
One stab, four holes.
Sometimes I wonder if the “rules for thee, but not for me” should start to fall under the Julie Principle. It’s not like we’re shocked, shocked! when yet another double standard is applied.
Yes, I agree that this is one line of (invalid) reasoning. But what sense does it make to ridicule an unquestioned good deed when one’s complaint is about something else entirely? And the Boy Scouts are widely derided by liberals–too male, too traditional, too square, too late to the party embracing equal rights for gays.
I think you’ll find that deriding the Boy Scouts is low on the list of most liberals’ priorities right now.
So what? It’s a tell.
So what? If you don’t make a distinction between the — as you put it in your headline — “loathsome” portion of the left, and liberals more generally, you’ll continue to be susceptible to anti-anti-Trumpism. It’s easy to cherry-pick the Alec Baldwins and Maxine Waters. Nearly as easy as it was, during the Obama administration to cherry-pick the fringe right-wing politicians circulating racist memes about the first family. Not everyone on the left detests the Boy Scouts. I certainly don’t!
The large liberal audience laughed, and Baldwin played to them. It’s a representative sample, I’d say. I’m someone who fully appreciates how epically awful Donald Trump is and how unqualified he is to be President, I don’t fall into the trap of believing that this justifies any means to overturn the election, or justifies overturning an election at all. However, I am very comfortable saying that most Americans who feel as I do DO believe any means necessary are justifiable to remove him, because that’s what the progressive leadership and the news media want them to think.
And were, pray tell, are these ‘less loathsome’ progressives? Other than those posting to EA, how exactly are they making progress reigning in the ‘loathsome’ variety?
They may exist as a silent majority, but viewed from the outside, we seem to be hearing from a majority of progressives.
Why don’t more stand up? Could it be that they feel the same, or stand to benefit?
Could there be a communist solution in the wind? They used the radicals and true believers to win a country, then stood that group against the wall first
And I think that that is because they have run out of memory. They are so busy hating and/or deriding all things Trump, there is no room left over for relatively minor irritants like the Boy/Girl Scouts.
I have a couple of thoughts of why it might make sense, in their minds. First, belonging to one organization or another does not automatically make someone ethical, and if it is an organization that is already derided, then not only does the organization fail to bestow the desired character reference, it might actually be seen as a black mark.
Second, maybe they find Tillerson’s citation of his work with the Boy Scouts to be completely unrelated (perhaps because they don’t see the Boy Scouts as an organization dedicated to instilling virtue) to the question of his integrity. It would be like interviewing for a position as a security guard, and when asked for reasons I would make a good guard, I started talking about cake baking. The absurdity of such a non-sequitur surely deserves mockery.
Third, perhaps they do find the Boy Scouts as admirable, but that the work done with the scouts is so minuscule in merit compared to Tillerson’s “crimes” that it would be comparable to the head of a drug cartel vouching for his integrity because he donated some flowers to charity.
Or maybe I’m completely off base. I always reserve the right to be abysmally wrong.
Ryan, you’ve done an admirable job explaining the joke. It’s still not very funny, but nor is it the evidence of bias and despicable character that this post asserts it to be.
Why not? Why is volunteering for the Boy Scouts so mock-worthy that it is a laugh line, or that any decent person would think it’s a laugh line? Would the same joke be made about a cancer charity, Planned Parenthood, member ship in a church? Go ahead, tell me how a non -loathsome person jeers at someone who has devoted decades to scouting. Why is that funny to anyone, except an irredeemable jerk?
Humor is, in theory, based on the juxtaposition of two incongruous ideas. I would suppose that one could argue that the juxtaposition here is between a good organization like the Boy Scouts, and a deplorable entity, which in their minds Tillerson is. If you tilt your head sideways and squint, you might almost find a backhanded complement to the Boy Scouts in there.
This is validating bigotry, you know. Tillerson has not done anything justifying such assumed villainy except work in an industry that keeps the nation running, people employed, and allowing people to live their lives. So because they are bigoted, its excusable as funny? If a black mans said he read a lot, and someone raised an eyebrow as an all-white audience laughed at the “incongruity,” would you offer the same defense?
I’m just trying to understand them, not condone their actions. Personally, I agree with texagg04 below when he says the left believes that the Boy Scouts themselves are deplorable, and thus Tillerson associating himself with them is making himself look less honest by the mere fact of association. But is that agreement based on actual evidence, or my prejudices?
If I were analyzing why your hypothetical white audience laughed at the black man who said he read a lot, I might come to the conclusion that they laughed because they saw it as incongruous. From that I would then conclude that they hold racist views, in particular relating to a prejudicial view of the recreational habits of black men. This doesn’t excuse their laughter, but it explains it. But I might also come to the conclusion they find the statement incongruous because that particular person is well known for reading nothing more complicated than a dinner menu (and then, the wordless Denny’s menus where you can just point to the entree is preferable), and his being black, and the audience being all white, has nothing to do with the incongruity. Moreover, if there is a plausible reason for the all-white audience to laugh that does not make me conclude they are a bunch of racists, I might want to investigate deeper before writing them off.
As for Tillerson’s work in the oil and gas industry, I certainly don’t vilify him for that. I work at a refinery in Wyoming, and the only beef I have with Big Oil is the competition with our small refinery. But I do know that the left has a propensity to see working in the oil and gas industry, especially if it is with Big Oil, as ipso facto evil, so I’ve been trying to keep that in mind as I’ve pondered this post. I don’t think Tillerson deserves any kind of mockery, but I can understand that the left, who sees him as evil, would want to indulge in such mockery, not because it is in any way justified, but because they see it as justified.
The reason, then, that I am pursuing this line of thought is not because I’m trying to portray their actions as ethical. Far from it! Instead, I’m trying to understand their mindset so that perhaps I can find the right inroads in discussion that I could use to persuade them that they are being unethical in their conduct. It does little good in conversation to just tell someone they’re wrong, especially if the accusation isn’t quite on target. If someone on the left found the statement funny because he ardently believes the Boy Scouts are good, worthwhile organization, but that doing good works with the Boy Scouts does not excuse the evils of working for Big Oil, then by telling him he hates the Boy Scouts, I’m just going to turn him off to the conversation. On the other hand, if I show him I’m willing to understand his viewpoint, I might be able to coax him around to seeing why this particular mockery doesn’t deserve the laughter he gave it.
It’s not a worthless exercise, not all, and trying to see a bad argument through every conceivable perspective that might create it is an ethical and useful technique. Also one that I don’t have the patience for as much as I should.
Because deep down I think they think the Boy Scouts are an essentially deplorable organization, and the humor is “look at that Shmutz! He’s using the boy scouts as a ‘positive mark’ to defend himself, and we hate the Boy Scouts! What an out of touch doofus, he doesn’t even realize he’s mocking himself in our eyes! HAHAHAHAHAAHAH!”
I don’t even think it’s very deep down…it’s apparent on the surface.
Taken in that context, I don’t see how the line mocks or denigrates the BSA at all. Does anyone know the context?
“Any individual, group or newspaper that thinks Scouting is a punchline, and that devoted volunteer work for the BSA isn’t admirable should have no credibility, and deserves only contempt and scorn.”
As a second-generation Eagle Scout, I can tell you you’re full of malarkey. The BSA is a wonderful organization and, as such, deserves ALL the mockery and punchlines direct its way. Nothing is above satire.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m working on a play which depicts all the Biblical Figures as Teletubbies.
Do I need to explain the difference between humor and contempt? The problem is, Neil, unless you hold the Boy Scouts in contempt, then Baldwin’s line isn’t funny. Did you think that was funny? What’s funny bout it?
But, Jack, if he explains the joke it will no longer be funny
You will have destroyed a moment of joy for thousands, nay, millions of progressives, whose lives have been pure (if self inflicted) hell since the election.
Damn! Did not get my tongue out of my cheek fast enough, and bit it!
Also, I think it’s misleading to censure David Remnick for his participation due to his position as editor of the New Yorker. The New Yorker is open about its liberality. In fact, Remnick himself has penned many editorials for the magazine that are extremely hard on the administration, including one that is prominently featured on the magazine’s website today. The New Yorker, like the American Conservative, Weekly Standard, National Review, the New York Review of Books and so on, has a particular world view and is open about it. It is not a newspaper. It would be totally different if the editor of the Times or the Post had participated in this event.
Are you saying that being liberal precludes objectivity? I don’t believe that. A liberal judge could oversee a Trump case without criticism…one that played a role in a nakedly partisan exercise like this? No way.
No. I’m saying the New Yorker is not objective and doesn’t pretend to be. Neither are the other periodicals I mentioned above. Nor should they be. One of the main reasons someone reads the New Yorker or the Weekly Standard or the Atlantic is to get the writers’ and editors’ take on particular topics. There’s no church-state divide between the editorial and reporting teams as there is in newspapers. It’s a totally different model.
Then it isn’t practicing journalism–yet still claims to be. Because ethical journalism is objective. The rest is advocacy or punditry.
Attacking moderates just annoys me. Building a group solution used to try to draw them to your side. I would think they’d court them, but then I expect people to work together and not lecture.
Jack, off topic (you have been warned)
What do you think about the recent indictments of Texas Congressman Carlos Uresti on Federal charges? Two separate Grand Juries in different parts of the state billed him on the same day. He is a 10 term Democrat (and voted a great legislator by that body 5 times)
See, the Democrat TV adds (yes they started early!) were based on Republican corruption. The story line is that ‘the Republicans have gotten fat and lazy, having been in office too long, and look at the results! Vote Democrat instead.’ Note that some of what they say is true: State Republicans ARE acting this way, and some are also under indictment.
Uresti has just blown that story line into little smoking pieces. How ethical was it of the Democrats to float that story line, knowing the likelihood one of their own would get caught between now and Nov ’18?
My experience is that politicians are susceptible to corruption, and that Democrats more so than Republicans (simply since conservatives are willing to shoot their own dog, when necessary.)
I remember one of our cookie moms doing this during Girl Scouts, although not on this scale. The other families all chipped in to cover the loss.
I don’t get the plan though…
The only logical solution is that the cookie thieves plan on eating them all on their own…
I mean, it’s not like one can just launder the girl scout cookies into the market and I think it would be easily discovered if she openly tried to sell them on the market herself during the peak season…
Or maybe she’s planning on hording them until the big cookie selling push is over, then once the market is dry, she will have control of the market and can charge elevated prices…
Of all the crimes, I don’t get this one, unless the plan is to eat them all on their own. In which case, WOW!
Haven’t you ever seen a cookie sale at a grocery store? That’s where the Girl Scouts make most of their cookie money.
I don’t think easily recognizable thieves sell their stolen goods in the open at locations they would be easily recognized though…
If she has a base of operations in another state, say an Aunt or college friend, she could sell them openly (cash only is normal) and make that money.
It would be work, though, and most people inclined to taking short cuts (like theft) are disinclined to put in sweat equity.
I get it, but now we’re discussing a complex organized crime syndicate to see stolen cookies.
I’m not buying it.
Not sure why Clinton/Bernie voters would make fun of the BSA as they’re now accepting “boys” who are girls into troops. They got what they wanted which was to change the organization into their own image.
My time in the GSA was brief, but I never forgot how to make a zuccini patty with mozzarella & breadcrumbs. So good!
My guess is that their vision of the BSA is and always shall be as a paramilitary, conservative, bigoted, male-dominated organization that had to be publicly-shamed into taking gays.
If that’s the case, to them, the BSA is only more inclusive than it was before, not more tolerable.
That’s a good explanation. Thanks
I mean…someone is certainly engaged in faux outrage and hysterical hyperventilating here, and it isn’t the people who put on this little show.
The joke isn’t funny. It also doesn’t merit the level of condemnation you’ve bestowed on it in this post.
Small matches can lead to big fires. Our culture was not corrupted all at once; it took decades of tiny cuts to begin to bleed it out. (It started to move much faster with the advent of politically correct language).
Chris was attempting to politely tell Jack he should focus on other topics, not this one, because in Chris’ opinion this one isn’t worthy of the attention Jack has given it.