In case you don’t want to scroll through 63 comments on yesterday’s Girl Scout cookie imbroglio, one reader sends us this update from the Girl Scout’s own website, advising against the donation of goods (and we assume, goodies) to tsunami victims.
Please be aware that donation of goods is simply not possible. In-kind donations are very expensive to ship, tie up airports and ports already struggling to handle the huge aid donations required to keep people alive, and cost the recipients customs duties and charges for storage and distribution. Financial gifts to reputable, established organizations are most effective.
The Barista apologizes to Brownie troop 239 for making a stupid t-shirt joke at its expense. You go girls. Put us down for 10 boxes, ok?
Only ten? Damn, I’m in for ten via three different Girl Scouts, and I didn’t even trash them for anything!
Sheesh.
BTW, the Girl Scouts in Pennsylvania have new, better cookies.
Tom, you read my mind, about the “only ten” boxes.
How dare the Girl Scouts tell the girl scouts what to do! They’re crushing their spirit!
They should have checked with Lex and the Progressive-Group-Think-Politboro first!
C’mon, don’t be like Bush. Just admit it when you’re wrong.
That’s how the cookie crumbles.
None for me, thanks. I’m trying to keep my intake of junk food to a minimum.
Do the Girl Scouts sell anything that’s healthy to eat? All they’re doing now is creating a nation of addicts. I want Samoa, Samoa!
2010: Girl Scout Cookie Eaters Anonymous forms its first group.
Thats funny!
This whole thread and quoting of the girl scouts’s website is a desparate attempt to save face from trashing troop 239 yesterday.
The issue was never weather or not a box of cookies would be effective.
I agree with ROC. i was disturbed by the meanspiritedness against a group of little kids–6 years old– who wanted to do something nice, and their troop leaders whose first (and wholly appropriate) response was ‘let’s encourage them.’
every poster on this site knows that a dozen boxes of girlscout cookies won’t make or break the tsunami effort, but the pc blather that it kicked up disgusted me. Yeccccch.
by the way, i’m a kerry supporter who now has a better understanding of why we lost so many red states. that sickening self-righteous ‘see? this article proves that it is evil to send a box of cookies to malay’ nonsense completely and deliberately missed the point. the point was “hey, we’re a new girl scout troop and our kids thought this would be a nice thing to do.” end of story, right?
but, noooooooooooooooo……………………
Chris,
Girl Scout Cookies make wonderful gifts. I support these kids charities (like the Mom with the bix of Candy bars) and just give them away, since I don’t do candy. Besides, its only money and you can’t take it with you.
Fran,
I wish you luck in helping to cure the fever swamp of some quarters of your party.
All hope is not lost, work quickly!
“by the way, i’m a kerry supporter who now has a better understanding of why we lost so many red states.”
You’re extrapolating from the three annoying posters on this board to the 57,288,974 people who voted for Kerry? With friends like these…
Lex,
Fran makes a good point. Once this Gore 2000 voter’s (me) ears were opened to the “we know better than you” elitism of the left I began to notice it in many places.
Weather they are telling your girl scouts how to be charitable; what you can do with that inn you purchased; not to sing Chrismass carols in school; or you are a bigot if you don’t want to redefine marriage, the elitism is ever present.
p.s. there is a guy singing about God (actually praying) at the sewearing in ceremony! (“heal our land”)
Gasp!
He sung “keep us one nation under God”
“help us keep our trust in thee…”
This must be intolerable for you guys…
ROC- That’s funny. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I didn’t think Gore stood for anything. Then with the out of control spending, the pandering to the religious right, the abandonment of free trade and the (what struck me as) lying about the reasons for the war in Iraq I realized I just couldn’t vote for him. I don’t really pay attention to the character of the voters, I pay attention to the character of the candidate. Kerry wasn’t the democrat I would have chosen (Lieberman was) but he was better than Bush.
But, given your blindness to the same flaws in the people who voted for Bush that you so easily find in the so-called elitist left, I really don’t believe you voted for Gore anyway.
“I really don’t believe you voted for Gore anyway.”
I don’t doubt you don’t believe me. Neither (I am sure) would your party.
Until you guys figure out why people like me left the Democratic party you are stuck.
I thought I was the one who needed “anger management therapy” around here. I can’t even keep up with you guys!
Dan – Isn’t this the anger management forum? Am I in the wrong place again?
Roc – So tell me, why *did* you vote for Al “I Always Vote Yes!” Gore?
Dan,
I am not angry. Faaaaar from it today!
Lex,
I voted for Gore because I liked Clinton and was less politically aware than I am now. I wrongly assumed Clinton’s centrism would continue.
But I have crossed over.
The difference as I see it in the elitims department is this:
Now it is a generalism and as such not 100% accurate, but think in large part Liberal elitism seeks to impose a belief structure upon others and conservatives want to be left alone to decide for themsleves on a more local level.
Conservatives have more faith in personal responsiblity. They would say that the best people to determine what should be taught in schools is the local community, not a department in washington.
uh. oh they are praying at the innaguration again!
yikes.
renquists entrance is pretty moving.
Good for him in being so determined.
Now they are singing “bless this house”
(Kerry must be grinding his teeth)
Hastert botches the VP oath but Cheney says it correctly anyway.
Think he studied?
its done!
Good luck Mr. President!
(and if Thom is reading this? I am still smirking!)
roc, i was with you all the way on the girl scout issue. don’t push your luck with this inauguration crap.
😉
“Liberal elitism seeks to impose a belief structure upon others and conservatives want to be left alone to decide for themsleves on a more local level.”
By this definition the current administration is a Liberal Elite and I am a conservative. The issues you mention elsewhere as typical democrat highlight this (gay marriage, no state directed prayer, abortion rights.)
“Conservatives have more faith in personal responsiblity. They would say that the best people to determine what should be taught in schools is the local community, not a department in washington.”
The Republicans threw Federalism out the window long ago, but even Federalists recognized the legitimacy of the Bill of Rights. If what you’re advocating is allowing the teaching of intelligent design as science here, I’d like to hear you say so.
To be fair, neither party *does* anything that remotely resembles policy driven by these principles. If they did, I would vote for them. False lip-service is a reason to vote aginst them.
oh, Fran.
Can’t I be happy once? Don’t begrudge me that!
“If what you’re advocating is allowing the teaching of intelligent design as science here…”
You miss the point. My point is that if the good folks of somesuch county in Georgia want to teach that to their kids and they reach a concensus on it, YES then they should be allowed to teach that! After it is *their* community, *their* kids!
I would fight it, but I would not assume my *correct* values should take precidence. The folks in somesuch don’t want to force other communities to do likewise (unlike their bluish counterparts) they just want to be allowed to structure their community in their own way.
(now watch as Lex drags out the extreme “should they be allowed to have slavery”…)
“if the good folks of somesuch county in Georgia want to teach that to their kids and they reach a concensus on it, YES then they should be allowed to teach that! After it is *their* community, *their* kids!”
But why not teach intelligent design AND evolution, offering both points of view? Wouldn’t that be more fair & balanced?
Martta,
Sounds good to me. As long as the people who have their kids in that school system agree. The point is that something as important as the education of children should rest as much as possible in the hands of the community in which they reside.
It makes the local community more invested and more importantly more *responsible* for the outcome.
Go ask any educator why schools are not performing well and with lighting speed they will point in every direction but toward themselves. And to some exten they are right.
If the education buck starts in Montclair it should STOP in Montclair. If our community were SOLELY responsible for education we would have no one else to pass the buck to if our system did not perform.
p.s.
But the Dems will never be for that, because Gaia know what those rubes in Somesuch will teach their drooling knuckle-Draging offspring.
I don’t need to go to the extreme to point out that the selection of and advocation of a religion in the public schools should not be up to the communities. I can’t believe that, as a self-described Republican, you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority. Are you saying that you don’t believe in the principles put down on paper by the founders of our country? The rights of man and all that?
But since you generously acknowledge that you think slavery is of a different order than the separation of church and state, maybe you can describe which parts of the Constitution you’d like to chuck, aside from the first amendment (and habeas corpus, we already know that one.)
> As long as the people who have their kids in that school system agree.
What happens if, say, 3/4 agree and 1/4 do not? The 1/4 just have to go along? I wouldn’t want my kid being taught intelligent design (i.e., religion) in school. There’s a place for that — in church or temple.
You don’t see me going into churches and temples to teach evolution, do ya?
Ha, maybe I should start a campaign!
ROC–
Your spelling seems a bit off (“chrismass”, “renquist”, “innauguration”, “sewearing”, “weather”).
Is this poor spelling/typing skills? An imposter poster? Or some vast right wing conspiracy?
Lex slipped in there while I was typing my previous post.
Chris – it’s always nice to have a few people on your side, though. Before you and Marshall got here I felt like I was the only liberal on the board.
Lex,
(in full attack mode again I see, ok)
“…maybe you can describe which parts of the Constitution you’d like to chuck”
Since we are going to go all Constitutional. First, lets find the part of the Constitution regulating education in the United States, shall we? Havin trouble?
Well…then lets read that ole amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
“Congress shall make no law…”
“Congress…”
Is that the Montclair Board of Ed branch of the US Congress?
The *lack* of regulation which thus leaves these decisions to local authorities in your mind is *making* a law? *Establishing* something? huh?
Or does the US congress regulate all matters educational? Which one was that? The 119th amendment? oops.
How about the 10th?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”
oops…oops.
Lets also consider that for some time in this country, oh like maybe 150 years, prayers, mentions of God and other such abominations were a daily part of the school curriculum in most of the nation.
So, Lex are we the first people to be able to READ the 1st amendment? Or, did all those before us likewise ” [not] believe in the principles put down on paper by the founders of our country? The rights of man and all that?”
Or perhaps your Liberal “progressive” interpretation is the very pinicle of civic development and therefor unasailable? (no elitism there, nope)
Hmmmmm? What to make of it all Lex?
Perhaps it is open to i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n, hmm? Maybe?
SO before you assume your high and mighty certain position and engage in character assassination perhaps we could agree that there is not a lock on this thing (as much as you all would like there to be) and that there is room for discussion.
Anyone who dares challenge the Liberal interpretation of something is no friend of “true” freedom, ‘rights of man’ and all that”
huh?
I am reminded of a joke:
What do you call a conservative winning an argument with a liberal?
A Bigot.
Wow, long post and a good one. I was wondering what was taking you so long.
But, you have to read the fourteenth amendment too. The interpretation of the first amendment supporting the separation of church and state (Thomas Jefferson’s phrase assuring a constitiuent that there would be no state church) has been upheld by the supreme court for lo these fourty plus years so seems like settled law to me.
But, legalisms aside and back to philosophy: you seem upset that I challenged your commitment to the ‘rights of man’, but isn’t your answer to that challenge a legalistic reading of the Constitution? That is, you’re saying that the Bill of Rights doesn’t give freedom of religion to the people but rather to the states. That doesn’t sound like a natural right to me. You sound kind of like the people who torture the second amendment to make it support a ban on firearms.
I don’t consider you a bigot, even in the more charitable sense of the word. But I do know that when you start ad-homineming *yourself* that I must have winged you.
Lex,
“Wow, long post and a good one. I was wondering what was taking you so long.”
I did work myself into rather a lather didn’t I? These cookie threads get me worked up, must be all that sugar.
“But, you have to read the fourteenth amendment too.”
Equal protection under the law. Well unless local school curriculum is given the force of law I am not exactly sure how it applies. You leftie’s like to use the 14th to apply what you can’t achieve in legislation across state lines. In matters of the law and civil rights I can agree in some circumstances but I know of no force of law that guarantees that the experience of education will be the same everywhere.
The constitution guarantees no right of education. Let alone a consistant experience.
Remember I am not advocating additional or other laws to regulate education, I am saying the federal government should have no involvement. It is ‘reserved’ to the states and the people.
“…lo these fourty plus years so seems like settled law to me.”
Ohhhh. Fourth Years! well then…..
I’d say it is an erroneous interpretation, the length of the existence of a mistake does not make it less of a mistake. In fact, quite the opposite.
“That is, you’re saying that the Bill of Rights doesn’t give freedom of religion to the people but rather to the states.”
No. I am not saying that. I am saying the first amendment does not apply to prayer in school because when the Board of Ed in Montclair decides that “under God” should remain in the pledge that action does not (1) constitute the establishment of religion and even if it did (2) it CERTAINLY does not constitute an act of congress. And therefore any amendment of the constitution predicated upon “Congress shall make no law…” simply does not apply. Why should it apply?
“You sound kind of like the people who torture the second amendment to make it support a ban on firearms.”
huh? I am reading it at face value. Can YOU tell ME how the actions of the board of Ed in Montclair can be construed as something which falls under “Congress shall make no law…” ? I am the torturer of the Constitution? I think not.
I always thought it was the other clause, you know, the “no state shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities” part. I don’t have the reference handy.
If it is an erroneous interpretation then that has to be settled by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile it’s illegal. So while I agree that “under God” as an establishment of religion is arguable, I don’t think the legality of banning it is otherwise.
Personally I would have settled the “This is a theory not a fact” sticker dispute by requiring the stickers for every single textbook in the school system. Why single out biology? All of science is theory not fact. As is most of history (at least the historiography part), economics, etc.
There was something big happening in DC today, damn! I missed it or NOT! While I agree that the Tsunami victims may not need cookies, what the #$@? As a former Girl Scout, I am apalled!
Now, I need a thin mint.
You are interpreting “privileges or immunities” too broadly. If the local school curriculum is a “privilege” then anything in public life would qualify would it not?
I would like the New Hampshire “Privilege” of no state income tax, does the 14th grant that to me?
(ok, now I hope you might be right!)
Pretty weak argument if you ask me.
I can’t say your argument isn’t colorable, since it has been argued all the way to the Supreme Court numerous times. Here’s part of the opinion from Justice Black in Everson v. Board of Ed, a case originating in our own fair state that still seems to control this part of the law:
‘The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual’s religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the “establishment of religion” clause. “The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.”
‘The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.” ‘
Black, an Alabaman, is hard to pin down politically, but he was considered a ‘literalist’ in his reading of the Constitution. From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black :
‘Black was noted for his consistent adherence to the theory that the text of the Constitution is absolutely determinative on any question calling for judicial interpretation. Thus, he refused to join in the efforts of the justices on the Court who sought to abolish capital punishment in the United States, which efforts succeeded (temporarily) in the term immediately following Black’s death. He also was not persuaded that a right of privacy was implicit in the Ninth Amendment, and dissented from the Court’s 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision which invalidated a conviction for the sale of banned contraceptives. He dissented from the Court’s decision in Cohen v. California (1971), which held that a person could not be punished for wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words “F*** the Draft”. And although Black maintained his commitment to racial equality throughout his tenure on the Court, he voted to uphold the constitutionality of state-imposed poll taxes which, though nominally race-neutral, had a disparate impact on African-American voters. The key to Black’s position in all of these cases was that there was no specific constitutional provision which restrained the governmental actions complained of.
‘Black’s insistence on a strict textual analysis of Constitutional issues, as opposed to the process-oriented jurisprudence of many of his colleagues, makes it difficult to characterize him as a “liberal” or a “conservative” as those terms are generally understood.’
Of course, luckily for me, even if I’m wrong I’m Catholic:
https://www.adherents.com/maps/US_denom_adh.jpg
Lex,
The snow storm has come early I see.
Ah, Well….If Black says so….
Let me cut to the bottom bottom line.
I am not religious. I would not like to see my children pray in school much at all.
However I have been present or witnessed many public situations where one of those general, non-demonational, prayers has been said. You know, no Christ, no Allah, just the big guy upstairs. College graduations, openings of Congress, Swearing-in of public officials, that type of thing.
Although I don’t really count myself as a believer I am never offended at those moments because the sentiments are good. They usually say nice things and for a brief moment focus on something greater than ourselves.
I think it is nice.
If the begining of every school day began with one of those, I tend to think the world might be a better place.
However I also thing it should not be compulsory.
I know I know, there are the usual Liberal/Progressive agruments about how our tikes might be “harmed” if they should choose to sit-out the prayer and thus be ‘different’. But I think that kind of thing is actually good an builds character.
All that being said, these matters should be decided at the community level and NOT at the federal level. If your public school is in Lancaster County PA and it is 80% Menonite it would probably be a wish of the community to have some prayer.
Montclair’s Liberal population would abhor such things.
Ok, to each his (or his community’s) own. (I’d say)
To “enforce” a religion is clearly wrong, but to “enforce” and absense is just as wrong.
True tolerance would be to allow each communty to express it’s values in its own instituions.
Of course subject to the Constitution and respect for the rights of the minority.
You liberals like to think a prayer in a school is a severe injury to someone’s rights. I’d say it is not. It really is not that big of a deal.
Well, then we substantially agree on the principle, just not on where the exact dividing line is drawn (and on who draws it.) When Adams was inaugurated he noted that although the nation was not guided by Christian principles, he, personally, would be when making decisions. Can’t argue with that.
I see. Is you knee sore from all the jerking?
Musta been hard to get Justice Black to fit on it.
The decision that Black wrote affirmed that NJ was allowed to pay for bus travel to and from parochial school. Seems to me that it’s your knee jerking.