how political correctness led to the credit crunch

[egb_hibs]

i've posted on this before; how the origins of today's debacle have their origins in an unholy mix of state socialism and free market capitalism. while these roots are getting a little more exposure these days, they're still relatively underreported. this article gives a neat summary - where even the incidentals are piognant (ie some of the prime movers being crazy leftist lawyers whose previous axe grinding was in trying to force the boy scouts to take on gay leaders despite abuse risks - a scandalous campaign still going on today)


[Only Registered Users Can See Links. Click Here To Register]

[vasco de gama]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i've posted on this before; how the origins of today's debacle have their origins in an unholy mix of state socialism and free market capitalism. while these roots are getting a little more exposure these days, they're still relatively underreported. this article gives a neat summary - where even the incidentals are piognant (ie some of the prime movers being crazy leftist lawyers whose previous axe grinding was in trying to force the boy scouts to take on gay leaders despite abuse risks - a scandalous campaign still going on today)

[Only Registered Users Can See Links. Click Here To Register]

The dispute does not revolve around "abuse risks" although I dare say many homophobes would start to trot out that pathetic line at some point. The Boy Scouts of America official policy is that they don't admit gays because they (BSA) view homosexuality as morally wrong.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by vasco de gama
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The dispute does not revolve around "abuse risks" although I dare say many homophobes would start to trot out that pathetic line at some point. The Boy Scouts of America official policy is that they don't admit gays because they (BSA) view homosexuality as morally wrong.

The dispute certainly involves abuse risks. How on earth can we have come to a pass when 'rights' activists campaign to allow homosexual men to go camping with the youths in the wilderness, when so clearly it presents a risk of pederast abuse?

of course most homosexual men would not present an issue (although given peter tatchell's empirical stats on the ratio of teenage boys that have been buggered by much older men, i'm not sure why i'm really saying that other than i feel it must surely be the case (or just that i want it to be?))

but, in any case, given that the subset who would be a risk are far more likely to apply to be scout leaders it's pc gone mad to push the point, whatever the scouts do or do not believe. despite it being a lower risk statistically, it would be equally mad btw, to campaign to allow heterosexual men to take teenage girls camping out in the wilderness. but then i can't imagine that would ever become a rights based 'cause'.

anyway, i don't really want to fork the thread into this subject; i mentioned it as it's indicative of the sort of lawmakers we're talking here. if you really want to talk scouting for gays, let's start a new thread.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i've posted on this before; how the origins of today's debacle have their origins in an unholy mix of state socialism and free market capitalism. while these roots are getting a little more exposure these days, they're still relatively underreported. this article gives a neat summary - where even the incidentals are piognant (ie some of the prime movers being crazy leftist lawyers whose previous axe grinding was in trying to force the boy scouts to take on gay leaders despite abuse risks - a scandalous campaign still going on today)


[Only Registered Users Can See Links. Click Here To Register]

Heard this before. Its interesting but I'm not clear how important it was. I'm up to my armpits in the subject just now so my views are evolving.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Heard this before. Its interesting but I'm not clear how important it was. I'm up to my armpits in the subject just now so my views are evolving.

the view i'm forming is it's an important element. but just as the socialist revivalists are wrong to point to current events as an advert for state control, so this article swings to much the opposite way in defence of the market and opposition to big govt.

as i say, i think they've work together to awful effect here; they often do. but that is life really. as one who subscribes to a middle ground, i think the long term answer will be to learn from the mistakes that post-match analysis will dig out, correct our course and sail on until the next storm, and then do it again.

periodical busts are our highest achievement thus far - the alternative is permanent bust (often with tyranny attached).

i don't believe perfection is possible. in fact it's contrary to the notion of evolution, which the markets themselves embody.

ask me again in 12 months when we're all posting to each other all day whilst unemployed, and i'll no doubt have changed my mind. but until then i'm not rushing to the barricades.