“a sometimes libertarian blogger and self-described social analyst”

OK, so I need to be blogging more often.

A Scout leader in Louisiana begins his response to my USA Today piece: “James Bovard, a sometimes libertarian blogger and self-described social analyst…”

I have many vices but I have never described myself as a “social analyst.” I’m disappointed that he didn’t call me a “hooligan.”

At the USA Today site, commentor Nick Moro groused: “I received my Eagle last year at in my opinion this article is nothing less than an affront to everything that Scouts stand for. Scouts stand for helping all humans no matter their race or gender. To say that Scouts should not help fight the very well established gender gap in STEM for the sole reason that scouts should only be about helping boys is ridiculous. Just because it is an organization based on developing boys doesn’t mean it can’t have a positive impact on the other 50% of the population.”

Then why not have the Boy Scouts promise to solve all the problems in the nation – if not the world?  As I mentioned in the article, the Scouts’ latest initiative is akin to government agencies that proclaim lofty new goals in lieu of fulfilling their traditional task.

Leigh Swain Tilman was indignant about this line in the article: “The Girl Scouts aren’t proposing a new program to enlist boys to close their “knitting, baking, and empathy gap,” so why should Boy Scouts worry about the STEM gap?” Tilman wrote: “James Bovard knows even less about Girl Scouts than he does about Boy Scouts. ‘Knitting and baking’? Could you be more stereotypical? And since when is ’empathy’ a bad thing? I realize this is an Opinion piece, but Bovard’s sexism makes his opinion worth very little.”

This is the first time I have been accused of sexism — well, at least since the last time I wrote about the EEOC.

George Seeger was indignant about the entire piece: “The boyscouts are not a group that cares about any senseless political correctness, the are the damn Boy Scouts ( and now girlscouts). You paid hacks need to write about something that really matters.”
Actually, I haven’t gotten paid yet for the article, so I’m not sure if that criticism hits the mark.
The point of my article is that the Boy Scouts risk losing their “rough-and-tumble heritage.”  Earlier this week, the Scouts scored new headlines for their decision to prohibit water gun fights.



, , ,

4 Responses to “a sometimes libertarian blogger and self-described social analyst”

  1. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit May 21, 2015 at 5:26 pm #

    If you rambuncted more and rollicked less, you could probably earn your Hooligan Badge.

    I always liked the phrases “so-called” and “self-described” as indicators that the speaker (writer) was one of those brain-dead idjits who needed to label something first, rather than observe its characteristics and apply a label accordingly. Almost universally the phrases are applied to definitions the writer (speaker) disagrees with and are really nothing more than a veiled form of ad hominem logical fallacies.

    But since I’m writing this as a self-described lawyer, what would I know?

  2. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit May 21, 2015 at 5:34 pm #

    Oh, and what’s this “sometimes libertarian” thing? Are you moonlighting as a socialist on weekends? Fascist on holidays? Communist on Leap Year Day?

  3. Jim May 21, 2015 at 5:57 pm #

    Maybe the letter writer heard that I was a Census taker in 1980 or a highway dept. sloth in 1973.

    • The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit May 21, 2015 at 7:03 pm #

      Wouldn’t that be a “social counter?”