Boo to the Governor

important social barriers..... (6.00 / 4)

Thanks for pointing out this story -- and I guess I want to point out that "important social barriers" are in the eye of the beholder.

I was happy to participate sometime in the early 70's in a  picket-line outside of the famous Lock Ober restaurant on Winter Place because they did not allow women to sit in the main dining room on the first floor.

In the fever of my new found feminism, I was at first gratified that another group of men, some white hippie types, some brown working class types, came marching up the little alley with another set of signs.

When they started their own picket line 10 feet from us (it's a narrow alley) protesting the CIA's involvement in their native country, we were at first bewildered. It turned out that the CIA and the FBI both worked out of special lead lined space on the 4th and 5th floors of 30 Winter St, where my offices are today. (And, where still only the middle elevator takes you to the very dark and creepy still lead lined 4th and 5th floors.)

To make a long story short, even in the fever of our feminism, we were thrilled to join with them in a big picket line, but afterward one of the white hippie types told us in confidence that his fellow protesters were embarrassed to march with silly rich white women who were protesting our lack of access to a first floor dining room.

Still trying to balance my feelings of being both proud and embarrassed about that incident.

Lot of contradictions in this work.  

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 07:45:31 AM CST

Thanks Judy (0.00 / 0)

I almost mentioned Locke-Ober. To me, the key difference is that Locke-Ober was open every night and most certainly was a center of power (and money and influence). So the social effect of the exclusion was must greater.

But one club, one night? I see no harm in it.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 08:28:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yay to the Governor. (6.00 / 6)

Personally, I have no doubt that the Gov did the right thing.  It's high time sitting public officials stopped giving speeches at exclusionary organizations.  If the Clover Club wants to have a boys night out, obviously they're entitled to do so, but they're not entitled to have the highest elected official in the state show up.  It hardly needs saying that if blacks, Jews, or gays were the group not permitted to attend, no one would be second-guessing the decision to bail.

Kudos to Deval.

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 08:48:13 AM CST

I addressed this in the first point (0.00 / 0)

Fine, the governor doesn't need to appear. But why does he need to grandstand? What greater good is served?

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 08:52:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't much care (5.50 / 2)

about the press thing.  If he quietly cancels, fine; if someone leaks it to the press, so what?  The Clover Club people maybe get embarrassed.  Well, bully for them.  It's their choice to keep these frat boy-ish traditions going, so that's bound to happen now and then.  No harm in renewing public discussion of this kind of thing IMHO.

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:02:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

On this (0.00 / 0)

No harm in renewing public discussion of this kind of thing IMHO.

That's why I posted on it. I think there is a counterargument to be made, so I'm making it. (Though I admit I posted with some trepidation, and I was sort of hoping Ernie would beat me to it -- which is not to assume he agrees with me on this.)

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:23:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Adding (0.00 / 0)

Those are false analogies, by the way.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 08:57:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because .... ? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:00:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because they assume (5.00 / 1)

... that the exclusion is discriminatory. That may be the case, but it is not automatically the case.

My main point: It is not evil to have a party without women, just as it is not evil to have a party without men. You're right that they can't expect the governor, but he said he was going -- and then, to justify his own rudeness, he had to make a social issue out of it. That's a pander.

A quiet no would have sufficed, if the governor doesn't want to go.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:09:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I didn't assume anything - (0.00 / 0)

the assumptions are yours.  You assume that my "blacks, Jews, or gays" analogy is referring to the KKK or something.  But I said no such thing; I'm simply talking about organizations that don't admit those kinds of people.  Like the Boy Scouts, as discussed downthread.  And that's my point.  "Discrimination" is actually a neutral word; it means nothing more than separating one kind of thing from another based on some distinguishing characteristic.  What makes "discrimination" good, bad, or indifferent, is the reason for the discrimination.  And in most cases, there is no good reason for discriminating on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, or a host of other factors.  So, given the lack of any reason better than "we don't feel like associating with those kinds of people" (which is, I submit, what's going on at the Clover Club as well as the Boy Scouts), I see no particular reason to reward such organizations (and make no mistake, it's a big reward) with appearances by high-profile figures like Governors and Presidents.

But perhaps you see it differently.

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:33:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Isn't that what I said? (0.00 / 0)

What makes "discrimination" good, bad, or indifferent, is the reason for the discrimination.

If you restrict a party to one gender, you dramatically change the nature of the event (no one gets drunkenly hit on, for one thing).

I submit that there are legitimate reasons for doing this, and the Clover Club (which again, I never heard of until this episode, but you assume is sexist -- probably reasonably) might have legitimate reasons for doing it.

And again, I agree on not "rewarding" them. But punishing them from the bully pulpit -- which is what occurred -- is just not right.

And by the way, "assuming" your "'blacks, Jews, or gays' analogy is referring to the KKK or something" was pretty reasonable on my part. Was I supposed to think you were talking about golf courses?

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:45:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"no one gets drunkenly hit on, for one thing" (0.00 / 0)

Clearly, you have never been to a gay bar.  ;-)

But seriously, your assumption was not reasonable at all.  Golf courses are a decent example (I'd think it inappropriate for President Obama to play Augusta, which absurdly continues to refuse to admit women); the Boy Scouts is a better one.  The KKK is an easy and therefore uninteresting example.

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:14:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure about that. (6.00 / 3)

By that standard the President of the United States couldn't/shouldn't address the Boy Scouts of America because they exclude homosexuals (a position with which I vehemently disagree) and, for that matter women from some positions, despite the fact that he is the honorary president of that organization.  There are service and social organizations which DO limit their membership to Christians (sorry Jews, etc.) though they do invite speakers who from time to time wouldn't be able to actually join.  I think there's room for the rest of us to discriminate between fraternal organizations with certain membership requirements and organizations like the KKK whose existence is based on nothing but bigotry and hatred.

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:21:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"By that standard the President of the United States couldn't/shouldn't address the Boy Scouts of America" (6.00 / 8)

And, indeed, he should not do so, IMHO.  It's high time the Boy Scouts were shamed into abandoning their outrageous and overtly discriminatory policy.  If everyone from the President on down keeps on keeping on, business as usual, what motivation do the Boy Scouts have to change their ways?

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:27:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

See my reply to Brookline Tom below. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:04:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

DUH! (5.50 / 2)

The President of the United States most certainly should not address the Boy Scouts of America — for exactly this reason. When the organization formally excluded gay and lesbian children, they disqualified themselves from such recognition. Oh, and by the way, their demand that members profess a belief in God similarly disqualifies themselves because it excludes non-believers.

The Boy Scouts are now excluded from more than one public meeting place (such as schools) because these discriminatory policies violate local non-discrimination ordinances. The President should do likewise.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:43:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Duh? (5.33 / 3)

That's a high bar you've set there, Tom. I don't want to defend the Boy Scouts and their misguided policy, but if the president can't address any group with a misguided policy, he's going to free up a lot of time.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:51:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Such discrimination is ILLEGAL in Massachusetts (6.00 / 1)

It has been illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender preference in public accommodations in Massachusetts since 1989. Public schools have not been allowed to sponsor Boy Scout troops since November, 2000.

Surely asking the President of the United States to avoid speaking a group that consciously and intentionally flouts state law against discrimination is not an overly high bar.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 14:52:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's also a very different question... (0.00 / 0)

...from whether a public official can/should address the group.

---

by: Christopher @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 11:53:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Strongly disagree (4.00 / 1)

I very much wish BSA would drop these exclusions, but they are a private organization and within their rights - even SCOTUS said so.  To be clear their homosexual policy is more don't-ask-don't-tell rather than purge (and not new either, just newly publicized via the aforementioned Supreme Court case, with some local councils and troops conveniently ignoring the national policy), and yes, they do have a (very open) religious aspect.  Overall they are an excellent civic organization which should be promoted and encouraged.  This proud Eagle Scout firmly believes that society would be much better off if EVERY teenage boy had and took the opportunity to be a Boy Scout.  They learn countless values and life skills of great benefit to all.

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:04:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"they are a private organization and within their rights" (5.75 / 4)

No one is questioning that.  But, obviously, the President would be "within his rights" to decline to address the Boy Scouts until they change their ways.  He should do so.  Very simple.

As for Boy Scouts' policy not being a "purge," a moment's Googling reveals numerous fired scoutmasters and the like.  So it is rather like "don't ask don't tell," but not in a good way.

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:21:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I would certainly address them if I were POTUS... (0.00 / 0)

...and be sure to publicly call for the organization to change its policy using the podium and microphone they provided!

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:43:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Screw dat (0.00 / 0)

Address it certainly, but why go speak there?

I think refusing is a much better protest don't you?

Look at the lukewarm protests from H. Clinton on China abuses...it's much easier to criticize if you yourself refuse to participate. Otherwise, it's just so much hot air.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 19:37:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

disagree (0.00 / 0)

Personally if I object to something, I'd rather say it to their face than hide behind a press release.

---

by: Christopher @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:20:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This is the same argument made against child molesters and wife beaters (0.00 / 0)

The group practices open and illegal discrimination against a protected minority. It doesn't matter how many "values and life skill" they offer, nor how many good deeds they do.

They openly and formally practice illegal discrimination. Would you make the same argument if it was Jews, African Americans or Catholics who were targeted? Massachusetts law accords the same status to homosexuals as these other groups, and has for nearly a decade.

Too many victims of child and spouse abuse are met with protestations that the accused "is such an upstanding member of the community" and requests that we "look at all the good deeds they have done."

These discriminatory practices are illegal, Christopher. They are illegal because they are wrong.

Can this organization legally exclude whoever they like? Yes, of course -- as can the American Nazi Party and virtually any other hate-group. Should they be allowed to use public facilities? Absolutely NOT.

Should a sitting President address them? Absolutely NOT.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 15:01:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Big time false equivalence! (0.00 / 0)

You've clearly never been involved with Boy Scouts.  This is not about violent acts and nobody is being targeted for hate.  I was very active in my troop growing up and can assure you I never learned homophobia from being in Scouting.  It wasn't addressed one way or the other and I'm not sure I was even aware of the policy until later.  Your implied comparison of the BSA to the American Nazi Party is absolutely outrageous.  Yes, I would be fine with private organizations with exclusionary membership, provided that their BASIC PREMISE is not hatred, such as the KKK or the aforementioned American Nazi Party.  Here is a list of how Scouting has contributed positively to the lives of boys.  I imagine a similar one could be generated for Girl Scouts.  Teenagers need things to do and a sense of belonging.  If the choice is Scouts or a gang I certainly know which one I would pick!

---

by: Christopher @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 12:05:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

" I imagine a similar one could be generated for Girl Scouts" (0.00 / 0)

No doubt it could.  And yet, somehow, the Girl Scouts manage to carry on while not excluding anyone from membership or from leadership positions on the basis of sexual orientation.

---

by: David @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 12:43:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good for them! (0.00 / 0)

I guess I hadn't kept up because I thought Girl Scouts actually did have a similar policy.  It looks like I can't even claim recent change excuse since the article you link to is dated 2000.  BSA I fear is influenced, I think, by a couple of things - it's HQ being in Irving, TX (read: Bible Belt) and the fact that it gets a lot of its support from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  The article also has the BSA more staunchly defending it's policy and right to have such policy than previously, which became more pronounced after the SCOTUS case, than I was either aware of or comfortable with.  There is a bit of a disconnect though between policy and practice, since as I mentioned some local councils and troops just ignore the policy.  Also, this isn't something discussed with the boys; it's not like they are being taught to think negatively of gay people.  Interestingly, the United States is one of just one of a handful of countries remaining that has separate Girl Scout and Boy Scout organizations.  Most others are fully gender-integrated whereas only the Explorer units are co-ed in the US.  I still say that overall the organization is a net positive for the people and communities it serves, but very much look forward to the day that it drops this offensive policy.

---

by: Christopher @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 13:20:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're clearly jumping to conclusions again (6.00 / 1)

I was a Boy Scout, Troop 486, Wheaton Md. My scoutmaster was Al Pounds. I stopped at the "Life" rank because I wasn't willing to pursue the "Citizenship" merit badge required for Eagle (because of my passionate opposition to the war in Vietnam, raging at the time). I was a Cub scout before that. I completed the wilderness canoeing trek at Region 10 base, in Ely Minnesota, in 1966 (the Philmont alternative). I attended Boy Scout camp every year, including the then-new Camp Goshen in 1967. I learned to camp, hike, start a fire, and handle a flag in Boy Scouts.

I'm sorry to have hit a nerve. Your phrase "exclusionary membership" is, in this case, a euphemism for bigotry. The official homophobia of the Boy Scouts of America goes back to at least 1978, when this memo and its successor was written. A 1991 memo from "J. Carey Keane, National Director of Relationships/Marketing" in the "National Office" expresses the policy this way:

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.

The formal policy of this organization says:

1. "Homosexual conduct" is "inconsistent" with being "morally straight", and
2. "Homosexual conduct" is dirty in word or deed or both, and
3. "Homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model"

I'm sorry, Christopher, but that pretty much is hate speech. Go visit the KKK website (no I will not link to it here) and see whether you find anything more hateful there. I think what you'll find, instead, is the same sort of self-serving rationalizations for bigotry that lurk beneath the BSA homophobia.

Nobody has claimed that Boy Scouts don't do fine things in the community. As I said earlier, the same is said of abusers. Such claims are irrelevant to the fundamental bigotry of the organization's stance on homosexuality.

Finally, you present a false dilemma. The choice is, most emphatically, not between "Scouts or a gang". It is, instead, whether that organization does or does not discriminate against homosexuals. If you make the argument that ending the institutional discrimination fundamentally changes the organization, that is synonymous with describing it as a hate group. If you agree that the ban can lifted without significantly changing the organization, then we must ask why the ban persists.

Unless, of course, you want to make the case that homosexuality truly is dirty, morally repugnant, and so on.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 18:19:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There are distinctions to be made. (0.00 / 0)

Let me be as clear as I can: I IN NO WAY SUPPORT, CONDONE, OR DEFEND THE BIGOTED AND OUTDATED POLICY OF THE BSA REGARDING HOMOSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUALITY.  I am absolutely not arguing that dropping this policy will fundamentally change the organization.  Any change that does result would be positive both in the message it sends and the number of boys it can serve.

I DO, however, still think there is a WORLD of difference between an organization like the BSA which has the policies you cite (which I was fully aware of, BTW), and the KKK which exists for the sole purpose of propogating hatred and bigotry.  Since you went through scouts and came out with the opinions you hold you know too that they don't indoctrinate.  You cited policy which we both agree is objectionable, but in practice does not lead to homophobic indoctrination and in some cases doesn't even lead to dismissal if a troop or council chooses to look the other way.

(As an aside, I don't know why you refused to earn your Citizenship badge.  It was one of the first I earned and was even a certified counselor for it early in my adult life.  I know requirements change, but for me the requirements were to simply know how government works, and to watch it in action.  There was no requirement or even suggestion that I or the boys I counseled agree with its policies.)

As for false dilemmas, I know there are plenty of boys who join neither a gang nor scouts.  There are places unfortunately, where gang membership is the assumed path, because youth need a sense of belonging and that is the only option.  When a young person gets recruited to a gang I think if only we could get him into Scouts instead; he would have something to belong to in a positive way.  I would submit that the real false analogy is the abuser, who by directly hurting someone physically, emotionally, and psycologically does something far worse than the equivalent of putting up a makeshift treehouse sign that says "no gurlz allowd".

I'll close by bringing us back to the original discussion of this thread, which was the propriety of the Governor addressing an exclusionary organization.  My mother has off and on been a member of the Christian Women's Club, which I believe really does limit its membership to Christian women.  As a man I would not be able to join, but it wouldn't bother me in the least if the Governor accepted an invitation to speak at one of their meetings.

---

by: Christopher @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:57:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yikes, I'm agreeing with JimC... (5.50 / 2)

I think we do take these instances much too seriously. When David mentioned "that if blacks, Jews, or gays were the group not permitted to attend," I immediately thought of the exclusionary clubs made up of these exact groups.

I think the basis of the "stink" concerning this group is white men are not allowed to have groups... simple. The Boston Fire Department can have a "black" union group but there cannot be a "white" union group. Women's organizations abound as are Jewish and many other minority groups (although I think thee are more women than men in the US so how come we call them a minority group?).

We can all name a group or club by any of these groups and there is no stigma for attending or even being a member, as long as they are minority groups. We can name the members of the black caucus in the House but is there a "white" caucus. In the "old days" the standard response was something like "the rest of the members of the House are white so that is their caucus'. First of all that isn't true anymore and second of all, blacks and other minorities are always included in those de facto groups. We saw this same hypocrisy initially when women tried to get into men's colleges and then the "shock and disbelief" when men tried to get into women's colleges. Good for goose...

In my opinion we should either allow these "white" or "male" groups to exist AND give them a political correct status OR remove any legitimacy to subgroups of women, blacks, Jews and others for those same "exclusionary" reasons.

I'm going to buy a wig so I can join the "League of Women Voters"...

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:38:41 AM CST

There is a Congressional White Caucus (6.00 / 4)

It's call the GOP. :-!

(Joke, joke -- I'm here all week.)

I think the historical argument you cite is still valid, and I support anyone's right to band together to have more collective power.

But again, I return to the original point: Can a bunch of men have a party without the governor and the Globe using them for political fodder? I say, why not?

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:00:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Can a bunch of men have a party without the governor and the Globe using them for political fodder?" (0.00 / 0)

Of course!  All they have to do is not expect the Governor to address them in the first place.

---

by: David @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 20:53:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

League of Women Voters? (0.00 / 0)

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:16:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LWV doesn't exclude men in any way (5.50 / 2)

as far as I know.  I know my Town's LWV is (was recently?) headed up by a man.

---

by: stomv @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 06:58:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Quite correct (6.00 / 1)

It certainly has quite the diversity of gender.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 19:40:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's recap (0.00 / 0)

1. The Clover Club, for whatever reason, invites the governor to speak. They say they're "an Irish club" and mention that other politicians have spoken there.

2. The governor, armed with this information and apparently nothing else if the Globe account is accurate, accepts the invitation.

3. The governor finds out the group is just men -- a bigger sin, apparently, than being just Irish people. He cancels the appearance.

4. He or his staff gets this story into the Globe, putting himself in the best possible light and making this obscure club suddenly infamous.

And you have no problem with any of his actions during any of this. It is entirely the club's fault. The governor didn't accept prematurely; there was no rudeness in him backing out of his commitment; and bringing the Globe into all this was perfectly fine, because the club's invitation somehow amounted to an expectation.

Is that is your view?

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 23:22:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

An "irish club" (6.00 / 2)

but are they exclusionary on Irishness?  If I understood the Globe article correctly, nope.  They are, however, exclusionary on gender.

Big difference.

---

by: stomv @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 07:00:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Best quote in the Globe article (6.00 / 2)

(crossposted from BlueNews Tribune, with a few clarifying edits)

Best quote in the Globe article is from Tom Menino, who puts this in perspective I think.

   Mayor Thomas M. Menino said he has never been invited to speak at the Clover Club.

   "I have no desire to ever speak there,'' he said. "I am always busy that night.''

(Of course he's crabby anyway being stuck at home (many blessings to Angela) complaining that there is nothing to watch on daytime TV.)

Well said, I think, from a successful person justifiably proud of his Italian ancestry who has heard enough recycled jokes and rebel songs from a gaggle of successful,wealthy, senior citizens of Irish descent who love to get together and celebrate their political and corporate successes here in Boston and Duxbury.

Nothing wrong with that, I think.

Unless you really object to men only social gatherings of successful people who do more bragging than business with each other.

(That analysis from one the wives who told me that she and her fellow spouses didn't worry about their husbands going to the all male Clover Club anymore since the husbands came home sober and sweet smelling having been ordered by their doctors years ago to give up alcohol and big smelly cigars.)

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 09:35:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Judy...I almost always agree with you (5.00 / 2)

But this time...with Menino saying he's never been invited and claiming at the same time, "I have no desire to speak there, I'm always busy that night?"  What?  How is he busy if he's never been invited?  

Look, I don't necessarily think Patrick was wrong to decline the invite...but the manner in which he did it was unfortunate and unnecessary, last minute and in-your-face.  If he had declined immediately, he could have saved face for everyone.  

Does everyone in that office live in the moment?  

 

"The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham

---

by: Justice4All @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 21:59:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey, please give Tom Menino credit (6.00 / 2)

for having some of your excellent "self awareness" and coming up with a funny quote that pokes a little fun at a gang of successful wealthy men who like to dress up in tuxes and trade political wisecracks with each other 4 times a year. Anyway they are not all Irish, lots of wealthy successful Republican WASPs like Charlie Baker and Bill Weld belong.

Think of these dinners as a series of worship services to prolonged adolescence.  

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 08:03:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Prolonged adolenscence... (0.00 / 0)

also decribes the reponse to the invite.  Really; if the adults in Patrick administration had done the right thing, all of this would have been a simple scheduling problem instead of an embarrassment.  

I thought Tommy was a tad self-serving, myself...and a little Grouchesque..."I won't join a club that would accept me as a member."  I'm holding out for a club that wants Angela!

"The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham

---

by: Justice4All @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 20:58:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, basically. (6.00 / 2)

Stomv is correct that, as far as we can tell, the Clover Club is predominantly Irish-American but doesn't have a "No non-Irish Need Apply" rule.  It does have that rule for women.

Could the staff have handled things better?  Absolutely, though the stuff in the Globe about the invitation referring to "men" doesn't really do it for me.  Schedulers aren't necessarily on the alert for that kind of thing, since it's such an anachronism these days.

Again, as for getting it into the papers, I don't have a strong feeling either way.  Keeping it quiet would've been fine, but I don't seen much harm in leaking it either.  The last-minute cancellation would have gotten out anyway, given how connected the members of the club seem to be, and Patrick's folks probably wanted to control the story.  I'd say they did a pretty good job.

---

by: David @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 12:30:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Please (0.00 / 0)

If Patrick's schedules aren't savvy enough to review an invitation for "that sort of thing" then he's hired the wrong people.  This, David, is the scheduler's job.  Have you ever met the schedulers in any of the Congressional offices?  I'd rather arm-wrestle a polar bear...they are smart, forceful and intuitive, and worth their weight in gold.  If Patrick's people aren't getting it done for him, then it's just another damned bad appointment.  Sorry, he doesn't get a pass for this.  I don't think the story did him any favors, as it only adds to the growing sense that he "reacts" instead of plans, has made some terrible appointments and he's offended (without needing to, I might add)men who could have helped him next year, when he's got a heck of a race on his hands. So short press, likely, but has the potential to turn into the gift that keeps on giving.    

"The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham

---

by: Justice4All @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 21:47:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Forgot to add (0.00 / 0)

I think you can join the League of Women Voters, even while wigless.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 11:09:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point, that "wig" thing is such a stereotype. (3.00 / 1)

But more seriously, the name League of Women Voters is so accepted but do you seriously believe we (men) could have a "League of Men Voters"? It would be admonished much like this Clover Club is.

While I said I was happy with either no clubs or all types of clubs/groups, I guess my more sincere preference would be to have clubs since it is more in line with my idea of freedom. Obviously there is a great difference between freedom to have/join a club and the acceptance of that club and I refer to it being "acceptable" for the Gov to visit/belong to the Clover Club as it is for him to visit/belong to a Black Governor's group.

Would you like to watch WET (White Entertainment Television)? Join NAAWP...

Even the sound of having organizations named like this sound unacceptable and yet we accept the complimentary groups... strange.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 12:39:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't believe it strange (5.50 / 2)

as I would venture there isn't one part of this country in which white people (as a whole) need an advocate.

In regards to BET, the truth of the matter is that a large amount of the black community has interests that are apart of their culture.  That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't crossover, of course there is.  But BET serves a particular audience of which traditionally have targeted towards the black community.  Even if there was a "WET", what niche would it fill that isn't already found all over cable alredy.  In contrast, you're not going to find 106 & Park on ABC or Fox.  

As a Republican, I figured you could respect this intelligent business practice.  There is a certain market for programming geared to the black community that wasn't available before BET, so a private entity stepped up and capitalized.  The reason there isn't a WET, is because there isn't a market for it.

Proverbs 10:14

---

by: AlexSWill @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 13:11:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is not a matter of market. (0.00 / 0)

It is a case of acceptance of an organization OR the outright admonishment for event he idea of a "White Entertainment Television" channel. It would be rejected and ostracized on even the face value of such an endeavor.

I can't understand why there is criticism over "like" people wanting to congregate. There are veterans clubs, Polish clubs, Lithuanian, black, jewish, women, gay, Republican, Police, Arab... organizations where these "like" people want to get together. But white males may not get together or they are called racist, misogynist and/or other prejudicial names.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 15:47:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gender (0.00 / 0)

Like David's analogies above, I don't think these analogies quite fit this situation. For me this is about gender.

For example, there are all-female (and all-male) book clubs. No one worries about this, because everyone knows why they exist: to prevent dating dynamics from interfering with the serious business of drinking wine and eating cheese discussing books.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 14:20:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Leaving other analogies aside and sticking to gender... (0.00 / 0)

I still say the existence of all-female or female focused groups and organizations enjoys wide acceptance and membership/speaking would never be controversial. I am saying the same standard should exist for all-male clubs/groups.

Again, do you really think the "League of Men Voters" would be acceptable to everyone while the "League of Women Voters" is not only acceptable but cherished.

We shouldn't be surprised by these discrepancies. They exist in all aspects of our life. Ask Tiger Woods since if he was the club wielding vehicle smasher he surely would have ended up behind bars that night while we send sympathy to his wife (the domestic abuser). Double standard?

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 15:41:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LVW (0.00 / 0)

The League of Women Voters is a household name for their work hosting political debates, so they have a reputation that goes beyond their name.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 15:49:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Re: Tiger (0.00 / 0)

I'm not going there.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 15:50:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed (again?)! (0.00 / 0)

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:15:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Uh... (0.00 / 0)

"Again, do you really think the "League of Men Voters" would be acceptable to everyone..."

The answer is yes, if they were as open and inviting to all as the LWV are and have been.

Not to mention, no one is saying people don't have some right in a private organization to "associate" with whomever they want to. The problem is in assuming you should have high level access to public venues, officials, or anything else.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 19:45:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Same reason there's no "Children's Day" (6.00 / 1)

Every child of your intellectual age asks why there's a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, but no Children's Day.  The answer: because everyday is Children's Day.

---

by: huh @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 10:57:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Children's Day... (0.00 / 0)

...is the second Sunday in June, at least in my own and other churches I've been exposed to.

---

by: Christopher @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 12:06:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Children's Day is not a national holiday (5.00 / 1)

and also not a holiday in any church I've attended.

But that's not really the point, is it?

---

by: huh @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:55:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Neither are Father's Day and Mother's Day... (0.00 / 0)

...in a legal sense.  They are more widely known, but don't effect schedules.

---

by: Christopher @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:21:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

umm (0.00 / 0)

Show me a Children's Day card and you may have a case.

And again, not the point.  

---

by: huh @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:24:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure (0.00 / 0)

I've received such growing up I'm pretty sure, but whatever - not worth continuing.

---

by: Christopher @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:04:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

should have googled earlier (6.00 / 1)

Very different ideas, according to wikipedia:

In 1856, Rev. Charles H. Leonard, D.D., then pastor of the First Universalist Church of Chelsea, Mass., set apart a Sunday for the dedication of children to the Christian life, and for the re-dedication of parents and guardians to bringing-up their children in Christian nurture. This service was first observed the second Sunday in June.

Back to the original topic. ;)

---

by: huh @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 13:43:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yip (6.00 / 2)

and you've been able to do so for more than 35 years; they've been co-ed since 1973.

---

by: stomv @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 07:04:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But I don't feel "comfortable" attending the meetings with such a discriminatory name. (3.00 / 1)

Just like this line from the Boston Society of Vulcans (Black Firefighters in Boston)...

...The Boston Society of Vulcans joined the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters (I.A.B.P.F.F.). The Society, adopted the IABPFF's doctrine: PURPOSE & AIMS: To create a liaison between our Black Brothers and Sisters throughout the globe...

This feels very "exclusionary" and doesn't make me feel "welcome".

Are you saying the name is irrelevant? We can have a "Male" named club but invite women?

Come to think of it, I've visited a lot of Gentlemen's Clubs which had so many women attending they had to stand on tables!

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 09:28:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Likewise (6.00 / 1)

I'm sure the LWV members, men and women, wouldn't feel comfortable with you attending.

---

by: stomv @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 09:46:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey, where'd that come from? (0.00 / 0)

They may be very comfortable with me being there. I attended a meeting not 3 weeks ago since my wife was speaking at it.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 19:44:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

did they know your views on women and other minorities? (0.00 / 0)

Does you wife?  

I'm guessing they'd all feel differently about you if they read BMG.

---

by: huh @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 00:42:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Late night visit - three nasty jabs. You been out drinking? (0.00 / 0)

We all know you're capable of being petty and annoying.

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 01:25:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a big difference between "capable of" and doing. (3.00 / 1)

I think we're all capable of writing anything on our keyboards. I've chosen to ignore the vileness of some BMGers (forever). My upsetting of your apple cart may be annoying to you sometimes but I assume you are a grownup "capable of" taking a little shit as well as you give shit. Just follow the rules of the road and avoid personal attacks and ad hom remarks.

But just to warn you, the next 12 months will be providing me with voluminous amounts of data to shove into the face of liberal Democrats.

Stay tuned for more "petty and annoying" remarks in 2009 and 2010.

PS looks like my predictions about the Democrats getting their asses kicked WRT Healthcare abortion and the Public Option are spot on. You guys can't do anything even with your solid majority in all houses. And look at me cheering for some Democrats and an Independent (see how I'm not always partisan).


Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 14:05:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

" I've chosen to ignore the vileness of some BMGers (forever). " (6.00 / 1)

That we could do the same ;-P

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 14:49:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Anyone "can"... but some just "can't". (0.00 / 0)

I'm not surprised either. Some people have no will power and I'm sure they have far more failures in their lives (financial, social, physical, spiritual...) besides the inability to ignore me.

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 16:44:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so anyone that questions you is a loser? (0.00 / 0)

Amazing.  In my experience people that constantly brag on how successful they are, usually aren't.

While we're at it: can you point us to an example of you NOT being partisan?  

---

by: huh @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:09:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Note to Neil (6.00 / 3)

You should take JohnD at his word and avoid, if possible, engaging this kind of taunting nonsense. After all, he has promised above to supply us with a year or two of taunting — not helping anyone's understanding of anything, just simply taunting.

You might be under the impression that readers of Blue Mass Group are babes in the woods who might be swayed into becoming Palinesque Republicans because of something JohnD has written.

Fear not.

Those who read BMG are fairly sophisticated. They have an interest in politics. They're fully as capable of rolling their eyes at shallow thinking as you and I are.

---

by: KBusch @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 22:19:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks KBusch (6.00 / 1)

I appreciate your thoughtful reminder.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 22:31:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

actually, home sick with a cold (0.00 / 0)

thanks for asking

I stand by my statement, though.  The thought of JohnD addressing the League of Woman Voters is preposterous. Unless, of course, they don't know about his postings about them.

---

by: huh @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:05:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not everyone can get the Gov to speak at their private event... (0.00 / 0)

There's no problem with men having men's only social activities.  There is a problem with men's only social groups being places where people can make important social connections and advance socially and economically.  "Good old boy's networks".

That's how society worked for a long time, and the feminist movement, as well as other civil rights movements have changed that.  That's for the better.

I never heard of the Clover Club before this either, but if there wasn't important social networking going on, I doubt they'd be able to get the Governor's attention in the first place.


Speaking here for myself only

---

by: jhg @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:26:27 PM CST

Does everyone know former Dem Rep James T Brett is President of the Clover Club (for men)? (0.00 / 0)

Did you also know that Brett is President and Chief Executive Officer of The New England Council? I think those who oppose the Clover Club or the idea of the Governor speaking there need to seriously consider a punitive action against the New England Council for having Brett sit as the President and CEO.

Can't have it both ways!

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 09:02:13 AM CST

Sorry... (0.00 / 0)

Here's the link

and here's some bio...

James T. Brett, President and Chief Executive Officer of The New England Council, was appointed to those positions by the Council's board of directors in October 1996.

Before joining the Council, Mr. Brett served for more than fifteen years as a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.  He held a succession of important leadership positions, including the chairmanship of two of the most significant committees in the Massachusetts legislature, Banking and the Committee on Taxation.

Mr. Brett is also a member of the Clover Club of Boston

The good news is he is from my old neighborhood in Savin Hill!

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 09:33:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed (6.00 / 2)

So this is the thing - I think if the Governor had declined the invitation immediately, it would have made far more sense than an abrupt, in your face less than two hours before than dinner cancellation.  It would have been kinder and gentler.  As the Globe points out, the club's letter spelled it all out.  That Patrick's people didn't vet the invite isn't the fault of the club. It's not like they hid anything.  This wasn't smart.  I doubt the men in that room, all connected and wired in, will forgive and forget, just because Patrick's a Democrat.  It's amusing because Patrick "did the right thing" in the wrong manner.  Shame on his ridiculous staff for putting him in this position.

"The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham

---

by: Justice4All @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 12:12:26 PM CST