« STAR TRIBUNE: “COLEMAN INTRODUCES ‘SHARED VISION’ TV AD” | Home | DRAFT CIRESI WEBSITE UNVEILED »
MN CAMPAIGN REPORT SHOCK: POST JOKES ABOUT DEATH OF BOY SCOUTS IN IOWA
By Michael B. Brodkorb | June 12, 2008
This post from MN Campaign Report is so insensitive and extreme:
“If God took out New Orleans because of the homosexuals, why’d he go after the boyscout camp? (Note: I can make fun of it because my cousin was there [he's fine], your mileage may vary).” Source: MN Campaign Report, June 12, 2008
According to MN Campaign Report, 4 dead boy scouts and 48 injured people from a tornado is something to “make fun of” less than 24 hours after the tragedy. This wasn’t a comment left on the blog, but rather a post.
UPDATE: The post referenced above was written by Robin Marty of Minnesota Monitor Independent who also now blogs at MN Campaign Report.
In response to my post, the owner of the blog, Joe Bodell, is defending Robin’s sick post. Bodell claims Robin wasn’t joking about 4 dead boy scouts. This is a ridiculous claim since Robin specifically wrote that she could “make fun of it [4 dead boys scouts and 48 injured people]” because she had a relative at the camp. I’m glad her family is safe, but I doubt the families of the dead and injured would find the jokes on MN Campaign Report funny.
Bodell’s also whining that I don’t provide a link to his post. Bodell is so desperate for traffic from Minnesota Democrats Exposed that he pays to runs ads on my site.
Since the inception of Minnesota Democrats Exposed, I have linked to the best liberal blogs in Minnesota – blogs that frequently attack me. In interviews with the MSM, I routinely highlight and compliment liberal blogs in Minnesota – blogs that frequently attack me. But I won’t reward a blogger or a blog with hits from Minnesota Democrats Exposed after they use the death of four boys scouts to score political points. Bodell’s in the apology business this week, so I’m hopeful that he’ll realize the post on his blog was wrong and apologize. I’m sure the family of the dead and injured would appreciate it.
Topics: Uncategorized | 36 Comments »
36 Responses to “MN CAMPAIGN REPORT SHOCK: POST JOKES ABOUT DEATH OF BOY SCOUTS IN IOWA”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I think it is more tragic that the former standard bearer for the republican party thought that god made Katrina happen because of his hate of homosexuals.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is a sick post.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Disgusting. This is straight out of the Al Franken book of “satire.” When you mock someone for saying something idiotic and crude by saying something idiotic and crude, you’re still being crude and idiotic.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:14 am
So, Al Franken writing in questionable taste in Playboy is wrong. But you republishing it for the masses is right?
I see your logic now.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Really Leroy?
You think that because Franken takes heat for being a scumbag that it’s OK to mock the death of 4 kids?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
If you look at the history of a regular blogger regularly sympathetic to MDE for at least three (3) years, and Robin Marty, [in her context of mother with child] it might occur to you as you read, how SICK, THAT “SICK” that you write of, can be.
Your headline in uppercase, red, letters, “Post Jokes About Death of Boy Scouts In Iowa,” doesn’t make Michael B. Brodkorb and/or Minnesota Democrats Exposed any knight in shining armor.
You justified going after the alleged driver who crashed into the school bus killing four (4) students in Cottonwood, Minnesota.
[I think that the Minnesota average if about five (5) deaths per year in school bus related incidences. The accident of the bus returning from Chicago on I-94 brings the MN total to five (5) of which I am aware.]
[Every death, especially of a young person, seems so very tragic.]
Be AWARE of what you are doing, Michael.
You’re going to make enough mistakes trying to do things with a modicum of decency. Don’t go crossing lines when you don’t have to.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
El: Here’s what I wrote:
“In the hours and days after the 35-W bridge collapse, numerous Minnesota Democrats politicized the tragedy to suite their agenda. I was highly critical of their comments and actions in posts on my blog. I’d encourage my conservative friends to remember this when they write posts/comments on their blogs about this development in the bus tragedy in southwestern Minnesota. Don’t make the same mistake that Minnesota Democrats did.
Due to the fact that the woman driving the van that hit the school bus on Tuesday was an illegal alien, it is completely reasonable and appropriate to have a policy discussion regarding illegal immigration. If you leave a comment on Minnesota Democrats Exposed regarding this issue, please be respectful of the situation. This is a horrible tragedy and I request that the comments left on my blog on this issue are focused on immigration policy and not emotion.”
A blogger on MN Campaign Report wrote that she could “make fun of” the death of four boys. I asked for a respectful policy discussion, MN Campaign Report used the death of four boys as a punchline.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
You should take down the word shock from the title, as tasteless and offensive humor from the left is no longer shocking.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
It’s sad what happened to those kids. To mock them is to expose the very blackest of hearts.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Remember, this is the same woman that posted a vituperative defense of infant cranium crushing and followed it up by posting her sonogram.
The starship Enterprise could voyage between Robin Marty’s ears for a 100 years and never, ever encounter any sign of intelligence.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
There was more than just one semi-sanitized post.
Politics can be seductive.
As Two-Putt Tommy has stated, just because a shot is there, it doesn’t mean that it should be taken.
If Swiftee is against laws of abortion than state that, or if Swiftee finds abortion abhorrent for personal religious or faith reasons I would think that he would feel free to state those beliefs.
I can understand occasional smart alec remark or satirical remarks.
However, a long-term pattern of taking the cheapest shots at a mother & child needs some upgrading.
One doesn’t have to “Drink Liberally” or even think liberally. Just use some middle Minnesota common sense.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Here we go again.
About once every few months (and then more so when elections get heated) this John Bodell guy writes something totally inappropriate that makes him look foolish.
I’m actually surprised that Soros still funds his lifestyle. You’d think as a business guy (even a crazy Leftist) that Soros would realize a bad deal.
John Bodell drains credibility from the already less-than-credible Left-wing MN blogroll.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
If it bothers you, you could try switching to a CREDIBLE Boy Scouts of America (BSA) Publication.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Can someone show me the joke about the four kids dying at the Boys Scout camp? She’s not saying “haha.. four boyscouts died… haha”
She’s “making fun” of the irony of members of the GOP stating that Katrina was an example of God punishing us because of the gays yet here’s God punishing an organization that, I think everyone has to admit, has been hostile to gays. She’s making fun of the event that Michael admits was a wrong by using the example of this tragic event. You can claim that it was in questionable taste to use this as evidence, but, she’s not making fun of the event itself.
At least be fair in your characterization.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“an organization that, I think everyone has to admit, has been hostile to gays.”
I don’t think anyone has to admit that, particularly since it isn’t true.
Here’s a clue: If you don’t agree with the organization’s moral code, then don’t join. Join the Democrat party instead, they have no moral code.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Chestnut, you [as a single person] cannot start a Boy Scout of America (BSA) Troop, however, you could start a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) or a Partent Teacher Student Association (PTSA).
A Boy Scout Troop has to be connected with a chartered partner, like a church, VFW, school, etc.
The BSA, the PTA, the DFL, etc. may have more codes of conduct or similar codes than you think.
Perhaps YOU just never took the TIME to find out about them.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Well, the only consolation in Marty’s stupid post is that unlike herself, her cousin -by virtue of him being a boy scout – has taken an oath to be “Morally Straight” – which she clearly would not understand but could possibly ask her cousin to explain.
Patriot – whose nephew (and god son) was also in that camp last night and is eternally thankful he was okay but is mourning the 4 they lost. Knowing that the entire 5 hrs I was on the phone with my sister not knowing if Ty was on the list of 4 fatalities was excruciating and 4 sets of parents got the worst possible news; for which we are so very sorry.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Chestnut, I’m married with children. I’m an Eagle Scout. So are all of my brothers-in-law. My father-in-law is the Scout Master for his local troop. My father served as chairperson of the town’s scouting organization that I belonged to.
My kids aren’t in school yet, so I don’t need to start a PTA. But I can guarantee you that the school board will know who I am starting next year, before my kids start attending school.
… and I cannot wait until my son can enjoy the heritage of Scouting.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
You know one more thing on this, this statement is just patently false: “I think everyone has to admit, has been hostile to gays.”
Quite the opposite is true, the boy scouts simply to do not feel “sex” comes into the discussion. They do not have an opinion one way or another on a gay or straight lifestyle. But they have been hi-jacked constantly in the courts by the ACLU and anyone else who can afford to hire a lawyer to “legally terrorize” an organisation over the words “morally straight” – which has nothing to do with a gay or heterosexual lifestyle – and their refusal to allow just anyone to be a scoutmaster, but that they do in fact have the ability to ’select’ their leaders to be whomever they deem fit.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
The BSA can be like any other large organization in America, and like any other large organization it changes from time to time.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
… and then there’s this kind of bullshit coming from the fascist left:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport
Who the hell do they think they are?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
This discussion is really unnecessary. Anyone that knows anything about Robin Marty knows that she has the scruples of an earthworm, but not the intelligence.
It’s silly and insincere to express any sort of outrage…this is the best she can do.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Robin Marty should be ashamed of herself. I guess if Al can joke about rape and bestiality, the killing of boy scouts must seem funny to the libs too.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:35 am
[...] may find it curious that I defend Robin from Michael and Mitch — particularly since Robin’s lesser half once accused me of [...]
June 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Not sure why MDE keeps breaking, so, hopefully this does not get posted twice.
Patriot and Chestnut,
Unfortunately, your facts are simply wrong. I’m not taking a position one way or another on whether BSA should or should not be able to take a negative position against gays, but, it’s undeniable they have. The entire factual basis underpinning BSA vs. Dale was the firing of a scout leader when BSA discovered that Dale had openly admitted he was gay. This was undisputed. Indeed, BSA’s attorney stated in oral argument that:
“The practice is not to inquire into the sexual orientation of leaders. The policy derives out of the morally straight and clean requirements of the law. There’s formal position statements in the record attached to Mr. Rowley’s affidavit that Scouting requires homosexual conduct, regards homosexual conduct as immoral and for that reason does not appoint openly homosexual persons in the role model position of Scout master.”
….
QUESTION: Is it fair to say, then, that anyone who is openly homosexual and whose admission, or profession of that fact would be likely to come to the attention of the Boy Scouts themselves, be excluded?
MR. DAVIDSON: That’s correct, Your Honor.”
Call it don’t ask don’t tell or whatever you like, but, if BSA discovers you are gay you are out. The Supreme Court said, as a private organization, they have the right to say you are out. I personally wouldn’t send my child into BSA because of this position, but, we can respectfully disagree on that position.
But, it’s simply wrong to say that BSA does not think “’sex’ comes into discussion.” Nor is correct to say there is no hostility towards gays by the BSA. You can’t abstract the issue in these cases by simply waving your hands and saying they should have the right to pick who they want to be scout leaders. Perhaps they should–I never disagreed with the fact that a private organization should be allowed to pick its leaders. But, firing or excluding someone because of them being gay is hostility. No different than firing or excluding blacks because they are black demonstrates hostility towards blacks.
Chestnut, I disagree with BSA’s moral code and have no intention of joining. I also think it is unfortunate that BSA has taken the position it has. But, if you choose to adopt that moral code, more power to you.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
What’s outrageous is that the left is using the tragedy of a tornado hitting a Boy Scout camp for political exploitation over their gay rights agenda. The two have nothing to do with each other. There is a time and a place to fight political fights and this is not one of them. I would point out that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were roundly and vehemently criticized in the main stream media and elsewhere for making their Katrina comments. It’s not like anyone thought what they said was appropriate and they both had to apologize. It’s pretty disgusting when the left makes fun of and exploits tragedy for political gain.
I would also disagree with Plymouth Dem on the issue of gays in the scouts. First, they are minors and it’s inappropriate to push sexual behavior onto minors and particularly onto an organization that has nothing to do with sex. Moreover, there is a difference between homosexuality (a behavior) and race, national origin, etc.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Plymouth Dem,
You see, that’s why Democrats are so damned ridiculous. First, comparing a discrimination against a black person to that against a homosexual is about the most idiotic analogy I’ve ever heard. Largely, because homosexuality is a behavior.
As an organization that is founded on shaping the moral character of young men, the BSA has an obligation to impose standards for those adults — who by nature of their function are role models — in leadership positions.
BSA is founded on strong Judeo-Christian principles. Among those principles is the belief that homosexuality is immoral. So it is a direct conflict for a Scout Leader to be a homosexual. Moreover, the BSAs policy has always been clear, and Dale understood the terms of his volunteerism before he began.
Beyond that sexuality is not part of the BSA program. Bringing one’s sexuality to a group of young boys is inappropriate, particularly given broad concerns for child predators. The BSA has an obligation to its members and their parents to ensure the safety of the boys in its care.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:06 am
“So it is a direct conflict for a Scout Leader to be a homosexual.”
I’ll add… it’s also a direct conflict for a Scout Leader to be a drug user, a thief or a violent person… among other BEHAVIORS.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Again, MDE breaks so hopefully this isn’t a double post:
I’ll only briefly respond to Chestnut and Chris since apparently my post from last night mysteriously disappeared from MDE (not the first time) and I don’t think it requires much of a response:
1) The “push sexuality” argument requires an assumption that homosexuals are more inclined to “push” their sexuality than heterosexuals. Absent that assumption no one should be allowed to be scout leaders since they would push whatever sexuality that they are wired for. I’m not willing to make such an assumption.
2) The veiled attempt to equate homosexuality with “broad concerns for child predators” is not only unwarranted and bigoted, it’s completely factually inaccurate. The BSA itself admits the policy has NOTHING to do with such a fear (and, if there were such a concern, it is with heterosexual females):
“QUESTION: — I take it you’ve just touched on something that I think — again, I think I understand your position, but I want to be clear. I understand that the Scouts’ position on this does not in any way depend on a judgment that Mr. Dale is — presents or would present an undue risk of homosexual conduct with the Scouts in his troop, is that correct? It’s not a fear of conduct?
MR. DAVIDSON: Absolutely not, Your Honor. In fact, the issue of possible sexual abuse is one that’s very important to Scouts. Every Scout handbook and Scout master handbook comes with an insert which is in the record at 2248 which talks about sexual abuse at some length. It never mentions the word homosexual. In fact, the only thing it says about gender is that there’s a rising incidence of abuse by female adults.
QUESTION: But that’s not at issue here.
MR. DAVIDSON: That’s –
QUESTION: It’s not alleged, and that’s not the basis of it.
MR. DAVIDSON: — not alleged. It’s not the basis of policy in any way.”
3) We’ll need to politely disagree on whether homosexuality is a immutable trait or merely a behavior. I think science backs my position, but, I’m not going to get in a fight over it here. That said, it’s pretty remarkable that within the same breath as attempting to chastise me for equating sexuality with other immutable traits such as race you equate homosexuality to violence, drug use, and thievery.
Finally, 4) your description of the nature of BSA is fine and it’s why I would choose not to send a kid there. I’ve never said the BSA shouldn’t be allowed to be what it is. I may disagree with it, and I may choose not to ever send my own children there, but if you do, more power to you.
My beef in this thread was exclusively with how the comment was characterized and those who claim the BSA isn’t in the business of being anti-gay.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I’ll respond briefly to the parts of PlymouthDem’s comments that are worth responding to:
“The “push sexuality†argument requires an assumption that homosexuals are more inclined to “push†their sexuality than heterosexuals.”
Dale was a gay activist. Therefore, in his case, the assumption wasn’t an assumption.
“The veiled attempt to equate homosexuality with “broad concerns for child predators†is not only unwarranted and bigoted, it’s completely factually inaccurate. ”
Bullshit. When an older man abuses his authority to have sex with a boy, that act is both homosexual and predatory in nature. Pull your head out of your ass.
“We’ll need to politely disagree on whether homosexuality is a immutable trait or merely a behavior. ”
It can be both. Again, pull your head out of your ass. Science backs your position as much as it does mine. Don’t give me that bullshit.
“it’s pretty remarkable that within the same breath as attempting to chastise me for equating sexuality with other immutable traits such as race you equate homosexuality to violence, drug use, and thievery.”
Yes, one cannot choose the melanin in his skin. However, they can choose to act homosexually, to be a thief, to use drugs and to be violent. And any adult who exhibits those BEHAVIORS is unfit to be a Boy Scout leader.
There’s nothing remarkable about it.
“My beef in this thread was exclusively with how the comment was characterized and those who claim the BSA isn’t in the business of being anti-gay.”
The BSA isn’t in that business. But the homosexual community is, apparently, in the business of being anti-Boy Scout.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:28 am
… and by the way, I have nothing against homosexuals. I don’t have anything against smokers either.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
And, where again was Dale or any other BSA leader having sex with minors? In terms of child predators, BSA was far more concerned with heterosexuals than it was homosexuals. They at least claim they had NO concern over predators who were homosexual. Even BSA is not so bigoted to think that the policy forcing out BSA had anything to do with a fear that gays would go after boy scouts.
Also, how can something be both an “immutable trait” and simply a behavior? If something is immutable, it is not something that can be changed by behavior. It’s IMMUTABLE. To be rejected by BSA one need never have practiced homosexuality. They merely need to have said to someone that they are gay (including to someone not within BSA).
“The BSA isn’t in that business”
Again, I don’t get your distinction. You argue up and down that BSA should be entitled to have a policy that rejects gays. Then you claim they don’t reject gays. You even go as far as saying it was FOUNDED for the purpose of molding its view of a moral character.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
O.k., I’m game:
“And, where again was Dale or any other BSA leader having sex with minors?”
Why change the subject? Common tactic for liberals when they’ve lost, I suppose. Nobody ever said that. The BSA booted Dale because he was a gay activist. That activism is incongruent with being a scout leader.
“In terms of child predators, BSA was far more concerned with heterosexuals than it was homosexuals.”
I think the BSA had a firm finger on the pulse of what they could/should say to avoid enflaming (pun intended) the issue even more.
“Also, how can something be both an “immutable trait†and simply a behavior?”
Because you can choose whether or not to act on homosexual tendencies. You can’t choose whether or not to act on being black.
“To be rejected by BSA one need never have practiced homosexuality.”
Actually, yeah, you would. Because if you weren’t practicing your gay lifestyle, you’d just be known as a single guy…. Bottom line, if you’re gay and flaming about your gay lifestyle, choose not to be a Boy Scout leader…
“Then you claim they don’t reject gays.”
Now you’re just making shit up. I never said they don’t reject gays. I said they’re not hostile to gays… which was the premise of your ridiculous comment.
I can reject you, without being hostile toward you. … And if you don’t buy-in to the values of the BSA group, then I don’t anticipate you’ll try to become a leader in the organization (or even a member)… you’d be silly to do so. But to do exactly that — to reject the core beliefs of the BSA, then sue them for having those beliefs is just about as hostile and bigoted as the “rejection” you claim to be offended by.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
> “Why change the subject?”
I’m not really sure how I’m changing the subject when it was you said “When an older man abuses his authority to have sex with a boy, that act is both homosexual and predatory in nature.” I’m merely responding to the classic “we can’t have gays because they’ll pray on kids” argument.
> “I think the BSA had a firm finger on the pulse of what they could/should say to avoid enflaming (pun intended) the issue even more.”
I guess I would take an organization that you say is built around moral character at its word. But, if you think they stretched the truth in order to look less bad, okay. If you reread the comment by BSA’s counsel, you’ll see that the argument wasn’t made up for better PR, the predatory sections of the policy specifically mention the fear of abuse by older (presumptively heterosexual) FEMALES.
> “Because you can choose”
Immutable is immutable. No matter how someone acts they are either homo or heterosexual. Whether or not they act or behave gay–indeed, even if you are heterosexual who has previously said you don’t think it’s necessary morally wrong to be gay–you are out of BSA. It’s quite clear that having gay sex is not the trigger point for the policy. It’s merely being gay. At a minimum, the policy requires that gays not act gay or face expulsion.
> “Bottom line, if you’re gay and flaming about your gay lifestyle”
This is ridiculous. Dale doesn’t fit this characterization. He was in a gay alliance, participated in some seminars and was reported on in a college newspaper ALL WHILE IN COLLEGE well before his climb to his leadership role in the scouts. It’s not as if he was preaching the virtues of gayhood to scouts are even contemporaneously.
> “I can reject you, without being hostile toward you.”
This is simply a question of semantics. BSA actively refuses membership to and indeed admonishes as not being morally straight gays. It’s not just a rejection to actively fight to teach children that being gay is incompatible with being morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. That’s hostility.
If we disagree on that point, fine. Again, you have your recourse (send your kids there with pride) and I have mine (not send my kids there).
June 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Good, I’m glad I won’t see you picking any kids up from Boy Scout meetings.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
[...] notes a Robin Marty post at MN Campaign Report: This post from MN Campaign Report is so insensitive and [...]