Here's a great example of the people those men are trying to stick up for: Ryan Andresen is 17, he's been in Boy Scouts for over a decade and has completed all the Eagle Scout requirements, including working with younger kids on a tolerance/anti-bullying project for his community service requirement.

But Andresen isn't going to get to be an Eagle Scout, because he's openly gay.

The Boy Scouts of America sent a statement to several news organizations, including ABC, in which they say they didn't inquire about Ryan's sexual orientation.

"This scout proactively notified his unit leadership and Eagle Scout counselor that he does not agree to scouting's principle of 'Duty to God' and does not meet scouting's membership standard on sexual orientation," Deron Smith, a spokesman for the organization said in a statement. "Agreeing to do one's 'Duty to God' is a part of the scout Oath and Law and a requirement of achieving the Eagle Scout rank."

In an interview with Yahoo! News Ryan said that his scoutmaster knew he was gay.

"He had been telling me all along that we'd get by the gay thing," Ryan told Yahoo News. "It was by far the biggest goal of my life. It's totally devastating."

Read more at National Public Radio's news blog

Check out a Tumblr collecting nearly 200 Eagle Scout resignation letters from adults who no longer want to be associated with an organization that would deny a kid something he's worked hard to achieve simply because that kid is gay. (Again, the BSA is entitled to its opinion on this matter. But its members are also entitled to express their disgust with that opinion.)

As of August 4, more than 80 former Eagle Scouts have sent photos of their resignation letters to the Eagle Scouts Returning Our Badges Tumblr blog, where the letters and the protest they represent are being archived.

Reading the comments that have turned up here at BoingBoing, I get the sense that there are many more Eagle Scouts—and active Boy Scout troops—that also disagree with the BSA, but don't want to resign from local connections that don't reflect the national organization's bigotry. In fact, the Northern Star Council, which represents 75,000 scouts in Minnesota and Wisconsin, is openly bucking Boy Scouts of America policy, and has been for years.

The Associated Press ran a piece yesterday looking at this dissent and the effect—or, it seems, lack thereof—it is having on BSA policy.

Deron Smith, the Boy Scouts' national spokesman, said there was no official count at his office of how many medals had been returned. He also noted that about 50,000 of the medals are awarded each year.

Beyond the Eagle Scout protests, the Boy Scouts' reaffirmation of the no-gays policy has drawn condemnation from liberal advocacy groups, newspaper editorialists and others. In Washington state, Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna, an Eagle Scout, joined his Democratic opponent, Jay Inslee, in suggesting the policy be changed.

But overall there has been little evidence of any new form of outside pressure that might prompt the Scouts to reconsider.

The leadership of the Scouts' most influential religious partners - notably the Mormons, Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists - appears to support the policy. And even liberal politicians seem reluctant to press the issue amid a tense national election campaign.

Read the rest of the Associated Press story

Earlier this week, I posted a couple batches of letters from grown-up Eagle Scouts who chose to resign their hard-earned, elite awards in protest of the Boy Scouts of America's policy banning gay and atheist scouts and troop leaders.

I'm still getting letters in the mail. These things are coming in faster than I can update the posts. Which is why I'm very glad that several former Eagle Scouts have taken matters into their own hands, starting a Tumblr that can play host to all these letters, and all the ones going forward.

Burke Stansbury put the site together. In his own resignation letter, he wrote:

I am not proud to be affiliated with an organization that excludes people based on their sexuality. Many of my closest friends are gay, lesbian, or transgender and it pains me to think that I invested time in an organization that prohibits their membership. It's a shameful, bigoted policy. Plain and simple.

I'll be contacting people who have sent me letters recently about whether it's okay to forward their emails to Burke. And if you'd like your letter to be archived on the Tumblr, there's an easy-to-use submission form right on the site.

Eagle Scouts Returning Our Badges on Tumblr

PREVIOUSLY:
Eagle Scouts Stand Up To the Boy Scouts of America
More Men Join the Ranks of Former Eagle Scout

On Monday, I published a letter from my husband, Christopher Baker, to the Boy Scouts of America. In that letter, Baker returned his hard-earned Eagle Scout award and explained that he no longer wanted to be associated with an organization that discriminated against gay teenagers and GBLT parents. By the end of the day, I'd posted six updates to that story—adding letters from other Eagle Scouts who had joined my husband in resigning from a fraternity they had loved and had worked incredibly hard to join.

The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization. The Supreme Court has said they have the right to discriminate. What these Eagle Scouts are saying is that legal precedent doesn't make the discrimination right. Overwhelmingly, they've said that it makes them sad to see the organization that meant so much to them go against the very values of inclusion that it taught them as children. As Baker wrote, "banning openly gay scouts and leaders is not a neutral position any more than separate-but-equal was a neutral position on race."

Yesterday, I received more letters from other Eagle Scouts who want the Boy Scouts of America to know how disappointed they are, and that they choose to stand with the persecuted rather than with the people doing the persecuting. In this post, you can read inspiring words from 13 Eagle Scouts who asked that I share their letters. In most cases, I've included a photo of the letter, and quoted text for easy reading. They're worth reading. These are amazing men.

Well, amazing men, and one woman. I'm starting out this collection with the letter of Dr. Julie Praus.

Julie Praus

I received my Eagle award in 1976, at age 15. A member of Troop 28, Devils Lake, ND under the name Douglas James Praus. I went on to become a National Merit Scholar, Phi Beta Kappa, went to medical school, became a psychiatrist, served for 12 years in the US Air Force, raised 3 sons, made a distinguished career as a physician. I transitioned gender in the midst of all that. I'm very 'out', and serve the GLBT population as well as the general population in the twin cities area.

I've found that being an Eagle is a member of a very select club. I've met them in universities, the military, and in medicine. They've all been of sterling character, and I've been honored to be in their company.

I read with dismay about the 'secret committee' that decided that gay scouts and leaders were not welcome within the BSA. This seems utterly indefensible and reprehensible. Do you think there were no gay or trans scouts or leaders? After a long time of reading the medical and psychological literature on this, and knowing many in the GLBT population, I find nothing to back up your decision, and must view this decision as an act of bigotry and ignorance. Please reconsider. The moral code I learned as a scout is one that I treasure to this day, and lends honor to one who follows it. I feel that this decision to exclude gay scouts and leaders dishonors the many who have served and learned scouting, and the BSA today.

Sincerely,
Julie M. Praus, MD

Zachary Maichuk

The Boy Scouts have been an important part of my life in more ways than I can describe. My father was my first scoutmaster, and scouting was a family affair. I spent more summers than I can count at scout camp, first as camper, then as staff. Those summers were important to shaping who I am as a man today. After I finished college, I made the decision to go into the Peace Corps based on my Boy Scout ideals. I had, after all, just spent 4 years giving myself a degree, and it was only right that I give the next two to serving both my country and the starving and needy.

In The Gambia, I worked with two different scout troops in the local villages. One of those troops still has my old handbook as a guide. I also wrote an “appropriate technology” manual to help with the development effort, and much of the information, from basic knots and lashings to the creative low tech cooking and baking devices, were based off the knowledge I had acquired from my years as a scout. My choice to pursue my doctorate in psychology has its roots in my scouting experience. One of my mentors from scouting pushed me to become a doctor, and as a therapist, I have an opportunity to help others alleviate their suffering. The art I do, my leatherwork, would not have been available to me if it wasn't for the old scout leather kit I found in the basement, and my time at the Handicraft Lodge. I even still today carry my trusted Swiss Army knife with Boy Scout Hot Spark, just so I can always be prepared.

It is with this knowledge that you can understand how hard this decision has been for me to make. My path to Eagle Scout has been so important to making me who I am. But there is a sad reality in that I cannot continue to keep this honor and still live up to what this honor is supposed to mean.

I cannot accept the exclusion of homosexuals from the organization of the Boy Scouts of America. I am a doctor of clinical psychology who has studied trauma and sexual abuse, and as mentioned in your own youth protection videos, I know that there is no connection between sexual orientation and child predation. I also have a bachelor’s degree in religious studies from Rutgers University, and I know that religious objections to homosexuality are neither universal, nor as clear cut as popular culture would like to maintain. I have been trained as a scientist-practitioner of a social science, and I know that sexual orientation is biological, cannot be taught or passed on through association, and more harm is done by forcing a person to deny innate orientation.

There is no good reason to exclude homosexuals from Scouting, and no harm will befall our Scouts by ending this unjust practice. But beyond the facts and the science, there is also a deeper, more moral reason for ending this practice, and it is rooted in the Law we were all taught to follow:

A Scout is Trustworthy, and it would be dishonest for me hold onto my attachments to an organization I know is harming others with discriminatory policies.

A Scout is Loyal, and I cannot count the number of people I would be betraying by not opposing ongoing exclusion in scouts based on sexuality. My friends Mark, Gabe, Amy, Daphne, Toni, Rebecca, Dawn, Jessica, Jeff, Isaiah, and many others have taken their turns looking out for me when I was in need of a friend. My various co-workers Joe, Jack, Alix, Louis, Jerry, and Melody were important team members at one time or another, and one was even blacklisted from our organization because of this unjust rule. My childhood friends like Jason and Eric grew up with me, and have maintained friendships over the years. If I were to not oppose the Boy Scout's policy against homosexuals, I would be disloyal to these very good people in my life, people who have been very loyal to me.

A Scout is Helpful, and promoting any discrimination hurts, not helps, those discriminated against, and the society that allows the discrimination.

A Scout is Friendly, and discrimination is not friendly. And teaching scouts to discriminate does not produce friendly scouts

A Scout is Courteous, and there is no way to politely treat a person like they are less than human because of the way they were born.

A Scout is Kind, and likewise there is no kind way to discriminate.

A Scout is Obedient, but obedience is not blind. As a scout I was always told to stand up for what is right and help those in need. The choice being presented is to be obedient to an unjust rule, or being obedient to a core ideal. I choose to be Obedient to what Scouting is supposed to stand for, not an unjust bylaw.

A Scout is Cheerful. Cheerfulness is about optimism. It is about bring out the good and joy in self and others. Cheerfulness is about encouraging the morale among all those around. You cannot be cheerful as you harm others or treat them as less than human. Discrimination does not sit on the bright side of life.

A Scout is Thrifty. A scout uses his resources not for himself, but for the service of others. Were I to keep this award and ignore the harm the policy is doing, I would be acting in greed, and against the value of thriftiness.

A Scout is Brave. It would be easier to look the other way. It would be easier to support the status quo even if it is doing harm. It would be easier to shut up and just write off this injustice as the way things are. But it is brave to stand up, and risk the repercussions involved in pointing out and demanding change in the face of what is an unjust policy. As such, I am calling on you to be brave, and risk the change that will be best for all involved.

A Scout is Clean, and injustice, discrimination and prejudice tarnish the soul.

A Scout is Reverent. I have a Bachelor's degree in religious studies. The so called religious objections to homosexuality are not as clear cut as people like to believe. What is clear that the God I revere desires Justice and Love, and hatred in God’s name is sacrilege.

In addition, I swore, on my honor, to do my best to do my duty to God and my country. My duty to God dictates I act towards all people in the name of Love and Justice. My duty to my country demands I fight for the freedoms and rights of all my countrymen despite race, creed, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. I swore to obey the Scout Law, and I have shown above how I must do this to honor that law. I swore to help other people at all times, and ignoring this unjust discriminatory process is contrary to the ideal of helping others. I swore to keep myself physically strong and mentally awake, and cannot allow myself to cloud my mind with immoral justifications for immoral rules. Finally, I swore to keep myself morally straight, and standing by silently as others are discriminated against is morally bankrupt.

So it is with great sadness that I feel I must return my Eagle Scout Award, not because I am ashamed of the values of Scouting, but because I know to keep it in the face of the current discriminatory policies against homosexuality is a violation of those core values I was taught to honor as a Scout.

Sincerely
Dr. Zachary Maichuk

Barry Ferns

I am an Eagle Scout (1964) and Vigil Member of the Order of the Arrow (1968 or 1969). I am not Gay but that is irrelevant.

Your recent reiteration of the policy of excluding Gays and Lesbians (hereinafter “Gay”) is causing my beloved organization a lot of harm. The Boy Scouts was always about building character and honor. It can not be an exclusive organization.

In the 60's, it was thought that being Gay was a choice. After reviewing the data, that simply is not true. I have known many Gay individuals and can attest to that. So, if that is the case, how can we turn our backs on so many Gay young people? As for adult volunteers, I have never seen anyone try and force or persuade a young person to chose a Gay lifestyle. The Scouts need all the volunteers it can get.

I am hearing a lot of negative things about the Scouts because of this policy. My own son will not allow his son to join the Scouts. I have a hard time persuading him to do otherwise. There of millions of us out there who feel the same way I do. Please, reconsider this policy.

Very truly yours,
BARRY FERNS

It pains me to write this letter.

I remember being six years old, sitting in the cool wooden chairs of the Washington Elementary school auditorium in Washington, Oklahoma. I sat there with all the other boys, writhing in summertime excitement, glad to be dismissed from class for an unannounced presentation. I didn’t know what the presentation was going to be about or why only the boys were invited to attend, but I didn’t care: school was recessed for the day and that was enough.

As we were told to settle down by the principal, a gentleman walked out in olive green shorts and a khaki shirt with a belt that had things hanging from it–a compass, a pocket knife, a canteen–and a hat with a wide brim. After we had finally settled to near silence, the man in the wide brimmed hat pronounced with a jolly, incredulous voice that he could cook an egg in a campfire with only an orange peel. I was intrigued. Who was this weird guy who is hanging out where fires burn and eggs might need to be cooked using no more than an orange peel? Then he told us that he learned this trick when he was our age and went on his first camping trip with the Boy Scouts. He went on to regale us with anecdotes about survival skills, honor, good citizenship, and lifelong friends, and I soaked every last story up with rapt amazement. Then came the zinger: signups were being accepted for a new Boy Scout troop right here in Washington. I couldn’t believe it. The time between getting out of that meeting and my parents picking me up couldn’t come fast enough. I needed them to sign me up as soon as possible. I joined the Boy Scouts that Summer as a Tiger Cub, one of the youngest members of the brand newTroop 247.

This was 26 years ago. Eleven quick years later, I would be standing with my father and Scoutmaster on a stage at St. Thomas Moore Catholic Church in Norman, Oklahoma receiving my Eagle Scout medal in front of proud Grandparents, family, and friends. What stood between those years was the single most defining experience of my youth: my time with the Boy Scouts. While others spent their summers indoors playing video games and hardly leaving their neighborhoods, I was white water rafting, spelunking, hiking, laughing, and, most importantly, learning the values of friendship, dependability, and a respect for the diversity of people on whom I needed to rely to accomplish all of these activities.

Therefore, because of this wildly fulfilling experience, it saddens me that the BSA has decided to reaffirm its disgraceful policy of bigotry and fear mongering. When I was a Scout, my troop had a diversity of races, faiths, and, as it turns out, orientations. Not one of these qualities ever prevented me from valuing our time together or developing cherished friendships, in fact, I loved that I hung out with a group of guys who were different because collectively we were uniformly awesome, but I digress.

I’ve struggled with my relationship with the Scouts since the initial ban of homosexuals several years ago, a backwards looking, arbitrary rule that took my breath away. How could this organization from which I have profited so much turn out to be the shining, happy face of bigotry? Although bigotry is too simple of a concept. The BSA’s ban was calculated, it was a political move to make some sort of a twisted appeal to the factions of our society that have celebrated and congratulated themselves for too long under the self-applied moniker of the “moral majority.” This calculation on behalf of the BSA sickens me and makes me sad beyond words. The BSA, the organization whose Eagle Scout rank I placed above even my hard-earned Master’s degree, thew an entire faction of the most vulnerable under the bus to appeal to the bullying tactics of a vocally bigoted, increasingly discredited niche. Shame on you!

What does your “stance” say to the 12 year old boy who has found repose in the welcoming arms of the Scouts from the bullying and harassment because he is seen as different? It says to him that his difference is shameful and unwelcome. My Boy Scouts have legitimized and empowered his attackers. For shame!

I get emotional thinking back to the joys I had with the Scouts. The Summer camps, spending time with my Dad and friends, the hours of exploration and the feeling of having friends who understood me. And it hurts to know that at the conclusion of this letter, I will have refuted the organization under whose umbrella all of this joy was possible. But then I think of the couple who love one another and have dedicated their lives to the purpose of serving one another and the pain they must feel at having respectable organizations publicly say that not only are they not welcome in the organization, but their love is an abomination. I think about this and I know that my pain in refuting the Boy Scouts is significantly less by degrees. This knowledge does not make my rejection of the Boy Scouts easier, but it does tell me that it is right.

It is with hope that one day the Boy Scouts of America will find their purpose that I quit the organization. Know this: I am hopeful things will change, not because they are politically calculated, but because they are right. In the meantime and under your current disgraceful policies, I return to you my Eagle Scout credentials. My medal is a couple thousand miles away in a box in my parent’s house, so I do not have that to return to you, but please accept my membership card instead. As you can see, it’s well worn. I used to carry it in my wallet and enjoyed showing it to people.

Regretfully,
Dustin Robert Lee
Somerville, MA
former Eagle Scout of Troop 247

I attained the rank of Eagle Scout on a date I will never forget, 02/02/2002. I was one of six friends who reached Eagle at the same time in Mundelein, Illinois. It was such a significant occurrence in our small suburban town that we made it into the newspaper. We grew up together, starting as Cub Scouts, where my mother was the den leader and the other five boys’ parents were all leaders in some fashion.

The six of us followed each other throughout scouting. Though one of us drifted apart from the others, the connections forged in scouting has kept us close, sticking together through all manner of events, both happy and sad; each of us taking turns leading the group in our own way. To this day, the five of us are close friends, attending each other’s weddings and those of our friends; maintaining strong friendships, supporting each other through the good times and the bad.

Unfortunately, it’s now with a heavy heart that I must do what time and the strain of the world tried so hard to do: I must break from my brothers; my lifelong friends. I can no longer stand with them as a proud Eagle Scout. Though I will retain the values, morals and skills that scouting has taught me, I cannot, in good conscience, remain an Eagle. That honor has been corrupted by the BSA’s blatant discrimination and bigotry.

The BSA’s policy of “not granting membership to open or avowed homosexuals” is not a practice in line with the teachings of the Boy Scouts. Instead, this is the practice of bigots. Scouting taught me to stand up against the unethical and that it is wrong to exclude someone for any reason, whether it be race, religion, gender, sex, physical ability or sexual orientation. I was taught to stand up for those who need my help. I am a straight man and I choose to stand with those whose voices you choose to suppress and ignore.

I am relinquishing my Eagle Scout medal and patch to the BSA’s care because the honor the rank holds has been tainted. The rank of Eagle no longer holds meaning when it is backed by an organization that represents such bigotry and contempt for others. It is my hope that, one day, the BSA will see its mistake. On that day, I will proudly stand as an Eagle Scout once again.

Sincerely,
Matthew Munley
Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, Troop Guide, Troop 388
Order of the Arrow, Ordeal Member, Lodge 40

I attribute my curiosity, my morals, and my self-reliance to the principles that I learned in scouting. Being a scout gave me purpose as a youth, and I have never regretted my years of service.

Due to the actions of your board on July 17, however, I have come to regret my continued association with the BSA. In no uncertain terms, I say to you gentlemen that you are cowards. By continuing to remove dedicated leaders and aspiring scouts from their positions because of their homosexuality, you are weakening scouting and causing trauma and isolation to the most vulnerable boys in our community.

When I was a Cub Scout, there was one boy in our pack who had been born with a cleft palate. Due to his speech impediment, he spoke rarely and quietly. Naturally, the rest of us teased him and made him an outcast until our pack leader sat us down and explained things. He impressed upon us this boy’s desperate need for friends and inclusion. He made sure that we knew that excluding others, no matter the reason, was completely unacceptable and against every law of scouting and brotherhood.

I want you to think about the boys you are casting out of your organization, and I want you to wonder how many of them need support while their families, their schools, and their churches turn their backs on them. I want you to think about the pain you are causing, the depression you are enabling, and the suicides that you are contributing to. I want you to recognize your weakness of character as you fail in your duty as men to protect the powerless.

As a Tiger Scout, Cub Scout, Webelos Scout, Boy Scout, Eagle Scout, Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader, and Order of the Arrow Brotherhood member, I learned that what is easy is not always right. Something is not moral just because it is legal. You may have convinced the Supreme Court that your bigotry is lawful, but you will never convince me that this policy is anything but dishonorable negligence in your role as leaders.

One day, I am sure, the Boy Scouts of America will stop turning aside the boys who need it most. Until that day comes, I will be ashamed to have my name associated with yours. Remove me immediately from the ranks of Eagle Scouts, and find enclosed my Eagle Scout award. Until you begin to live by the values of inclusion, kindness, and civility that you espouse, I refuse any association with the Boy Scouts of America.

Ian Birnbaum
Dallas, Texas
Former Senior Patrol Leader, Troop 485
Order of the Arrow Brotherhood Member, Lodge
Aina Topa Hutsi
Eagle Scout, 2002-2012

With this letter I am returning my Eagle Scout medal, badge, scarf, and merit badge sash, thereby relinquishing all previous and current association with Boy Scouts of America.

I act in solidarity with all gay boys, fathers, and mothers who will no longer be allowed to participate in this organization and its activities which I, as a boy who was not yet even considering his sexual orientation, was accepted into and benefitted from.

I act to prevent the indoctrination of assumedly heterosexual boys and families who might accept BSA’s current ruling as anything more substantial than sanctioned ignorance (at best) or institutionalized homophobia (at worst).

Reflecting upon the Scout’s oath which I was led to memorize and repeat--and believe--I recall that bigotry and discrimination are not included in said values. As a Scout I was educated, via multicultural-appearing pamphlets and rank-advancing service projects, to appreciate and embrace diversity. I was expected to recite “with justice and liberty for all,” then acknowledge a Christ portrayed as all-accepting by stating the Lord’s Prayer in conclusion of every troop meeting. Given this “moral” education and current BSA policy, a hypocrisy exists with which I cannot ethically accept or abide in any way, shape, or form.

Until this egregious and antiquated policy is reversed, I will only speak of BSA with direct and legitimate criticism. I will not deny the discipline, skills, and solidarity I gained as a Scout. However, until these experiences become available to all youth and families, I remain a Former Eagle Scout.

I am quite proud of my effort and accomplishment achieving this rank circa 1981, and I tremendously appreciate the support of my parents, leaders, and community in this success. Thanks to all of you! I am no longer and not at all proud or appreciative of Boy Scouts of America. Rather, I am sad, disappointed, disgusted, and taking great umbrage.

I imagine questions my own son--almost five years old--might ask when he learns an enticing club from which I, his father, joined and retired, categorically rejects and denies some of his friends and community members for sake of whom and how they love. The tough answers I will give, so long as this letter speaks in vain and intransigent prejudice persists, will unfortunately enlighten my boy (be he straight or gay or otherwise) to the ways of this culture in it’s very poorest inculcation.

For myself and my inclusive family, Boy Scouts of America now serve to represent the sick and ailing shadow of American society rather that the optimistic shine I was sold on as a Tenderfoot, honored for as an Eagle, and expected to uphold as the contributing member of society I have since become.

Sincerely,
Mark Dooley, Former Eagle Scout and Senior Patrol Leader Troop 301 Hutchinson, KS
MA Clinical Psychology, Master of Environmental Studies, Licensed Mental Health Counselor, Child Mental Health Specialist, Certified Sexual Assault Services Provider, WA State Approved Clinical Supervisor

I was very active in Scouting in the mid 1970s in my council in XXXX. I held all possible positions in my troop XXX. I was on the staff of Camp XXXX, was a Brotherhood member of the Order of the Arrow and served as lodge secretary. I earned 24 merit badges. In the years since my youth I have served as a merit badge councilor and have assisted local troops in other capacities.

It was with a great deal of pride of accomplishment that I earned and was awarded the Eagle Scout award in 1975.

But it was with a great deal of disgust that I heard of the Boy Scouts of America’s recent reaffirmation of their anti-gay policy.

I have known of this policy for some time, and each time it was in the news I hoped that the BSA would take the opportunity to revisit the policy and to do the right thing, to change the policy and make the BSA an inclusive organization that would welcome all boys and leaders, regardless of sexual orientation.

Well, you had the opportunity, and you blew it. You could have followed the lead of other youth organizations that have recognized the needs of all those who could be served by the otherwise excellent programs that develop skills and confidence in young men. But you did not.

Today I am returning my Eagle Scout medal because I do not want to be associated with the bigotry for which the BSA stands.

I had at one time considered a career as professional Scout. I have looked upon the principles that I learned as part of the Scout Oath and Law as ideals to guide my actions. But in the years since I left active participation in Scouting I have learned that being Loyal, Courteous, and Kind to my fellow humans includes being tolerant, accepting, and inclusive of others despite their differences. Bigotry is not part of anything that I learned from Scouts — but that is what you are teaching to the young men in your program today. Shame on you for doing so.

While I recognize that the BSA is a private organization and has the right to include or exclude from its membership anyone it wants to, this is an organization that I no longer wish to have anything to do with.

William Lynch

Lynch had this today about his letter, posted below: "I am not an activist (and in fact, even lean a little to the right of center), but after reading what many of my fellow Eagle Scouts have done since the BSA announced their decision, I could not in good conscience sit idle. I made an individual decision to return my medal to the organization until such time that the policy is reversed. Included with my medal was the attached 2-page letter which took me nearly 4 hours and many tears to write."

Recently, I was disheartened to learn that the BSA has made a national executive decision to continue a long-standing policy of exclusion towards persons of “undesirable” religious affiliations and sexual orientation. This policy is unjust and wrong. I feel that I MUST take a principled stance and join my fellow Eagle scouts in returning my medal (enclosed).

I earned the rank of Eagle scout in 1993 through Troop 770 in Winston Salem, NC and Troop 17 in Enon, OH. It was an arduous process that didn't end until a few months before my 18th birthday. Most of my peers had long since moved on, as I longed to do so myself. Scouting was tough, but I loved it. I buckled down and finished my last merit badge and service project because I'm no quitter. But I feel that I must quit now. Earning the Eagle scout honor was very hard-won personal victory, especially for a small boy who would rather stay inside and read comic books than be outdoors canoeing and camping. It was tougher than MBA school. It was tougher than starting two businesses. It was tougher than the martial arts I would take up as a twenty-something. But scouting wasn't tougher than Engineering school and scouting wasn't tougher than helping my wife through her own dark times early in our marriage. It certainly wasn't tougher than writing this letter.

However, without scouting, I don't know that I would have been tough enough to do any of those things. Scouting taught me to get out of my comfort zone and do things I did not believe I could do. Scouting taught me that anything is possible if I believed in myself. Myself, not a magic being.

Perhaps my greatest achievement in scouting was possibly saving the life of a fellow scout during the summer of 1987 or 1988. On one of our many hikes at that vast reserve of Camp Raven Knob in the western NC mountains. There were probably about 30 of us on the hike, and for some reason, I was walking at the head of the group that day. A juvenile copperhead snake was crossing the trail and I don't think anyone else had spotted it. I put my arm up to stop the boys behind me and the counselor came forward and tossed it into the woods with a stick. I had learned that juvenile copperheads were the most dangerous, because they hadn't learned to control the amount of venom injected with a bite and would inject far more than an adult. The boy next to me (or one of the others) may well had been bitten if I hadn't stopped the group.

No one can say what would have happened that day if I had been excluded way back then but possibly because I was there, we do know that no one was bitten in my group. The fact of the matter is that scouts look out for each other, just as I know that you and the executive council must believe that you are looking out for today's scouts by continuing the policy of exclusion against gay and atheist boys and men. Unfortunately, I believe this policy is anachronistic for the 21st century and the anonymous, closed-door methods that you have chosen to review this policy are a further stain to the BSA organization. What was once known as the most wholesome organizations of America is now seen as one of it's last bastions of bigotry.

I cannot in good conscience continue to allow myself to be associated with an organization with such seemingly divergent views from my own, not to mention inconsistent with the fundamental values that I learned in scouting. As an information security consultant, I see everyone's dirty laundry. It's critical that I maintain my own credibility and trustworthiness. It is my belief that I can no longer do that by maintaining an association with the Boy Scouts of America.

Effective immediately, I will no longer refer to myself as an Eagle Scout. Although it brings me great sadness to acknowledge this separation, what makes me even more sad is that you would no longer have me, a self-identified atheist for most of my adult life, as a member anyway. Having no children, I have given little consideration to continued scouting involvement for the past 20 years, but I would like to think that I have much to offer the younger generation in terms of skills and experiences. Yet the Board would deny us both because of who I am.

Although I consider it to be a vary small part of who I am, being an atheist is still very much a part of who I am and influences many of my decisions, both conscious and unconscious. On that note, I would like to say that I believe the decision to continue the exclusion policy was wrong not only from a moral perspective, but also from a rational one. If you desire to change the attitudes of persons of “undesirable” religious affiliations and sexual orientation, would not the best way to do that be to include them and try to set a “better” example? Or is the Council so terrified that there might be something to be learned by counter example of the “undesirables”?

Furthermore, it seems that the Board rejected the obvious compromise of allowing the exclusion policy to be implemented at the unit level, rather than at the national level. It's my understanding that this reflects what is actually happening in practice in most areas today anyway. All I can say is that I know my adult life would have been different, probably in negative ways, if not for my time in scouting. I believe that everyone has something to contribute. The exclusion policy not only denies the experiences that I had to other decent human beings, but also diminishes the experiences of those who are included.

I appeal to you to reconsider the exclusion policy of the Boy Scouts of America. If you do, I think I would like to come back to scouting.

Sincerely,
William Lynch
Former Eagle Scout, Troop 17, 1993-2012

It's worth remembering that this is not a new movement. This policy has been around for a long time ... and Eagle Scouts have been resigning all along. Eric Ray sent the Boy Scouts of America this letter in 2000.

As an Eagle Scout, I feel I must make my voice heard about the Boy Scout policy on discrimination. For years I remained silent on these issues mostly because they did not apply to me. However, one of the most important principles in a constitutional society is that the denial of civil liberties to one group is a threat to the liberties of all groups.

Initially, I was most concerned specifically about the policy banning atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers from the BSA. While I certainly had religious beliefs when I became an Eagle Scout in 1990 at the age of fourteen, I have since moved away from organized religion. I find it deeply troubling that today I would not even be eligible for membership in the organization simply because of my agnosticism. So am I no longer to be considered a "moral" person because I do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of religious scripture? I would submit to you that it is not I who has changed, but rather the Scouting organization that has not lived up to its own values.

Recently, I have become interested in the Scouting policy of banning homosexuals as members and leaders. I suppose one of the reasons this had never gained my attention earlier is the fact that such discrimination is not mentioned anywhere in BSA handbooks or policies! I had mixed feelings about the recent Supreme Court decision of Dale vs. BSA. While I agree that a private group does have the right to determine its membership criteria, I believed that the principles embodying the Boy Scout organization would preclude it from hiding behind such protections.

It is truly a sad day for me when the Boy Scouts of America is placed in the same category as a White Supremacist organization such as the KKK. Despite my years of happy membership in the organization, I am now ashamed to be a member. While I disagree strongly with the BSA becoming a discriminatory private organization, rather than an inclusive public accommodation, I believe that the organization has the right to become what it wishes. However, in order be consistent with remaining truly private, the BSA must now voluntarily completely separate itself from government assistance, whether this be direct financial support from the United Way, associations with public services such as fire or police departments, subsidization of campgrounds at military installations, as well as the symbolic position of head of the BSA held by the President of the United States.

To accept government assistance while discriminating against entire classes of citizens is to violate the principles of honesty and integrity which the Boy Scouts hold so dear. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this situation is the expulsion of Boy Scout members simply because they vocally disagree with BSA discrimination policy. Such activities are the antithesis of democratic principles.

Thinking people can disagree on such matters, but to eliminate opposition is the act of tyranny. To this end, I am enclosing my most cherished possession from Scouting, my Eagle Scout badge, as an act of protest. While I'm sure such commonplace actions are of little consequence, I would hope that you would consider just one thing. The Boy Scouts of America organization was created for its members. If the Scouts themselves leave it, then what is left?

Sincerely,
Eric S. Ray, Eagle Scout

Read the original post, featuring a letters from my husband and six other men, plus links to more

Join Scouts for Equality, an organization founded by Eagle Scout Zach Wahls.

If you want to write to the BSA, here's the address:
BSA National Executive Board
1325 Walnut Hill Lane
PO Box 152079
Irving, Texas 75015-2079

If you aren't familiar with American Boy Scouting's Eagle Scout award, it might be a little hard to explain how important this story really is. Eagle Scout is a big deal. For one thing, it takes a lot of work to get the position. A scout has to earn 21 merit badges and then spearhead a community service project that they organize and manage themselves from start to finish. Add to that the fact that most kids don't stay in scouts through high school anyway, and you end up with the award representing a relatively small and elite group. Since 1911, about 2.1 million men have earned an Eagle Scout award. And it has serious implications once you graduate high school. There are scholarships. Eagle Scouts who enlist in the military after high school can start off with a higher rank than their peers. The adult Eagle Scouts I know have told me that they've gotten interview call-backs or even job opportunities because the award was on their resumes. Basically, it's more than just this medal you pick up at age 17. For many men, it's a lifelong position—and one that demonstrates a commitment to serving others and caring for the community.

So when Eagle Scouts start returning their medals to the Boy Scouts of America, that matters. Especially when these men are making this decision because they think it's the best way to demonstrate the values of being an Eagle Scout.

The Boy Scouts of America bans participation in scouting by openly gay, bisexual, or transgender kids and bans GBLT adults from serving as scout masters. Legally, that's their right as a private organization. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Since the BSA doubled down on that position on July 17, I've seen letters from numerous Eagle Scouts who have sent their hard-earned awards back to the organization.

The letter pictured above was written by my husband, Christopher Baker. He mailed off his medal on Saturday. You can read the full text below.

To Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive and the BSA National Executive Board,

As a Boy Scout I was taught that ethics are important and that when something is unethical you should stand up and say something. I was taught that it is wrong to exclude people, whether based on race, physical ability or sexual orientation. I was taught that a Boy Scout stands with those being persecuted, and not with the persecutor.

Banning openly gay scouts and leaders is not a neutral position anymore than separate but equal was a neutral policy on race. Gay scouts and leaders have the right and obligation to be true to themselves. Homosexuality is not a moral deviance, bigotry is. Parents’ rights to discuss sexuality with their children should not be extended to banning the participation of openly gay scouts anymore than Jewish religious practices require the banning of bacon on a camp out, or Christian Science religious practices require Scouts to forego first aid training.

Today I am returning my Eagle Scout medal because I do not want to be associated with the bigotry for which it now stands. I hope that one day BSA stands up for all boys. It saddens me that until that day comes any sons of mine will not participate in the Boy Scouts.

Being morally straight means standing up for equal rights and inclusion, not bigotry.

Disappointedly,

Christopher Baker, AIA, PE, MBA
Former Senior Patrol Leader of Troop 261

I am incredibly proud of my husband, a straight man, for standing up for the equality of all people. I'm putting in links to a few other examples of this protest down below. But I know a bunch have turned up on Reddit and Facebook, and I'm sure I don't have them all. If you know of a letter that's not linked to, let me know.

And if you're one of the Eagle Scouts who has chosen to join this protest, send me a photo of your letter. I'd like to post more of these, and honor the men (queer and straight) who have chosen to take their commitment to public service seriously.

If you choose to do this, my husband has verified that this is the correct address to mail your letter and medal to:
BSA National Executive Board
1325 Walnut Hill Lane
PO Box 152079
Irving, Texas 75015-2079

Finally, I think it's worth noting that participating in Boy Scouts is falling significantly. Since 1999, the total number of traditional scouts has fallen by 20%. Who knows how much of that has to do with this discriminatory policy—it's certainly not the only thing affecting membership numbers. But, at the very least, this should be a sign that setting yourself up as symbol of bigotry and exclusion doesn't make your organization grow.

UPDATE: I got my first photo from a BoingBoing reader already. Andrew Reinhard earned his Eagle Scout award in 1986. He sent it back last week.

Here's the text from Andrew's letter:

Dear Mr. Mazzuca,

I am writing in support of my fellow Scouts who are aversely affected by your announcement of July 17th. I cannot begin to express my disappointment and utter bewilderment in the BSA’s decision to continue to discriminate against Scouts and Scouters (and potential Scouts and Scouters) based on sexual orientation. I’m straight, earned my Eagle in 1986, and am a Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow. I was secretary of Seminole Lodge 85. I was a guide at the Maine National High Adventure Base (Matagamon). I enjoyed some of the best years of my life as a Cub, Scout, and Explorer. Serving on the Arena Shows staff for the National Jamboree was a highlight, especially when I got to meet fellow Eagle Scout, Steven Spielberg.

I have loved scouting and, had I had a son instead of a daughter, would have enjoyed seeing him learn to love the outdoors, become self-reliant, and also learn to respect his peers, all within the context of the BSA. Now I’ve changed my mind. I cannot understand the BSA’s decision. It is a stain on the otherwise exceptional reputation of the Boy Scouts of America. You and the current leadership at the national level should “be prepared” for significant fall-out from this decision. As you well know, a Scout is courteous and kind, and this discriminatory policy is in violation of at least those two tenants of the Scout Law. It is certainly not a “brave” decision.

From an organization that taught me how to be a man and how to be helpful to others, what I held great pride in now carries shame. I am not alone in feeling this way. I would greatly urge the BSA to “do a good turn” and immediately reverse this decision. If the US Armed Forces can get beyond “don’t ask, don’t tell”, certainly the Scouts can do the same and attempt to maintain some semblance of honor.

In Scouting,
Andrew Reinhard

UPDATE #2: Leo A. P. Giannini also contacted me, and sent over a picture of his Eagle Scout resignation letter.

Here's the text. This one is a gut-wrencher:

My name is Leo A. P. Giannini. It is with great sadness that I am returning the Eagle pin and patch in protest of the BSA’s policy of "not granting membership to open or avowed homosexuals." This practice is disgraceful as much as it is discriminatory and I will not allow myself to participate in it.

I earned the rank of Eagle Scout in 2005 as a member of Troop 1 in Pittsfield, MA. As a participant in Scouting for 13 years prior to this achievement, earning my Eagle Scout badge is by far one of my greatest achievements.

It wouldn’t be fair if I told you what it feels like to be excluded from scouts because of sexual orientation, I wouldn’t know, and as a straight man a long way off from being a father, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I have no doubt that one day whether it is tomorrow or a decade from now The Boy Scouts of America will allow open or avowed homosexuals to join, but I cannot sit back and watch as a member of an organization on the wrong side of history.

I am giving back my proudest possessions because I don’t want to have my son or daughter one day say to me, “Did you know you were a member when the Boy Scouts used to not allow gay people to join?” As an 11 year old, I remember my mother’s face contorting trying to hide the guilt after I asked her what it was like attending school in segregated North Carolina. That won’t be me.

Scouting is a part of me, and what sickens me is that the organization which I believe guided me into the becoming the man I am today, has practices that go against the very principles I took from it. Scouting was more than weekend campfires, monthly trips and Wednesday snacks. As a 12 year old it was an assistant scoutmaster and his wife that came to my soccer games when my father and mother split up and my mother was incapable of attending because she was recovering from pancreatic cancer. As a 13 year old it was a fellow scout that told me life was worth living. When I was 15, I lost 35 pounds so that I could hike with my fellow scouts at Philmont that summer. In 2004, a conversation with an assistant scoutmaster from my troop convinced me I had to apply to college and in 2005 a stranger helped me with my Eagle Project; before passing away from colon cancer in 2007 gave me seed money to start a business that was eventually acquired in 2009.

I’m not saying this to gloat; I’m saying this because I want to show you what scouting has done for me. At 17, after a lackluster academic and athletic career becoming an Eagle Scout was the only thing that made me in any way exceptional and different, it was the only thing that I actually ever felt I was a part of, and as a result, the only thing I was really proud of.

I want you to think about what you may be doing to a kid, maybe just as screwed up as I was at 13 or an adult who just wants to give back, but can’t because ten years after he left scouts as a young man he came out. The right decision will be made whether or not if happens now, you have the chance to live and act by the principles you and every other scout I know is proud to have. I trust you will take action.

UPDATE #3: Here's one from Curtis Markham, who linked to it in the comments.

UPDATE #4: Here are three more letters, sent in by BoingBoing readers.

First up, a photo of the letter sent in by Robert Paxton.

Second, here's the text of the letter mailed to the BSA by Andrew Stanton:

To the Members of the National Council:

I am Andrew Stanton, an Eagle Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster of Troop [Redacted from public view]. I received my Eagle rank May 26, 1998. I have always been very proud of my achievement in making Eagle and I feel honor-bound to give back to the Organization that helped me so much when I was a youth. Imparting what I have learned to the next generations of Scouts and seeing them flourish in their lives has been and will always be one of the greatest gifts I could have.

However, I have always felt ashamed of supporting an organization that is openly hostile to an estimated 10% of the American population who are gay. I have worked with and am close friends with several Scouts (Eagles included) whom are gay, but had to hide who they were in order to stay part of Scouting. Their reasons are their own, but I can surmise it was for much the same as mine – giving back to the kids coming through the program now; National’s policy be damned.

Debating gay and lesbian friends over the benefits of Scouting versus this institutional bigotry has weighed heavily on me for some time. Now due to the recent decision by the National Council to uphold its policy on banning gays from participating or volunteering in Scouts, I can no longer support the Boy Scouts of America. I am returning my Eagle Scout rank and Order of the Arrow Ordeal sash. Until such time that the National Council recognizes the error of their decision I will not participate within Scouting as a whole.

I am not the first to do this in protest and I know I will not be the last. Please do what is right and reverse this policy. Allowing it to stand only serves to hurt those whom Scouting is meant to be for – the Scouts themselves – preventing them from the benefit of knowledge from good, honorable leaders whose sexual orientation happens to differ from your own and by denying gay youth the opportunity to experience the joy and pride of becoming Eagles themselves.

Yours in Scouting,
Andrew T. Stanton

Finally, Jeff Hess hasn't posted the text of his letter to the BSA, but he does have links to several other Eagle Scout resignation letters, and he had this to say, "Today I’m wrapping up my medal and returning it to the small and ignorant men who have so dishonorably abandoned the American values that I came to understand were embodied in the honor. I no longer want to have the award in my possession."

UPDATE #5: Honestly, the fact that I've had to update this post so many times is extremely heartening to me. Seriously, I am proud of you guys. And so are many other people. This one comes from reader Daniel Kane. He's not just an Eagle Scout, he's also a former Boy Scout camp counselor. Daniel says, "I'm an Eagle Scout who has been disgusted with BSA for awhile, and wasn't sure what to do about it. Thanks to your article, I'm mailing back my medal now."

This is a long letter, but worth reading:

From the day I joined Troop 55, Glen Ridge NJ in November 1996, Scouting has played a major role in my life. My formative years were shaped by the Boy Scouts in powerful ways. I became a leader, because I didn’t have a choice, and because I was taught to work with others, rather than settling for being a loner. Thanks to Scouting, I became a man, something many people who are supposed to be adults have failed to do. Even nine years after I last attended meetings regularly, I can still name the Scout Laws, Oath, Motto, and Slogan off the top of my head, and still try to live my life by the ideals I learned through scouting.

Many of the greatest lessons and rites of passage in my life were a result of scouting. Through my troop, I learned to trust others, but also to question them. I learned that sometimes leading is doing what others don’t want to, and sometimes it is letting them suffer from the work they didn’t complete so they become accountable. I will never forget the work I put in as a Patrol Leader and Senior Patrol Leader, or the year I was a Den Chief and earned the Den Chief service award by basically running the den because the Den Mother didn’t have time. As a scout I learned to make leave a campsite better than I found it, and from that basic lesson, to leave the world better than I found it. My first job was aquatics counselor at Rodney Scout Reservation, and I grew more in my two summers as an Aquat than any other time in my life. Although we rarely see each other now, I trust my brothers from my troop like family, and always will. As you can imagine, very few achievements mean as much to me as earning the rank of Eagle Scout.

Despite the pride that I felt at that final Board of Review, I also felt a twinge of guilt. By the time I made Eagle, the Boy Scouts of America had already decided to ban homosexuals from membership. I rationalized my decision to remain in scouts despite my moral qualms. I reminded myself that my scoutmaster, in an incredibly courageous moment, had announced that he would never enforce the ban. I convinced myself that I had earned the rank, deserved it, and, since I was straight, was not breaking any rules be accepting it. Finally, I was unwilling to break away from my brothers in the troop. Therefore, I put my guilt aside, and allowed myself to celebrate what will always be one of my greatest achievements, rather than standing up for those who would never get to celebrate this moment, no matter how deserving they were.

As I have grown older, however, I have not been able to conveniently ignore my conscience. Boy Scouts taught me to be brave and honorable. Because I am, I cannot be a part of an organization that discriminates. There is nothing in the Scout Laws or Oath that condemns homosexuality. There is no legal justification for treating homosexuals any differently. I know that certain religions ban homosexuality, and that the law “reverent” has been used to justify BSA’s ban of homosexuals, but many religions have no problem with the queer community, and BSA has never required its members to worship the same god, so that justification should go out the window.

One of the greatest lessons I learned from my time in scouts was to work with people who were different from me, people who disagree with me. It is a skill I struggle with today, but my journey to Eagle taught me that it is a fight worth fighting, that the world is a richer place because of its diversity, and that all people can contribute something worthwhile. That is the basis of democracy. It therefore saddens me to see the organization that forced me to learn this lesson shutting its doors to people some of its leaders happen to disagree with.

It is also disturbing that an organization that stresses the importance of democracy would put bigotry ahead of that ideal. Just as a petition was delivered to BAS asking for a new vote on anti- gay policy, a secret committee chose to uphold the ban without a vote. One of the consequences of democracy is living with the results, even when we do not agree with them. I do not know how I would respond to an executive board voting to continue the ban, and apparently I will never know, because a few people would rather prevent the democratic process from happening. I do know that I now have a new reason to be disgusted with BSA.

Most importantly, it is my firm conviction that this nation’s greatest sin is discrimination against homosexuals. I know the Boy Scouts are not alone in this act, but the Boy Scouts are the organization that matters most to me. Discrimination is not a victimless crime. Based on data compiled by the FBI and the analysis of the Southern Poverty Law Center, homosexuals are more likely to be victims of violent hate crime than any other minority group in the United States. I am not saying that BSA encourages hate crimes, but by portraying homosexuals as deviant, BSA makes it easier for less stable, more violent people to justify their heinous actions. Furthermore, gay youth, the very people you have excluded, are more likely to commit suicide than the general population. Many suicide victims kill themselves because they feel ostracized.

While you have the right to limit your membership, there is blood on your hands, whether you foresaw it or not.

I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. I do believe that discrimination is. I do believe that making a large group of young people feel less than human because of something they cannot control is a sin. I accept that I do not speak for God, and may be wrong, but even if I am wrong, Jesus Christ told us to love God and love one another. He told us “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” By excluding gay scouts, BSA leadership is failing to love a large group of people, and continues to throw stones. Whatever deity we have chosen to follow, we can agree to love each other and not kick those who are down.

I learned from the Boy Scouts to be a leader, not a follower. I learned to make tough decisions and stick with them. I have always done my best to do my duty to God and my country, and to keep myself morally straight. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I renounce all affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America. I will continue to use the lessons I learned from scouting in my life, and it saddens me that an organization that meant so much to me is now so strongly opposed to my value system, that my children will not benefit from the support system scouting gave me unless something drastic changes, but I will deal with that sadness.

I would like to thank you for the guidance you gave me as I grew, and hope to be able to rejoin your ranks some day.

UPDATE #6: Here is something for those of you who have spoken in the comments about wanting to change scouting from the inside. Zach Wahls is the young man who spoke to the Iowa State Legislature last year about his moms and why he wants Iowa to have equal rights protecting gay and lesbian couples.

He's also the co-founder of Scouts for Equality, an organization made up of active scouts and scout leaders attempting to change BSA policy. It's a relatively new organization, and I'm not sure exactly what they're going to be doing to achieve this goal. For now, you can join their mailing list, sign their petition, and share your story as a scout who wants BSA to reflect values of equality and inclusion, rather than discrimination.

Letter from Eagle Scout Martin Cizmar

Letter from Reddit user Papagoose

Eagle Scout Jim Morrison talks about sending his medal back in a video

Letter from Eagle Scout Peter Straub

Letter from Eagle Scout Matthew Hitchens (published online by a friend of his)

Letter from Eagle Scout and political cartoonist Rob Tornoe

Kristen Iversen grew up in the shadow of two big secrets. The first was private. Her father was an alcoholic, and his problem grew bigger and harder to ignore or hide as Iversen got older. But the other secret didn't belong to just her and her family. Instead, it encompassed whole Colorado communities, two major corporations, and the US government.

Iversen grew up near Rocky Flats, a nuclear weapons plant near Denver. In much the same way as Iversen's family related to her father's alcoholism, Rocky Flats presented risks that nearly everyone involved preferred to ignore or cover up. In fact, years after several public exposes had made it very clear that Rocky Flats made nuclear bombs and that the corporate and government entities that ran the facility had cut corners and allowed massive amounts of plutonium to escape into the surrounding environment, people who lived in Iversen's neighborhood near the plant still refused to give up their long-held belief that it produced nothing more than Scrubbing Bubbles and dishwashing detergent.

Full Body Burden: Growing Up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats is memoir—albeit one that captures documented history as well as a family's private struggles. It's not really meant to be a book about science. But I think it's a powerful, well-written memoir that science buffs should read.

For better or for worse, the story of technology in the 20th century was the story of children growing up. At the beginning of the century, the zeitgeist of science was all about miracles. It was an age of wonders. There were never any side-effects. That changed mid-century, as we began to come to terms with the fact that our toys could be dangerous and that the people with the power to use them didn't always think (or care) about the potential harms.

As we think about and negotiate what our relationship with technology is going to be in the 21st century—and, for the record, I think that means synthesizing a mature perspective where we accept that everything has risks and worry about risk mitigation instead of the impossibility of complete risk avoidance—we are going to have to learn and learn from stories like this one.

On the one hand, that means understanding how governments, companies, and scientists have misused technology, and made unethical, dangerous decisions about it. Stories like the one Iversen tells are important, because they force us to look at how those decisions really affect people—even if you never find evidence of increased cancer rates or miscarriages or other kinds of expected physical damage, the psychological trauma has real impacts. And those impacts matter. (Think about what we know about Chernobyl, where, by some estimates, the psychological fallout has been worse and affected more people than the nuclear fallout.)

On the other hand, stories like the one Iversen tells are important because they also force us to think about our expectations and the fact that reality is sometimes a lot different. The outcomes we expect aren't necessarily the ones that happen. When Iversen is expecting to hear, any day now, that her father has drunk himself to death, someone does die. But it isn't him. Likewise, despite anecdotal evidence of rare and childhood cancers peppering this book, Iversen writes that nobody ever found a statistical increase in cancer or other health problems in the neighborhoods near Rocky Flats.

Along those same lines, when Iversen tells the story about how illegal and unethical behavior at Rocky Flats was exposed, it's not framed as a fight between "all the good people" and "the evil, faceless corporation". Instead, she captures the conflict within the community. Sometimes, even plant workers who are afraid of the risks posed by this kind of breach of public trust are more afraid of losing their jobs. Sometimes, they take criticism of what's happened at the plant as a personal attack against them. That, too, is important information to consider when we think about the future of technology and culture.

Shorter story: This is a great memoir that will get you thinking about the way society and technology interact. It's also a very fast read. I breezed through the 344 pages in a weekend—a speed that I usually associate more with my fiction-reading. Deep thoughts. Great storytelling.

Full Body Burden: Growing Up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats by Kristen Iversen

Four years ago, Jana Mackey, one of my college roommates at The University of Kansas, was killed by her ex-boyfriend. When I lived with Jana, I knew her as a music major and a really fun person. But she had a serious side that came to the forefront over the next few years. Jana went to law school, got involved in domestic violence activism, and became a lobbyist at the Kansas State Legislature trying to bring attention to women's health and safety.

Her work made her death tragically ironic, but it also drives home a point. Domestic violence (whether physical or emotional) isn't just something that happens to the naive, or the weak. It's not something you can write off as "somebody else's problem."

There's a picture going around Facebook right now, of a young woman holding a sign that says, "Society teaches, 'Don't get raped' when it should teach 'Don't rape.'" I think the same thing is true here. There's too much focus on finding reasons to criticize or distance ourselves from women who have been abused, and not enough of a focus on preventing abuse from happening—by teaching kids how to have healthy relationships, by encouraging family and friends to step in when they see someone they know being abusive, and by making sure cops and courts take domestic violence seriously.

Jana's family is trying to rectify this through a nonprofit called Jana's Campaign. The Campaign put out this video last winter. On the anniversary of Jana's death, I wanted to share it with you. There's a message here. Take it to heart. Together, we can stop asking people, "Why did you let that happen to yourself?" and, instead, find ways to change the social values and incentives that allow abusers to go unchallenged, untreated, and unpunished.

Visit the website for Jana's Campaign

There's a great, illustrated history of America's highway system—from the Colonial period to the 1970s—that can be read for free on OpenLibrary.

I've just thumbed through it a bit so far, but it reminded me of a book I read a couple of years ago, Consuming Nature: Environmentalism in the Fox River Valley, 1850-1950. That book, by Greg Summers, a professor the University of Wisconsin - Steven's Point, is about how electric and highway infrastructures were built up in Wisconsin. It's also about the socio-cultural changes that led first to the construction of infrastructure and then, later, to fear over what infrastructure had done to the environment. Really super fascinating.

One of the things I learned in both of these books is that early road infrastructure was built and maintained by the local people who used it. In Colonial times, you owed the city or county so many hours of labor every year. And, when they called you up, you had to go out and work on a road crew. Sort of like jury duty. Only sweatier. (Of course, if you were wealthy enough -- or, in the case of colonial Virginia, owned enough slaves -- you could have other people do your labor for you.) In 19th-century Wisconsin, you could substitute labor on the roads for cash road taxes.

One of the fun outcomes of this system, at least in Wisconsin: Really craptastic roads. Turns out, a gang of random citizens, led by another random citizen, is not exactly who you want in charge of your infrastructure. Summers writes:

"Given proper direction, they might have been capable of maintaining the roads. Unfortunately, town officials tended to select overseers from the ranks of their own communities, leaving them with individuals who had no more knowledge or training in the principles of highway construction than the neighbors they were intended to supervise. As a result, the annual parties of local residents organized for the spring roadwork often degenerated into social gatherings, and little improvement to the highways was ever accomplished."

The bodies of Amazon rainforest activist Joao Claudio Ribeiro da Silva and his wife Maria do Espirito Santo are carried to burial by friends and relatives, in the municipal cemetery of Maraba, in Brazil, on May 26, 2011. The identity of those responsible for the shooting in northern Brazil on Tuesday has not yet been determined, but da Silva predicted his own death six months ago, and was the recipient of frequent death threats by illegal loggers and cattle ranchers.

"I will protect the forest at all costs. That is why I could get a bullet in my head at any moment -- because I denounce the loggers and charcoal producers," he said.

Watch his speech at TEDxAmazonia, below, in which he says he believes killing trees in the rainforest is murder (click the "cc" button in the player for English subtitles).

The murders of da Silva and his wife took place as Brazil's Congress debates a divisive bill that threatens to further expand deforestation. Da Silva and Espirito Santo were active in the same organization of forest workers that was founded by legendary conservationist Chico Mendes. Al Jazeera has a video report here, and a first-person account from the funeral for the slain activist here.

More news coverage: NPR, New York Times, Guardian, Reuters, Telegraph.

Photos above and below: Reuters.

]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/05/26/rainforest-activists.html/feed 21 http://boingboing.net/2011/05/23/minnesota-gop-legisl.html http://boingboing.net/2011/05/23/minnesota-gop-legisl.html#comments Mon, 23 May 2011 08:41:34 +0000 Maggie Koerth-Baker

On Saturday night, the Minnesota House of Representatives voted 70-62 in favor of putting a proposed constitutional ban on same sex marriage up for a public vote in 2012. Bear in mind, same sex marriage is already illegal in this state. So when I go out and vote on this constitutional amendment, my choices are going to be: A) Continue to discriminate against GLBT families or B) Codify that discrimination into my state's primary document. Good times.

But this post isn't about how disgusting I think it is to put a minority's civil rights up for a vote. No. This post is about offering my genuine thanks and appreciation to the two Minnesota Republicans who were brave enough to speak out against the amendment. Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, and Rep. John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove—Thank you both. If I wasn't absolutely certain it would set off some kind of security panic, I'd mail you both a box of my best home made bars.

Kriesel, in particular, gave a passionate, moving speech explaining why he changed his mind on marriage equality. The turning point: When he was almost killed while on a tour of duty in Iraq. Quoting from the video above:

"It made me think about this issue and say, 'you know what, what would I do without my wife?' She makes me happy. Life is hard. We're in a really tough time in our nation's history. Happiness is so hard to find for people. So they find it. They find someone who makes them happy. And we want to say, 'Oh, you can be together. You can love that person. But you can't marry them.' That's wrong. That's wrong, and I disagree with it.

... This amendment doesn't represent what I went to fight for. Hear that out there? [referencing protesters in the rotunda] That's the America I fought for. And I'm proud of that. ... If there was a "Hell No" button right here, I would press it. But, unfortunately, I just have "Nay," and that's the one I'm going to press.

If this moved you as much as it moved me—even if you aren't a Minnesotan—I'd encourage you to send a quick thank-you email to Rep. Kriesel.

Video Link

A growing number of ex-Peace Corps volunteers are speaking out via blogs and in news interviews about having survived rape and other forms of sexual assault while assigned overseas. They say the agency ignored their concerns for safety or requests for relocation, and tried to blame rape victims for their attacks. Their stories, and support from families and advocates, are drawing attention from lawmakers and promises of reform from the agency.

One of the women whose story is receiving renewed attention is Kate Puzey (shown in the photo at left). The Peace Corps volunteer was murdered in Benin, apparently by a contractor for the agency she was attempting to anonymously report for the rape of girls at the village school. As I blogged in 2009, I was in Benin, pretty close to that village, the same day she was killed. I remember our local friends from that region expressing horror and sadness at her murder. But we didn't know the backstory yet. More on her case follows.

The Peace Corps 2010 budget: $400 million, government funding, your tax dollars at work. The current director today apologized for the agency's poor response to victims, and specifically the Puzey case.

First: In today's New York Times, an article about the volunteers who are speaking out on sexual assault:

In going public, they are exposing an ugly sliver of life in the Peace Corps: the dangers that volunteers face in far-flung corners of the world and the inconsistent -- and, some say, callous -- treatment they receive when they become crime victims.

More from the NYT:

Because sexual crimes often go unreported, experts say the incidence is likely to be higher, though they and the Peace Corps add that it is difficult to assess whether the volunteers face any greater risk overseas than women in the United States do.

And for more than a year, ABC 20/20 has also been on the story of Kate Puzey, the 24-year old from Atlanta who joined the Peace Corps in 2007 and was murdered in 2009.

Her family says agency personnel set her up to be killed, outing her role in the firing of a Peace Corps contractor in Benin whom she accused of raping and sexually abusing children at a school in the northern village of Badjoudé.

Puzey showed remarkable bravery in taking action against the abuse she discovered, and trusted her Peace Corps colleagues to preserve her anonymity to protect her while still in-country. But according to her family, that didn't happen.

From ABC News:

The young woman was found with her throat slit shortly after the employee, Constant Bio, a citizen of Benin, received word from Peace Corps officials that he would be dismissed from his contractor position.

"It just seems very obvious that that was the cause," said Puzey's brother David. "Kate was trying to protect these young girls who were being sexually abused."

The suspect has been in custody since the murder in March 2009 while authorities in Benin investigate. Bio asserted his innocence in a letter to a newspaper in Benin, claiming he was being framed by America.

A related series of ABC News photos, including one of the suspect, is here.

As I blogged that month, I was in Benin when this happened, working with a small NGO unaffiliated with the Peace Corps or any other US aid agencies. The local people who were our hosts and guides were from a village very close to Badjoudé. If I recall correctly, we must have driven by on the very day the murder occurred, just by chance.

The prevailing response, among our African friends there and within the Beninois public in general, was horror and disgust at the killing—and, more or less, "this is why we can't have nice things here." And that was before the backstory came out.

The local paper in Kate's Georgia home town, Forsyth County News, has published several stories on the circumstances of her death (but alas, a paywall blocks access). You can see one of them here for free on an unofficial Peace Corps volunteer messageboard. And here's more about her case, on another site for ex-Peace Corps folks. Below, two videos: Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) pays tribute to Puzey on the senate floor. And below that, a tribute video for Kate created by her friends, "Light a Candle for Kate."

]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/05/11/peace-corps-voluntee.html/feed 32 http://boingboing.net/2011/05/04/notes-from-a-morning.html http://boingboing.net/2011/05/04/notes-from-a-morning.html#comments Wed, 04 May 2011 08:17:12 +0000 Xeni Jardin
[iPhone snapshot above: Xeni Jardin; illustration inset, Shepard Fairey.]

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, was in Long Beach, California this morning to accept the inaugural edition of a "Shine a Light on Human Rights" award from Amnesty International. My notes from the event follow.

He accepted the award with characteristic humility and good humor, saying, "I am just a single monk; no more, no less," later adding for the Amnesty volunteers and human rights advocates assembled, "Your work is good. Please continue."

Addressing the crowd before the spiritual leader spoke, Amnesty International's U.S. executive director Larry Cox said the award honored the fact that he has "tirelessly and peacefully defended the rights of people everywhere" for over 50 years. This month will also mark the 50th anniversary of the human rights organization's own founding.

The Dalai Lama took questions from Amnesty volunteers for more than an hour, and spoke of the imperative to protect those who are engaged in human rights work, as well as the need for freedom of information and expression in Tibet, China, and around the world.

Speaking through a translator, he described a Tibetan concept of generosity that encompasses not only material goods or comfort to those in need, "but also protection from fear."

"Individuals in some ways have more power than governments; the individuals, the artists, the activists who are compelled to change society—we must protect them."

Despite the white stubble he pointed to on his shaved head, the 76-year-old monk said he was optimistic that he would witness Tibetan "reunion" and peace with China in his lifetime.

"If you start a noble effort and encounter problems, and just stop— it is wrong," he said. "You must persist. If you believe that the goal of your work must materialize in your lifetime, it is wrong. It's still worthwhile, even if you never live to see it materialize."

The internet's enabling of increased access to information, and the increasing velocity of information, he said, is a good thing. "Because of new media, the news [of human rights violations] reaches us immediately."

Censorship and seemingly ever-tightening restrictions on internet flow are a predictable response from the Chinese government, he continued, but they are fundamentally unsustainable. "More soldiers, more [surveillance] cameras, they build mistrust and fear. Harmony is based on trust... so this is totally the wrong method. Censorship should not be there; there should be free information, a free press, and then an independent judiciary and gradual government change can follow. That will develop trust and harmony within China, and with the outside world. A closed society with no transparency creates suspicion."

"The lifespan of a totalitarian regime is generally longer than that of an elected government," he continued. "But China belongs to the Chinese people, and not the government. 1.3 billion Chinese people have the right to know reality, and to judge what is right and what is wrong for themselves."

Asked by a young student LGBT activist what advice he might give gay and trans teens who are bullied for their sexual or gender orientation, the Dalai Lama suggested that apart from pursuing legal protection, greater understanding and more education in "moral ethics and concern for others" may help.

But "sometimes the system to solve the problem turns into a problem itself," he added; "The court can turn into a demon, the 'medicine' can become a poison, and people who do not have access to knowledge and education can be more easily manipulated."

He then paused and added "If someone bullies you based on discrimination, you should fight back."

No questions were posed about the recent killing of Osama bin Laden by US forces in Pakistan, but the Los Angeles Times noted his response on that issue yesterday at a "Secular Ethics, Human Values and Society" event, before an audience of 3,000 at University of Southern California.

Did bin Laden deserve forgiveness?

As a human being, Bin Laden may have deserved compassion and even forgiveness, the Dalai Lama said in answer to a question about the assassination of the Al Qaeda leader. But, he said, "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. ... If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures."

This, from a peaceful monk who avoids killing mosquitoes. "When my mood is good and there is no danger of malaria," he said at the USC event, he refrains from swatting even these pests.

While the Dalai Lama's thoughts on the specifics of the bin Laden assassination may remain an engima, Amnesty International's stated position is clear: the organization has long opposed extrajudicial execution, regardless of the subject involved.

This week, the group raised concerns that "US forces should have attempted to capture Osama bin Laden alive in order to bring him to trial if he was unarmed and posing no immediate threat," because perpetrators of terrorism and crimes against humanity "must be brought to justice in a manner consistent with international law."

In response to a question today in Long Beach by an Arab-American Amnesty International member about anti-Muslim hostility in America, the Dalai Lama described discrimination based on faith or culture as "backwards" and "outdated."

He pointed to the Hindu caste system in India (where he resides in exile) as the same, and said it too "must change."

"People should not say that Muslims as a whole are bad. I have many Muslim friends, and they tell me genuine followers of the Koran do not take bloodshed. If you do, you are not a genuine practitioner of Islam. The real meaning of 'jihad' is not fighting, but a kind of internal struggle. In Tibetan Buddhism, we also have a terminology of engaging in combat with our inner afflictions, fighting for internal spiritual freedom. This is the real meaning of jihad."

(special thanks to Kalaya'an Mendoza)]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/05/04/notes-from-a-morning.html/feed 36 http://boingboing.net/2011/03/23/time-lapse-video-of-1.html http://boingboing.net/2011/03/23/time-lapse-video-of-1.html#comments Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:30:54 +0000 David Ng Just noticed this powerful advertisement from the Topsy Foundation. It was one of the winners at TED's "Ad's Worth Spreading" contest, which is generally worth checking out. This particular video does a great job (with a lovely twist at the end) at showing the effectiveness of HIV antiretroviral drugs (ARVs). There's also a followup video you can view that checks in on the woman (Selinah) as well as chatting with the folks behind the video. Although I realize that the ARVs have been made possible by the work done in the pharmaceutical industry, and that there is a chance that Topsy's programs are facilitated by kind donations from the same industry, it's still a pity that there isn't a more sustainable system for the provision of such drugs to developing countries. Pity that these sorts of medicines are usually priced way too high for individuals like Selinah, which is why so many go untreated and so many die. Pity also that laws like Bill C-393 (which aim to explore different ways to create that sustainable market and lower that price) are being deliberately stalled in government so as to guarantee not being passed. That kind of unfortunate reality deserves a megafacepalm. ]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/03/23/time-lapse-video-of-1.html/feed 32 http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/killing-bill-c-393-e.html http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/killing-bill-c-393-e.html#comments Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:52:03 +0000 David Ng For the interest of discussion, I've made the above visual aid for members of Canada's Senate, since this is the week that they have a chance to pass a Bill that "aims to make it easier for Canada to export affordable, life-saving, generic medicines to developing countries." I wrote about this Bill C-393 earlier, stating how the right choice (passing the bill and not killing the bill) is obvious. But then it occurred to me that if the decision was so obvious, then why is there so much "push back" from the pharmaceutical industry (as well as the Harper government). It turns out the reason appears to be about Bill C-393 representing a trend that "could potentially" lead to a loss of control over the status quo. This being the status quo that provides the pharmaceutical industry with an inordinate amount of lobbying power to set prices; a business model that values huge profits above innovation; and something that they are so focused on protecting that even the smallest of losses must be avoided no matter the consequences. Which is simply reprehensible - because with this Bill, the consequences are not just about patent control: it's about the livelihood of millions of people, where the decision to "kill" or "not kill" the Bill could literally be a matter of life or death. Please send an email to the Harper government by using this Avaaz link.]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/killing-bill-c-393-e.html/feed 67 http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/will-the-harper-gove.html http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/will-the-harper-gove.html#comments Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:21:11 +0000 David Ng (FOR BILL C-393 STALLING UPDATES SEE BOTTOM OF POST: LAST UPDATE ON FRI, MARCH 25th) A few weeks ago, I was lecturing during a global issues course (ASIC200), when it became immediately clear that on some occasions, a solitary single facepalm is simply not enough. In fact, there seemed to be many things and events in this world that would merit many many simultaneous facepalms, or as we've been calling it in class, a MEGAFACEPALM! Anyway, when I looked it up on the internet, there didn't seem to be any pictures of large groups of people doing the facepalm, and so I thought, why not make our own? And so after a few clicks on my camera, and a handy "Make your own motivational poster" website, here is how it turned out: Of course, then the big question was for what occasion should we bestow this honour - this first unaltered photographic MEGAFACEPALM image? Well, I had a chat with the class the other day, and it seemed that the issue of Bill C-393 seemed like a worthy cause. Now, if you're late to the game and need a primer on this Bill C-393, then read this boingboing post and then come back here for the MEGAFACEPALM lowdown.

Hereby: I would like to declare that this MEGAFACEPALM will be awarded to the Harper government should: 1. Their members of Senate kill Bill C-393 by voting not to pass it. and/or 2. They indirectly kill the Bill C-393 by "ignoring/postponing" the Bill: especially if it has anything to do with some false nonsense about election calls. Yes, we know that maybe there will be an election call, but that is neither here nor there since this Bill should not be subject to such sneaky political maneuvering. All to say that, Prime Minister Harper: the outcome is in your hands... p.s - I realize that technically, we shouldn't call it a MEGAFACEPALM, since the name would infer the presence of a million (=mega) people doing it - but oh well, I figured this was a still good start. Besides, you can also consider this a challenge for others to create even bigger MEGAFACEPALM pictures.

We now have reliable information that the Conservative Government is unwilling to let Bill C-393, which would fix Canada's Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR), proceed further in the Senate. We are working to uncover further details.

This position shows contempt for Parliament -- if nothing else, the Senate must study the bills that come to it with majority support in the House of Commons, not simply stall them. (Bill C-393 passed in the House of Commons recently with a vote of 172 MPs in favour and 111 against, with support drawn from all parties.)

Given this latest news, we must therefore redouble our efforts, which had an amazing impact in the House of Commons. This is the final hurdle and one that, as predicted, will take time. But it is doable. The Senate must fulfill their obligation to allow this to come to a timely vote so that Bill C-393 does not die on the Order Paper (again).
From the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Bill C-393 was up for further debate in the Senate this afternoon, after word was received this morning that the Conservative leadership is still refusing to let the bill proceed to a second reading vote.

Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth rose to speak first. She reminded the chamber that this bill enjoys widespread support, including 26 MPs from her own party in the House of Commons. She noted that the virtually identical Bill S-232 had previously been studied at length with no less than 6 days of hearings from witnesses. She highlighted how Bill C-393 could, at no cost to taxpayers, make Canada's aid help more people, describing it as a concrete example of "aid effectiveness" and "value for money". She noted in particular how this bill would complement the Harper government's initiative on maternal and child health. She urged Senators to pass the bill without delay, as it makes good business sense and good public health sense.

Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire then rose to speak in support, referring to the devastation of AIDS he himself has witnessed in countries such as Rwanda. He noted again that only one use of CAMR has been seen to date and it is unlikely to be used again in its current form -- he wondered how anyone could claim this is a success, and remarked of the brand-name pharmaceutical companies' claim to this effect, "what planet are they on?". He noted the critical importance of access to paediatric formulations of fixed-dose combinations and that Apotex had committed to producing these. He ended with an eloquent plea to the Conservative government: "Are their children less human than ours? Do they not deserve the same humanity?"

Finally, Liberal Senate leader James Cowan rose to plead with the Conservative government that it allow the bill to move forward without delay. He underscored that, while it was not the obligation of the Senate to pass bills from the House of Commons, it is the chamber's obligation to consider them in a timely fashion. He noted specifically that Senators had received hundreds and hundreds of emails and telephone calls, and he could think of not a single one expressing any opposition to the bill. He urged Senators to consider this overwhelming public support, and to move this bill on to the Banking Committee so that it could quickly study it and return it to the Senate so that it might be addressed before a possible election.

However, Conservative Senator Stephen Greene then moved to adjourn further debate, consistent with the expected approach of the Conservative leadership. The motion was carried, on a recorded division. The bill will therefore appear again on the Order Paper tomorrow, Wed March 23. At this time, indications are that the Conservative leadership in the Senate will continue to stall the bill.
~Richard Elliot, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

After a speech by Cons. Senator Stephen Greene opposing Bill C-393 (full of the same old mistruths that we've heard ad nauseum, directly contrary to what his legislative assistant told me earlier today), and a moving speech by Lib. Senator Mobina Jaffer in support of the bill, Cons. Senator Carignan stood up to say that Cons. Senator Larry Smith, who was absent from the chamber, wished to speak to the bill and therefore he was moving to further adjourn debate. (Smith was present earlier in the chamber.)

Liberal Senators demanded a recorded vote and bells are now ringing for vote to happen at 8:05 p.m. Supporters are now urgently calling Conservative senators thought or known to be supportive of Bill C-393 to urge them to join in voting against this adjournment.

If any of you know a Conservative Senator whom you know or think is supportive, please email and phone them and urge them to vote down the adjournment.
~Richard Elliot, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

From: Fowlow, Patti-Lou
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:17 AM
To: - SEN C
Subject:

Dear Conservative Senate Staff & Senators,

Senator Larry Smith had the opportunity to meet with pharmaceutical industry leaders in the Montreal area, all are against bill C-393 as it is extremely damaging to our ability to motivate companies to patent new drugs in Canada. Many jobs in Canada's research and development sector, stand to be lost as a result of this bill. I have attached the documents prepared by Mr. Tony Clement.

Sincerely,
Nichole A. Beck

+++++++++

Vote Rationale C-393 CAMR
Under the current CAMR system, the process includes the following important steps:
• The product must be identified as safe and effective for human consumption
• The target country/population must be clearly defined and the request must come from the target government itself
• A tracking system must be in place to monitor the drugs flow from Canada to the target country/population to ensure consumption by intended group
• That under CAMR, only THAT drug identified for export can be sent to the intended country/population
Stephen Lewis and his friends have said that these checks are the 'problem' and need to be removed. In fact, these steps are vital. If they are removed, the following consequences can result:
• Instead of one shipment of a particular drug, an advocate can be granted permission to break patents of multiple drugs and ship them to multiple locations, potentially for commercial purposes.
• Drugs that are not certified by Health Canada as being safe and effective could be shipped to unsuspecting populations, to their detriment.
• Drugs shipped under CAMR could be redirected to the black market with proceeds going to non-humanitarian causes such as weapons.
• If drugs are shipped without the consent of the home government, the drugs could run against their domestic laws and traditions.
• If C-393 is passed, Canada's CAMR will be out of step with our international trade obligations. And if current patents are threatened, the patent holders will leave Canada seeking shelter in countries which value patent protection. The loss to Canadian R & D will be significant.
Most importantly, Canadian Generics are some of the most expensive in the world. With C-393 or not, NGOs in the developing world will direct their precious resources to cheaper drugs coming from places like India and Asia. Testimony was clear - This is an irrelevant measure to address the problem of a lack of drugs in Africa.
Committee was clear that the solution to this problem is multifaceted and to that end, the Government of Canada has:

1. Launched the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative
2. Made several contributions to organizations such as Health Partners International Canada (Jake Epp's group) who in turn have sent millions of doses of free drugs from Canadian pharmaceutical companies to the developing world
3. Supported the Global Fund, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the Clinton Foundation, to name a few. Please contact Minister Oda's office for more details. In all, close to $2.1 billion in International Aid flows to the developing world each year from Canada.
The bottom line is that C-393 lessens Canadian Patent Protection and vital health, safety, and verification of non-commercial purpose checks. Worst of all, it won't solve the problem. As such, Government members should oppose C-393.

Tony Clement

Dear Senators:

Yesterday was another missed opportunity for the Senate to move forward on Bill C-393 and finally fulfill Parliament's pledge to the developing world to help increase access to affordable medicines via Canada's Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR). For a third day in a row, this bill has been stalled, deliberately and unnecessarily, and another 5000 people died of AIDS alone in low- and middle-income countries.

It was also a day where recycled falsehoods cast an unfortunate pall over your deliberations. Senator Stephen Greene's comments repeated yet again the same discredited claims by big pharma that have been shown again and again to be inaccurate and overblown. Please take a moment to look at the text of Bill C-393, and you will quickly and easily verify the falsity of the objections being repeated like a mantra. Specifically:

· Bill C-393 does NOT remove the requirement that Health Canada approve drugs exported under CAMR. (See section 21.04(3) of the Patent Act.)

· Bill C-393 does NOT remove or weaken the existing safeguards against the diversion of medicines. The bill leaves unchanged all requirements for differentiating the generic product exported under CAMR from the brand-name product and for special markings, packaging and labelling, as well as a tracking system to monitor the flow of drugs to recipient countries. (See sections 21.06 and 21.07.)

· Bill C-393 does NOT change the list of countries eligible to receive medicines under CAMR -- which was already agreed upon by all countries, including Canada, at the WTO in 2003 and was already approved unanimously by Parliament in 2004. (It combines them into a single, simplified list; it does not change eligibility.)

· Bill C-393 does NOT allow for medicines to be used in an eligible developing country contrary to its domestic law. Those countries' laws regarding the registration of a drug as meeting necessary standards are unaffected by this bill.

· Bill C-393 does NOT run counter to Canada's WTO obligations. With the exception of big pharma's paid lawyer, every legal expert who has testified before Parliamentary committees has affirmed that Bill C-393 is consistent with WTO requirements, as did an international expert consultation convened by the UN Development Programme to study the bill.

· Bill C-393 does NOT threaten jobs or investments in R&D in Canada. This unbelievable claim is made by big pharma based on no evidence and has been debunked by economist experts in submissions to parliamentary committees. CAMR does not allow exports to the high-income countries where brand-name companies make the vast majority of their profits, which are what determine their R&D decisions. Furthermore, it requires generics to pay royalties to brand-name companies on any sales to eligible countries.

Finally, consider the nonsensical argument that CAMR should not be fixed because generic drug prices are too high in Canada. The price of a good in the Canadian market is entirely irrelevant -- what is relevant are the prices that Canadian generic manufacturers are able to offer to developing countries. What generic manufacturer would think it could land any contract with any developing country, whose purchasing power is much less than Canada's, by offering a price comparable to what it charges in Canada? Why would any developing country buy generics from a Canadian manufacturer unless they were of good quality and sold at a competitive price? Recall that in the one use of CAMR to date, the Canadian manufacturer landed the bid to supply Rwanda with a Health Canada-approved product at the same price as two Indian generic manufacturers (19.5 cents per tablet, a dramatic reduction from the price of the brand-name options.)

Why would Canadian parliamentarians block a bill that makes it easier for Canadian companies to compete globally in supplying urgently needed medicines?

The worst is that while you were sitting through yet another recitation of these falsehoods, more children in desperate need of life-saving medicines lay dying. This is not just, nor is it the will of Canadians -- as expressed through the vote in the House of Commons, an opinion poll that shows 80% of the public supports Bill C-393 or in the tens of thousands of e-mails and phone calls that have been coming into the offices of you and your colleagues. Nor is it necessary. The Senate could still pass this bill into law before an election.

As a chamber of sober second thought, we urge you to listen to the clear weight of the evidence and to think critically about the self-interested and unsubstantiated claims by big pharma, which claims in public to care about access to medicines but has done everything it can to kill a bill that is an important part of an overall response.

How is it that children in Canada should have access to medicines but those in developing countries should not? When will common decency and common sense prevail over falsehoods, obfuscation and inaction? We ask you to move forward on Bill C-393 now.

Sincerely,

Richard Elliott
Executive Director
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

C-393 came up.

Senator Dallaire asked Senator Carignon whether he was prepared to speak on the issue.

Carignon said Senator Larry Smith wants to speak - but (again) wasn't in the Chamber.

The Conservatives moved adjournment. Liberals refused and insisted on a standing vote.

We await the news of that vote, but the likely outcome is that the item will again be adjourned.

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Access to life-saving medicines is not a luxury, but a human right.
~Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Bill C-393 aims to reform CAMR and make it easier for Canada to export affordable, life-saving, generic medicines to developing countries.
~Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Q: Shouldn't we focus on other aspects of the problem. Like health infrastructure, or public education for HIV? A: Hmmm... Let me get this straight. A government can only do one thing at a time? Nevermind the fact that passing this bill doesn't actually cost the taxpayers anything. If anything, the foreign aid that we do provide will likely have greater bang for its buck.

Q: Wouldn't these changes effect the pharmaceutical company's bottom line, which in turn will effect R&D funding, and drive the home costs of medicine up? A: The language is pretty clear in that these are generics that can only be sold in certain markets. These markets happen to constitute a very small percentage of pharmaceutical revenues (we're talking single digits here). Oh yeah, plus you get royalties from doing this anyway. Also, there's nothing stopping you from making your own generic version, so that you can enter the market yourself. Indeed, all evidence would suggest a possible gain in bottom line. Plus, the R&D argument is totally a red herring. Sneaky.

The Christchurch cafe is a site where you can buy virtual items you might find in a coffee shop, from a $2 espresso to a $300 espresso machine. This is a creative and interesting way of raising aid donations: 100% of funds raised go directly to the community in Christchurch, New Zealand, which was hit hard by the earthquake last week. I love this idea, and would love to see this kind of thing catch on. It's an inspired way to encourage people to help out financially after a disaster.]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/03/07/virtual-cafe-opens-t.html/feed 8 http://boingboing.net/2011/02/08/toby-morses-one-life.html http://boingboing.net/2011/02/08/toby-morses-one-life.html#comments Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:02:47 +0000 Sean Bonner

Toby Morse, singer for the NYC Hardcore band H20 has spent the better part of the last year or so building up his One Life One Chance project. Inspired by the creativity and positivity he experienced in the punk / hardcore scene over so many years, Toby decided to create a vehicle to share that message with school age children across the country. Adopting the Bad Brains' PMA (positive mental attitude) as his slogan, he spoke at schools and spread the word in 2010, and plans to do the same and more in 2011.

His message is largely his own story about being straight edge and being in the band H2O. While he does talk about the upside of sober living, the bigger point seems to be the power of positive thinking and accepting people even when they are different than you. I think this is such a better approach than the old "Just Say No" or DARE campaigns. If you work at or with a school, check this out and consider having him come speak to your kids!]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/02/08/toby-morses-one-life.html/feed 32 http://boingboing.net/2011/01/29/egypt-5-year-old-gir.html http://boingboing.net/2011/01/29/egypt-5-year-old-gir.html#comments Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:19:39 +0000 Xeni Jardin

Video Link. "And by the way, some of your police officers removed their jackets and they're joining the people." Juju, who is 8, and from Saudi Arabia. (via Ahmed Al Omran)]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/01/29/egypt-5-year-old-gir.html/feed 24 http://boingboing.net/2011/01/17/tunisias-jasmine-rev.html http://boingboing.net/2011/01/17/tunisias-jasmine-rev.html#comments Mon, 17 Jan 2011 06:17:09 +0000 Xeni Jardin

[ LISTEN: Direct MP3 link, and embedded audio. ]

On today's episode of the Southern California Public Radio program The Madeleine Brand Show, I joined host Madeleine Brand for a discussion of the role technology and social media played in the recent political upheaval in Tunisia.

Tunisia's interim leaders announced a new government today after a surge of violent demonstrations toppled autocratic president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Many reporters and bloggers (and now, uh, Muammar Qadaffi) have been quick to credit Wikileaks, Twitter, and Facebook with fomenting unrest in the country. But is it accurate to describe what is unfolding in Tunisia as "a Twitter revolution"?

Some related reading today:

• Tunisia: That 'WikiLeaks Revolution' meme (CSM)
• The brutal truth about Tunisia (The Independent)
• Qaddafi Sees WikiLeaks Plot in Tunisia (NY Times / The Lede)
• Tunisia: Fears of Insecurity Overshadow the Joys of Freedom
• Arab World: Where is Ben Ali Headed to? (Global Voices)
• Tunisia: How the US got it wrong (Al Jazeera / opinion)
• Tunisia invades, censors Facebook, other accounts (CPJ)
• Wikileaks - US embassy cables: Tunisia - a US foreign policy conundrum (Guardian)
• The 2010-2011 Tunisian protests (Wikipedia)
• First thoughts on Tunisia and the role of the Internet (Foreign Policy)

(PHOTO at top of post: Students hold placards and flowers during a sit-in protest in Beirut January 17, 2011, organized by Lebanese activists Tunisians living in Lebanon to show solidarity and support for the people in Tunisia. REUTERS/Jamal Saidi)

I suppose, given the quality of science reporting on most TV news stations and newspapers, this headline contains a certain element of "Duh." When hasn't a scientific concept been misrepresented through the media? This is a doozy, though, and it needs to be corrected. You're probably familiar with the idea of plastic floating around in giant patches—"twice the size of Texas" is a commonly cited size. From what I'd seen on TV and read on activist websites, I'd gotten the impression that there was some massive island of plastic chunks out there in the Pacific. And I'm sure a lot of you came to the same conclusion.

But that's not what the science describes.

Angel White, an assistant professor of biological oceanography at Oregon State University, reviewed the literature on the so-called North Pacific Garbage Patch, and traveled to the site. She says science and reality don't match public perception, here. And now she's trying to correct that misunderstanding. Why? Because the very real problems posed by plastic debris in the ocean are too important to be couched in easily-debunked hyperbole. Scientist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olsen has a great interview with White on his blog, The Benshi:

RO: Last week you issued a press release titled, "Oceanic 'garbage patch' not nearly as big as portrayed in media." What was your motivation for doing that?

AW:The motivation for the press release is that I went on this cruise to the North Pacific in 2008 where I thought I'd see a plastic patch. I was really kind of surprised when I didn't. So when I started putting together my latest talk and I looked at the degree of hyperbole in the media, I was just surprised that no one had said, "Ah, you know, it's not the size of Texas -- in fact, it's not even a patch."

RO: But you've now said it's only 1% the size of Texas -- don't you think that does a disservice to the public's understanding just as much as calling it a "Texas-sized patch" because it overly minimizes the problem?

AW: I think calling it "a patch" minimizes the problem. It's not a patch. Here's what I think are the three most important points. 1) Plastic is widespread in the global ocean (not just the North Pacific), 2) plastic is small in size and 3) dilute in nature. It's not a patch -- to say it's a patch of any kind gives a false impression.

On the other hand, there are people who have decided to use the word "patch" -- if you're using the word, I think of "a patch of grass" -- a cohesive patch. So then let's take the highest observed concentrations and move it into a single, cohesive patch. I'm sorry, in the North Pacific it adds up to less that 1% the size of Texas -- actually 0.20% to be precise.

It's not a patch. It's a "dilute soup." I think it's a very sad commentary on the state of the U.S. that you have to be made to think of an island of trash in the oceans before you can be convinced to change your day-to-day actions.

(Via Glenn Fleishman)

If this image is to be believed—and I have no reason not to, other than that I found it on the internet—the rebel squadrons behind Anonymous (attn. "news" hacks - that would be an entirely different group from Wikileaks and/or Wikipedia) are about to change their approach. So far, as we've witnessed, they have been launching point-and-click distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks at companies perceived as the enemies of Wikileaks. Those targets included Mastercard, Paypal, and Visa (companies that froze donation funding), and Amazon (which denied hosting services). The new approach suggests more sophisticated thinking. This new mission, apparently, is to actually read the cables Wikileaks has published and find the most interesting bits that haven't been publicized yet, then publicize them.

In my opinion, this action would have far more positive impact. Anonymous often repeats the Orwell quote, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." Looks like they decided to take those words to heart.

In July, I blogged here about the "crowdfunding exemption" petition, File No. 4-605, which the SEC had just posted to their website. The petition seeks to allow people to solicit investment of up to $100,000 in amounts capped at $100 without having to register with either the SEC or their state's department of corporations (a process which can cost $50,000 and up). Many people, myself included, believe that this simple exemption, which the SEC has the authority to allow, presents minimal risk to investors and would have many positive effects on innovation, culture, opportunity, the economy, etc.

The fun news is, the proposal seems to be gaining traction! It turns out that others have been advocating similar exemptions, including Michael Shuman, author of Going Local and The Small-Mart Revolution. And now, the American Sustainable Business Council, a lobbying and advocacy group with many right-on members, has decided to support SEC rulemaking petition 4-605 as part of a new "Sustainable Economic Development" campaign, which will also encourage the SBA (Small Business Administration) to promote "TBL" accounting (Triple Bottom Line: financial, labor, and environmental). But note that the ASBC's new campaign will be on their back burner (and won't appear on their website) until January or so, because they're currently focused on other efforts, which require the current Congress during its remaining time in session.

Meanwhile, Jenny Kassan of the Sustainable Economies Law Center (SELC), who authored 4-605, did a great radio interview about the petition on Oct 29 on "U Need 2 Know" with Frank Knapp (tagline: Talk Radio for the Brain), on WOIC 1230 AM, Columbia, SC. Knapp starts out by saying he's "fascinated" by our proposal. The interview is about 12 minutes long-- check it out!

Members of the public are invited to comment on the proposal by emailing rule-comments@sec.gov with "File No. 4-605" in the Subject line. All comments are posted to the SEC's website here, and a nice variety of people have sent in original and thoughtful comments, including Michael Sauvante, Mark White, James J. Angel, Danae Ringelmann, Eric Saint-Andre, Andres La Saga, Peter J. Chepucavage, and myself.

Also, CREDO Action member Mimi Plevin-Foust has posted a petition on Change.org that does a terrific job of summarizing the issue and lets you submit a comment to the SEC by clicking a "Sign" button. Mimi's original goal of 100 signers was quickly met, so she raised it to 200, and then 500. Note that the letters generated by the CREDO/Change.org petition are sent to the office of SEC Chair Mary Schapiro, not rule-comments@sec.gov, so they will not appear on the SEC's website. (Even if they did, they would not be listed individually; the SEC handles robo-letters by tallying them anonymously as "Letter Type A", as you can see in the comments submitted for this previous petition: 2195 unnamed / undated robo-signatures tallied at the top of the page, and about 25 original letters listed by date and author.)

Someone from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the same office that likes Maker Faire, MAKE, and Mythbusters, contacted me to recommend that I attend the SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation (a.k.a. Small Business Forum) next Thursday, November 18th. He said that OSTP is looking at crowdfunding as a possible way of promoting entrepreneurship and high-growth startups. Great! This was very encouraging, and others who also know Washington have made the same suggestion. So I'm going, along with representatives from the SELC, who drafted File No. 4-605, the ASBC, and many others. Almost every day over the past week, I've learned about someone else from some other interesting-sounding organization or company who will be joining our crew at the all-day forum. It's open to the public, so come on down! You can register to attend in person or remotely.

A bunch of us are also gathering the night before the forum, Nov 17th, at CommonWealth Gastropub starting at around 7:30, to meet in person, hang out, and scheme. All are welcome-- it should be interesting and fun!

As for the SEC Forum itself, the stated purpose of which is for the SEC to listen to the needs of small business, the official agenda indicates that it's all presentations and discussion by the SEC and their invited panelists until 2pm, at which point we reassemble into breakout groups to develop recommendations (we'll all be in Room 6000). The agenda does not make it clear how the resulting recommendations make it back to the SEC, and also indicates that that neither SEC Commissioners nor SEC staff are expected to be present at these discussions. So I guess we'll be left alone to play paper football and trash the place.

For more info on this campaign and to sign up for updates visit crowdfundinglaw.com. ]]> http://boingboing.net/2010/11/12/grassroots-securitie.html/feed 6 http://boingboing.net/2010/10/11/cyclavia-attracts-ov.html http://boingboing.net/2010/10/11/cyclavia-attracts-ov.html#comments Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:25:29 +0000 Sean Bonner

Via the Submitterator, Boing Boing friend Doug Rushkoff writes:

My friend and occasional collaborator, technology artist Burak Arikan, writes from Istanbul that he, the artists, and guests at galleries in the Tophane district of Istanbul were systematically attacked by thugs last week. According to Burak, there was blood "everywhere." From the press release prepared by the beaten artists:

"In an organized attack on art galleries in the Tophane neighbourhood of Istanbul, guests attending exhibition openings were physically assaulted in a lynch attempt by a gang of 40-50 people. The audience subjected to this atmosphere of total terror featured artists, academicians, students, writers, local and international journalists and cultural attaches from consulates. The attackers used knives, batons, broken bottles and pepper spray. The injured include Polish, Dutch, German and English guests."

Burak adds:

"International support is urgent to enable the security in the Tophane district in Istanbul. The international visibility creates the chain pressure starting from the head of the government, which puts pressure on the mayor, which then affects the local police to investigate the criminal gang. Then hopefully we have a viable security in the district. Our press release is a collective effort, a statement from the Tophane art community."

Now this all leaves us with the obvious question: why are the galleries of this section of Istanbul being attacked by small armed gangs? No one is quite sure. Some say it is loosely organized conservative radicals, others say it's state-sponsored terror against the emergence of a potentially counter-culturally inclined community.

The works itself, such as Burak's piece entitled "When Ideas Become Crime," appear innocuous enough. Then again, when ideas become crime, no one is safe.

Video link: not for the queasy of stomach.

David Kuria runs EcoTact Limited, an organization with a groundbreaking approach to a difficult issue. In many poor parts of Africa, basic sanitation is nonexistent, and open sewers drain untreated waste directly into the water supply, causing 80% of the disease.

Kuria quotes Gandhi: "Sanitation is more important than independence," adding, "We want to do a social transformation, where people don't think this is a toilet, where they think a toilet is a dirty place. So for us to change that community and social mentality of a toilet, then we want to put in more activities in the toilet. Then they start interacting with the facility not as a toilet, but more of a community convenient point."

Amenities include a small kiosk with snacks and personal items for sale. Kenyan comedian Makhoha Keya even worked up an act to make learning about basic sanitation entertaining. Ecotact provides safe drinking water at no cost, and the toilet usage fee is about five cents a day, usually recouped through fewer doctor visits and lost days of work.

EcoTact Limited website]]> http://boingboing.net/2010/08/26/changing-attitudes-a.html/feed 4 http://boingboing.net/2010/08/26/bullied-la-premiere.html http://boingboing.net/2010/08/26/bullied-la-premiere.html#comments Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:00:44 +0000 Andrea James

[Video link]

School bullying is finally being addressed systemically, but there's still much to do. For many minority students, especially those who are members of sex and gender minorities, bullying makes school a hell on earth, leading to disproportionate attacks, dropouts, and suicides.

Bullied is a documentary and teaching kit about student Jamie Nabozny's groundbreaking lawsuit against his school district for turning a blind eye to the harassment and beatings he endured.

I'm proud to have a small role in the film as Jamie's lawyer Joni Thome.

See facebook.com/BulliedMovie for theatrical premiere info or order your school's free copy and learning module to have it ready to use during National Bullying Prevention Month (October 2010).

Bullied: A Student, a School and a Case That Made History [tolerance.org]]]> http://boingboing.net/2010/08/26/bullied-la-premiere.html/feed 27 http://boingboing.net/2010/07/14/call-for-beta-tester.html http://boingboing.net/2010/07/14/call-for-beta-tester.html#comments Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:00:08 +0000 Dean Putney email me so we can give you access.

EDIT: Anonymous comments don't count. Sorry. I need your BoingBoing username to turn on access for you.

ALRIGHT, THAT'S ENOUGH. Thanks to all of you who volunteered! You'll be receiving instructions from me via email shortly. New comments and requests to beta test may or may not, but probably will, be viciously ignored.]]> http://boingboing.net/2010/07/14/call-for-beta-tester.html/feed 86