Boy Scouts of America apologize...for Trump

It seems the BSA was none too pleased at the highly political speech Donald Trump gave last week that they felt compelled to publicly apologize for it.

 

If they are standing up for individual rights, why are they known as the BOY scouts, and why do they limit inclusion to America? Such hypocrisy.

 

Recognizing you know this, Boy Scouts is an International organization. For example, Bangladesh claims 982k membership in the Boy Scouts org.

 

I'm not defending what Trump did because I think his utter lack of decorum and continual display of hyper-narcissism is loathsome...but the BSA is now run by a bunch of PC police that genuflect at the slightest hint of liberal upswell. I've got three boys in it, one recently became an eagle and for the longest time we were ardent supporters but the leadership has utterly lost my confidence and support. The only reasons we are still in it, is that our local group ignores the utterings of the current national 'leadership' and because we've already invested 13 years into it. If I were choosing today, we wouldn't do it again. And it certainly appears that a lot of people are saying the same thing.

Boy Scouts downward spiral. This is bad...
2013-888,947 first and overwhelmingly beat back proposal to allow openly gay scouts
2014-885,000
2015-840,654 (F-ing Robert Gates as President with his crappy policies)
2016-822,999

Cub Scouts. This is worse.
2011-1,583,166
2016-1,261,430

There are very few boys that start boy scouts at the age of 12, if they weren't cub scouts before that. A 30% drop in 5 years in new cub scouts spells doom for the Boy Scouts.

While most of those people at the Jamboree were cheering, it was for the POTUS and his position...it wasn't for DT or his policies. He was wrong for making it a political speech but you shouldn't judge the majority of BSA parents and leaders beliefs and values by what the current jackass in charge of the BSA says.

 

I'm not sure the reduction is entirely BSA's fault but rather less involvement in traditional organizations that requires a significant commitment. My eldest son started in Cub Scouts, no Dad could make the commitment to be troop leader so all the Moms stepped up (it is Seattle afterall). The greater area organization was REALLY turned off by "Moms" being involved. Long story short...the troop collapsed after 1 year and we all joined YGuides (through YMCA) which was much less commitment and really a lot more enjoyable for the boys. As demographics continue to shift I don't think they are in BSA's favor.

 

Boy Scouts is a terrific organization. It's set up to build youth leadership skills. It can't please every political faction and is quick to apologize to those who were offended. Honestly, if my Eagle Scout son heard 3 hours of partisan political rhetoric at the Boy Scout Jamboree, I'd have no problem with it. He is a critical thinker and can separate crap from wisdom pretty well.

 

Yeah, the critics of Trump's speech assume the scouts in attendance can't think for themselves. For cub scouts, maybe. But not Boy Scouts who are on the path to Eagle.

 

No, many of the critics believe it was inappropriate for the speech of the type that was delivered. The Scouts weren't there to see him, he was there to see the scouts. He should have kept the remarks about learning leadership and values and not about him and his policies.

 

The guy who knocked it out of the Park on this sort of assignment was Paul Harvey speaking to the FFA in 1978. I was a Future Farmer ... still have the jacket.



Of course Harvey had access to the best speechwriters (himself).

 

And I would add that most Boy Scouts aren't 17 yr old Eagle Scouts, most Boy Scouts are 11-15 year olds that don't really have fantastic critical thinking skills well developed yet.

One more thing about the numbers I posted above. The vast majority of scouts enter scouting as tigers in 1st grade. Just based on my experience with cub scout packs, if there was a 30% drop in overall cub scout participation that is very likely heavily weighted towards a large decrease in recruiting new 1st graders. I would wager that 30% decrease in the overall cub scout numbers is predominantly in the tiger ranks and it's likely a 40-45% decrease in that group. If I'm right about that, then I think BSA will likely be under 1.5MM total membership in 5 years. That's from a membership almost 2.5MM just 8 years ago.

When the BSA committee (47 people) didn't listen to the BSA membership they only left one way for people to show their disapproval of openly gay members and leaders...their voting with their feet in droves.

 

I don't think anyone is worried about the scouts but rather the politicization of an event that hasn't been traditionally politicized.

 

the scouts leadership are terrified they will get sued by some feather brains and so they avoid offending people.

as for the decline in membership, I suspect this has more to do with the now near total urbanization of the country. Scouts used to be a rural and small town phenomena which also had some members in the cities. Now, the city kids play video games all day and are not so interested in camping, being outdoors, learning knots, etc.

Trump can't shut up about himself because he is just so interesting and he knows that everybody else is interested in nothing else.

 

I can sympathize with those who were offended by the politicization of this event. I look forward to seeing the same outrage for the politicization of our public education system at all levels.

 

Teachers certainly need to be better at teaching children to think critically without directing them in any political ideology. Like many on this board (myself included), hiding your political beliefs can be a challenge. Of course, I see this in the corporate world too. Not until we transition our teachers to AI will we be able to remove any bias.

 

News flash: Trump ain't traditional. Why the over the top outrage?

 

It's only politicization when Republicans do it, otherwise it's education.

 

I don't accept the "that's the way Trump is" line. He's the one that ran for President and then seems to have no idea of the expectations for decorum and conduct. If he wants his legacy to be the guy that broke the mold, but pissed everyone off along the way...that's fine. But I will never just accept his narcissism and blow it off as "trump being trump".

 

Out of curiosity, were you willing to accept Hillary's crimes and pay for play?

 

Hillary is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. As far as "over the top" criticism ... that's the kind that gets publicity and it's been part of Presidential politics since Bill Clinton held the office.

 

Of course not. I know the usual behavior for folks on this board and in politics in general is to get behind your team and cheer (or defend) every little thing they do no matter how crappy it is. I'm not that guy. I voted for Trump and have supported many of the policies he's espoused and attempted to enact but I'll call it how I see it when Trump and/or the republican part does dumb crap. And on this one, he screwed the pooch...in my humble opinion.

 

Lost opportunity imho that hopefully Trump learns for next time. "But the children!" response from his critics is what I was criticizing.

 

This is the problem with the hardcore Trump people. There's nothing wrong with your view of the hypocrisy of the Left (which does not include Seattle Husker as much as some of you think it does) in ripping Trump for politicizing a speech while celebrating the blatant social (and borderline religious) indoctrination that happens every day in taxpayer-funded institutions. Totally fair to bring that up, and you're right. They're hypocrites.

However, bringing up Hillary's sleaziness in this context is nonsense. She's out of the picture now because she lost the election, so how is she relevant? And what purpose is served by bringing her up other than to change the subject?

 

Trump: Boy Scout head called my speech 'the greatest'

 

Never said or implied it was relevant. I asked cause the author went all righteous. Just curious if the author was equally righteous about Hillary. He answered my question (which I "liked"). Two can play this game: why do you feel entitled to butt into other people's conversation?

 

But even that is a moot point.

I feel entitled to comment, because this is a public forum. You comment on what you want to comment on, and I do the same.

 

Repeating what a famous person once said: "I feel entitled to comment, because this is a public forum. You comment on what you want to comment on, and I do the same."

 

That doesn't make it any less moot.

 

Isn't wishing or expecting Trump to act differently and then reacting with outrage when he doesn't equally moot? That was my point.

 

That's fine, but it's still a clear diversionary tactic.

 

That actually sounds like Melissa McCarthy doing her "Spicy" talking about that speech. Sometimes his words echo what you'd expect to hear in North Korea. Like this: “That was a standing ovation from the time I walked out to the time I left, and for five minutes after I had already gone..." I mean even Barry doesn't get that kind of reaction at Sooner booster clubs. "5 minutes after I'd already gone." What a narcissist.

Why does he have to lie about the inconsequential things?

http://www.newsweek.com/boy-scouts-...was-greatest-speech-was-ever-made-them-645232

The Boy Scouts of America is disputing President Donald Trump’s claim that group leaders told him his was “the greatest” speech that was ever made to them."