Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Scouting ties in the Trump Administration


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#41 RememberSchiff

RememberSchiff

    Your Friendly Neighborhood ModeratorMan

  • Moderators
  • 2822 posts

Posted 19 December 2016 - 06:05 AM

Does National wait until the National Annual meeting in May to name a new Honorary President?

 

IMO during Scout Week in February with abundant social media attention, National should dispatch select groups of scouts with invitations to Jambo, etc. Whoever we want - the President, Cabinet members, famous Eagles, etc. invite them during Scout Week.

 

We might even get a Scout display in the Trump Tower lobby. :D

 

Another $0.02,


Edited by RememberSchiff, 19 December 2016 - 06:16 AM.

  • 0

#42 hiker67

hiker67

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 66 posts

Posted 19 December 2016 - 04:58 PM

Donald Trump led a spit and polish life in military school, played sports, and worked construction during the summer. If he had had the time, I think Donald Trump would have made a very good Boy Scout.

 

Trump followed up on the military school with five draft deferments and, later, berating John McCain for being captured in Vietnam.


  • 3

#43 hiker67

hiker67

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 66 posts

Posted 19 December 2016 - 07:02 PM

Does National wait until the National Annual meeting in May to name a new Honorary President?

 

IMO during Scout Week in February with abundant social media attention, National should dispatch select groups of scouts with invitations to Jambo, etc. Whoever we want - the President, Cabinet members, famous Eagles, etc. invite them during Scout Week.

 

 

The naming of the honorary president is probably automatic -- it has happened for every US President since Taft.  I assume the President, as well as past and present BSA national presidents, board members and major donors are invited to the Jamboree as a routine.  There may be a good chance that Trump attends the Jamboree this year, as the G20 summit will occur weeks earlier.


  • 0

#44 RememberSchiff

RememberSchiff

    Your Friendly Neighborhood ModeratorMan

  • Moderators
  • 2822 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 06:13 AM

The naming of the honorary president is probably automatic -- it has happened for every US President since Taft.  I assume the President, as well as past and present BSA national presidents, board members and major donors are invited to the Jamboree as a routine.  There may be a good chance that Trump attends the Jamboree this year, as the G20 summit will occur weeks earlier.

The method of invitation may need some reconsideration. Consider

 

Setting the Record Straight Presidential Visits to the BSA National Jamboree

 

"Of the 18 National Jamborees that have occurred (not counting the cancelled 1935 National Jamboree and combining both 1973 locations into one event), a sitting President of the United States of America has only attended 7 times. That’s only about 39% of the time."

 

Interesting information in that link.

  - The first National Jamboree was to occur in 1935 but was canceled due to a polio outbreak. FDR attended the rescheduled first National Jamboree in 1937.

  - Before elected President, General Eisenhower attended the 1950 Jamboree as a speaker. He only attended one while President.

  - Nixon attended two Jamborees as VP but none as President.

  - The most/least Jamborees occurring during a Presidency: Eisenhower (3), Kennedy and Ford (0)

  - Longest consecutive streak of unattended Jamborees by a sitting President: 5 (1969-1985)

  - While serving as President, Obama, Carter, and Reagan never attended a Jamboree.

 

The only sitting Cabinet member to attend, that I found, was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.


  • 0

#45 SSScout

SSScout

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4012 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 09:50 AM

""The only sitting Cabinet member to attend, that I found, was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.""

 

Yeah, but did he sleep in a tent?  :-)

 

Hiker67:  You sound like someone of my vintage.

 

  I would point out (in agreement with the College Board Testing Corp.) that the only prediction of future behavior/activities is past behavior/activities.  And that is not always accurate, yes?  Still, if we look at Mr. Trump's past statements, pronouncements and activities and behavior,   what could we expect?   He made his monetary success based on strategically declared bankruptcies and not keeping his corporate word or being really concerned about the ultimate results of his  decisions on other people.   

There are too many times Mr. Trump has stated something as "fact"  and refused to retract or correct his statement when it has been proven incorrect or flat out wrong.  The world really is round. There are too many times when he has denigrated a "type" of person or one individual purely because he has not liked what they said about him.  This is a politician?  Is this someone who is willing to work WITH people toward a jointly beneficial goal?

 

Perhaps we really do get the president we deserve. 

 

"""Politics is the best show in America. I love animals and I love politicians, and I like to watch both of 'em at play, either back home in their native state, or after they've been captured and sent to a zoo, or to Washington."""   =  Will Rogers =


  • 0

#46 RememberSchiff

RememberSchiff

    Your Friendly Neighborhood ModeratorMan

  • Moderators
  • 2822 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 02:15 PM


I would point out (in agreement with the College Board Testing Corp.) that the only prediction of future behavior/activities is past behavior/activities.  And that is not always accurate, yes? 

 

Yes, not always. As Spock reminded us, "Only Nixon could go to China."

 

As OP, my intent was not to find faults of our Presidents, but to discuss our relationship possibilities (Spock again?) with the incoming Trump Administration. With the number of Eagle Scouts in his potential Cabinet, I am hopeful for positive change.


Edited by RememberSchiff, 20 December 2016 - 03:09 PM.

  • 0

#47 NJCubScouter

NJCubScouter

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 6082 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 05:42 PM

As OP, my intent was not to find faults of our Presidents, but to discuss our relationship possibilities (Spock again?) with the incoming Trump Administration. With the number of Eagle Scouts in his potential Cabinet, I am hopeful for positive change.


Without wanting to get into a whole political discussion (which, if we were going to have it in this forum, probably would have been better to have BEFORE the election), I will just say this:

Obviously there are a lot of people in this country who are very concerned about what is going to happen in this country and in the world as a result of this election, and that includes some people in this forum. It certainly includes me. That being the case, the impact of the incoming administration on the BSA is maybe 80th on my list of things to be concerned about.  I am more concerned that our next president is a person who I believe to be mentally unstable, and who is so starved for attention and affection that many bad things are possible if someone offers him the "right" deal.  And that's before I even get to any actual issues.  So if you can think about the incoming administration and opportunities for the BSA in the same sentence, I envy you.


  • 0

#48 RememberSchiff

RememberSchiff

    Your Friendly Neighborhood ModeratorMan

  • Moderators
  • 2822 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 06:23 PM

I can appreciate there are greater concerns than this topic. I had similar concerns about Nixon in '72.


  • 0

#49 hiker67

hiker67

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 66 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 10:30 PM

As OP, my intent was not to find faults of our Presidents, but to discuss our relationship possibilities (Spock again?) with the incoming Trump Administration. With the number of Eagle Scouts in his potential Cabinet, I am hopeful for positive change.

The presence of Eagle Scouts in the administration is positive, but the question is whether or not the President will actually value and consider their advice.  Some Presidents seek input from others and factor it into their decision making -- others do not.  The latter tend to seek individuals who are highly qualified in carrying out Presidential directives, rather than being advisers.

 

I now think that the chances of the new President appearing at the Jamboree may be low.  In the Bryan on Scouting blog post on Rex Tillerson's appointment, no mention of the US presidency or Trump was made:

 

http://blog.scouting...etary-of-state/


  • 0

#50 David CO

David CO

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 838 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 09:08 AM

Without wanting to get into a whole political discussion (which, if we were going to have it in this forum, probably would have been better to have BEFORE the election), I will just say this:

Obviously there are a lot of people in this country who are very concerned about what is going to happen in this country and in the world as a result of this election, and that includes some people in this forum. It certainly includes me. That being the case, the impact of the incoming administration on the BSA is maybe 80th on my list of things to be concerned about.  I am more concerned that our next president is a person who I believe to be mentally unstable, and who is so starved for attention and affection that many bad things are possible if someone offers him the "right" deal.  And that's before I even get to any actual issues.  So if you can think about the incoming administration and opportunities for the BSA in the same sentence, I envy you.

 

Obviously, a lot of people in this country supported the winning candidate, and that includes some people on this forum. 

 

The impact of the incoming administration on scouting is about 80th on my list of things to be happy about, but since this is a scouter forum, it is what I talk about here.

 

Thank you for the envy.


  • 0

#51 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 12207 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 11:10 AM

Give or take a few votes, one could always conclude for the most part our society is pretty much evenly polarized.  It always has been, but how both sides adjust makes the difference.  In the 1860's they had a difficult time accepting a president that only garnered 39% of the popular vote.  For those who have forgotten their history lessons from school, it's going to be a difficult lesson to re-learn.


  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#52 Gwaihir

Gwaihir

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 12:48 PM

Give or take a few votes, one could always conclude for the most part our society is pretty much evenly polarized.  It always has been, but how both sides adjust makes the difference.  In the 1860's they had a difficult time accepting a president that only garnered 39% of the popular vote.  For those who have forgotten their history lessons from school, it's going to be a difficult lesson to re-learn.

 

let's just pray the subsequent years don't repeat themselves as well. 

 

I just wanted to pop in and focus on them laughing at the Boy Scout influence.  I do not believe for a second they were laughing because they find Trump to be in conflict with the ideals of scouting, and more they were laughing because Boy Scouts are quaint and "uncool".  It's rather disappointing.  

Anyway, back on topic. Carry on. 


  • 0

#53 skeptic

skeptic

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1924 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 12:59 PM

Once more I will attempt to add my concern in regard to the Scouting element and its tenets in general.  We call, on the unit level, living up to the tenets as best we can, living the Scout Spirit.  My observations in general over the past few years is that these politicians and "important players" that like to note their Scouting connections, including having earned Eagle, too often do not demonstrate Scout Spirit.  Unfortunately, that seems to fit the general pattern of success for most of them, if stepping on others and taking advantage is termed success.  And, as far as Scouting is concerned, the records of many of these same individuals seems to show less than serious concern for the environment and the outdoor pillars of Scouting.  Just my own opinion of course, but one developed over decades. 


  • 1

#54 walk in the woods

walk in the woods

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 749 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 01:28 PM

Without wanting to get into a whole political discussion (which, if we were going to have it in this forum, probably would have been better to have BEFORE the election), I will just say this:

Obviously there are a lot of people in this country who are very concerned about what is going to happen in this country and in the world as a result of this election, and that includes some people in this forum. It certainly includes me. That being the case, the impact of the incoming administration on the BSA is maybe 80th on my list of things to be concerned about.  I am more concerned that our next president is a person who I believe to be mentally unstable, and who is so starved for attention and affection that many bad things are possible if someone offers him the "right" deal.  And that's before I even get to any actual issues.  So if you can think about the incoming administration and opportunities for the BSA in the same sentence, I envy you.

The RCA shows the problem isn't the person in the Presidency, it's the ridiculous amount of power our spineless congresspersons have abandon to the Executive Branch and the President specifically, and the leviathan monster our federal government has become.   Write your congressperson and demand they take back the power of the Legislative Branch.  Roll back the unaccountable beige bureaucrats sitting in nondescript DC office building writing tens of thousands of pages of law (regulation) every year.  Tell them to roll back the AUMF and use the power of the purse to set the agenda.  Then there's the American electorate, many of whom look to the President to be their savior and/or lawgiver, when given the choice between a politician willing to be bought, an outsider willing to buy politicians, and several other candidates, voted for the lesser of two evils because "those other guys can't win."  If you vote for evil, you get evil....


  • 1

#55 SSScout

SSScout

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4012 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 02:30 PM

"Follow the money"    How much do YOU owe of the National Debt?  How much did YOU OK?    How much will your Grandchildren (Great Grandchildren?)  be paying?

 

Consider...   http://www.forbes.co...2/#17b065dc698e

 

Mr. Trump's  fortune was created in real estate, which has as a credo, "use OPM as much as possible".  Other Peoples Money.   The NatDebt is money that went from us to somebody else.  Who are these Somebodies?  They ain't me.  Who is they, to be ungrammatical?  It looks more and more that we average americans have become the Other People whose money "they" have learned to use.  Public works?  National Defense?  A new F35?  Retired  Social Security folks?    The interest paid on the Natdebt is more than many nations GNP.   This is what will defeat us.  Weimar Republic, anyone?  

 

Oh, I'm sorry, we were talking about Scout connections in the new incoming administration, weren't we?.    Well,  how to encourage (remind?)  those  good people to live by the Scout Law and Promise, "...stick to your Scout promise always – even after you have ceased to be a boy – and God help you to do it.""   As I remember it......

Perhaps that is what we , who hold Scouting as the ideal, should do.  Remind those "Eagles" what they learned oh, so many many years ago.


  • 0

#56 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 12207 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 03:31 PM

In 1929 the economy of the world collapsed because everyone was using OPM.  Debt was rampant and it could not sustain itself.  People don't learn from OPM's (other peoples' mistakes). 

 

What people don't understand is that what they pay in interest every month is a ridiculous amount of their wealth.  Ever consider that over the course of a 30 year mortgage, one pay's for the house 2 if not 3 or 4 times over depending on the interest rate?  Oh, you just paid off your mortgage?  That's a $1000+/month raise and one doesn't even need to talk to the boss.

 

This is the American Way and we all do it, so blaming the government for doing it is nothing more than self incrimination. 

 

People who know better can retire with a net worth of 7 digits and never make over $35,000/year with a post-high school education of 8 years.

 

A scout is Thrifty and that's a Scout Law that gets abused all the way up to the top regardless of whether there's any Eagles in the mix or not.

 

Go into the bank/credit union and ask for a 5 year mortgage with a credit score of 0 (ZERO).  You have no debt, you have no score.  They will look at you as if you just grew a third eye.    They are always relieved when it gets paid off in less than 3 years.

 

Your grandchildren and their children will totally understand the Trillions of dollars worth of debt they are facing and think nothing of it.  They'll probably add to it without batting an eye.


  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#57 NJCubScouter

NJCubScouter

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 6082 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 04:03 PM

Obviously, a lot of people in this country supported the winning candidate...


I didn't want to get into this, but I cannot help myself. A lot of people supported the "winning" candidate, but more supported the "losing" candidate. There's been a lot of talk about this being the "fault" of the outdated presidential selection system we have inherited from the 18th century, but actually the electoral college system would be mostly ok if it were not for the "winner take all" system. The electors should be allocated proportionally by state, which each state could do if they wanted. (And if anyone is wondering, I just looked for calculations of how this change would have affected the election, and yes, it would have made a difference, by a few votes.)


  • 0

#58 NJCubScouter

NJCubScouter

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 6082 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 04:15 PM

Write your congressperson and demand they take back the power of the Legislative Branch.


Writing to my congressman on any subject would be a waste of time. I don't think he makes his own decisions on what to vote for, on anything. I do have to give him credit for once attending an ECOH in my troop, but I got a chance to speak with him for a few minutes and was no more impressed than I had been from afar. He's an empty suit who got organizational support for his rise through the political ranks because his father was a prominent state legislator in the 1940's-60's.
 

If you vote for evil, you get evil....


Not me, almost everybody I voted for this year lost. Actually only one candidate I voted for won, and that was for school board.


  • 0

#59 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 12207 posts

Posted 21 December 2016 - 05:00 PM

Awwww c'mon, A. Lincoln won with a 39% popular vote and very few people today would say he didn't do okay for our country.  Once we get over the idea of what's best FOR ME (JFK said it best) and start looking at what's best for the country (being polarized is not what's best), then maybe things can be less contentious.  Otherwise maybe 2% of the people need die again to make it happen like it did before.  In today's numbers that's 6 million deaths.  Of course, those injured or suffered because of it was far greater.  I don't think people understand the power of their ideologies when it comes to destroying other people.  If they do, this isn't going to end well for anyone.


  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#60 RememberSchiff

RememberSchiff

    Your Friendly Neighborhood ModeratorMan

  • Moderators
  • 2822 posts

Posted 22 December 2016 - 07:01 AM

Meanwhile scoutingmagazine.org reports the renewal the National Park Service/BSA agreement.

http://blog.scouting...l-park-service/

 

To summarize, same old same old - the NPS will continue to do with the BSA what it does with everyone else and the BSA will advertise the agreement. :confused:

 

That said, IMO a deeper examination of the resources and needs of both the NPS and BSA should be done.

  - The NPS "Scout Ranger Resource Stewardship" is geared towards grade school youth; they need not be scouts. And that seems fine for that age group. Here the BSA should approach NPS, "we have this Hornaday Award and this merit badge and... that might be just the thing to incorporate with your NPS Youth Conservation Corps for teens.

    https://www.nps.gov/...ograms/ycc.htm 

  - Why not allow NPS Rangers to sign-off on related environmental/citizenship merit badges? They have had federal background checks. Save them from the becoming a MBC song and dance. The BSA should do this with other professions - medical, teachers, Fire/EMT, police that have the knowledge and existing background checks in place. KISS and get the community more involved in Scouting.

  - Entrance fees. Scouts working with NPS, should get the Educational Fee Waiver instead of the Non-Commercial Group Fee.

  - Realize NPS internships are mostly for undergrad and grad students.

 

Hopefully the incoming Secretary of Interior, an Eagle Scout, will help step up the NPS/BSA relationship.

 

Another $0.02,


Edited by RememberSchiff, 22 December 2016 - 07:14 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


IPB Skin By Virteq