SSF

The only people throwing around vitriol are you and your pals. I'm not using all caps or bolding my words..getting a bit miffed are we...? Like typical liberals and leftists, you and others here can't seem to accept facts or reality, and you choose to attack anyone who does not agree with you. That article you shared says the exact same thing as the Hollywood Reporter article that I shared...nothing new there. It says the movie under performed tremendously. They were just a bit less harsh and direct in saying so. If you want to support "The Force is Female" Star Wars movies go for it. That's your right. Just like it was my right and that of thousands of others this past weekend not to go see Solo because we did not want to be force fed a lesson in feminism and gender politics. Disney underestimated the power of people voting with their wallets, and now they're realizing that they have a problem... Let's not split hairs. Solo under performed badly so Disney needs to figure out if they want to stay the course with Kathleen Kennedy and her "Force is Female" agenda, or reconsider their approach so that they can appeal to far broader audiences. Logic would dictate that they chose the latter. BTW...you didn't have any comments on the "Force is Female" photo I shared...is that still something that I made up myself? It also seems that so many on this board are so bent out of shape over this because you're somehow equating Disney's new Star Wars with girls in the Boy Scouts; i.e .my criticizing Kathleen Kennedy's Star Wars is attacking the idea of girls in the Boy Scouts. Yes, I and others think the idea of girls in the Boy Scouts is absurd. Nonetheless, the special interests got their way and quietly and discretely made that happen.

Resorting to pettiness,...nice, sure fire sign that you have no real, valid arguments...thanks for validating that Now, that's my final word on this

Did you not see the one headline I shared...that was from the Hollywood Reporter. There are lots of others from other trades and outlets that say the same exact thing. I rest my case there. Sorry you're upset. Do get together with Latin Scot and Chadmus and make plans to see Solo again a few dozen times, if that makes you feel better.

You read more than a dozen articles on Star Wars everyday....? Wow, that's really something...I hope you and the 501st Rebel Legion (no idea what that is) continue to enjoy doing that if that's what your floats your boat. We can each have our own subjective interpretations on Solo, or the Last Jedi or any Star Wars movie, but the fact is that Solo under performed tremendously at the box office. For a big budget blockbuster movie that is part of the (arguably) most successful movie franchise in history a forecasted $400 million take home (and thats before marketing costs) makes this movie a flop. I know that's not what you want to hear but that's the reality. And, that's not "my reality," it is simply the reality of the situation. The movie is a bomb because people do not want to be force fed gender politics in Star Wars. You and a few others, including the ladies in the photo below, may enjoy that particular take on Star Wars, but a lot of other moviegoers who would have otherwise chosen to have spent money on this movie - if not for the injection of feminism, gender politics and extreme social agendas - chose not to do that. For the record, the person who created the "Force is Female" was none other Kathleen Kennedy . Here she is in a photo...I guess this wasn't in one of the dozen articles you read daily though. What's especially interesting with regard to Star Wars and the BSA, is that while an elitist group chose to impart their own views, perceptions and agendas on a well established franchise/organization, with zero regard to the feeling of those who supported and held dear the franchise/organization, for many decades, through sheer strength in numbers, those supporters were able to have an impact. Time will tell what changes, if any, may be coming. Can the same happen for the BSA? I've said my peace here, so this is my last word on this thread.

I'm glad you've enjoyed Disney's take on Star Wars, but the number of fans who share your opinion is shrinking fast. Please don't try to confuse the issue. We're no longer talking about The Last Jedi's box office returns, we're now talking about Solo's box office returns...and in the greater scheme, how the opinions of the majority can be so easily cast aside by an elitist minority, who believe that "The Force is Female" and that girls should be in the Boy Scouts. (For the record, I would be equally opposed to including boys in the Girl Scouts.) As I noted, yes, The Last Jedi, made a lot of money, but moviegoers were so put off by the gender politics injected into the movie, that they are now turning their backs on the Star Wars franchise. The whole point of my post was to point that out. Perhaps you did not see that part of my post. Disney and Lucasfilm's have also had zero respect for the original mythology of Star Wars and its original characters - Luke, Leia and Han; each of whom were disrespected and desecrated in the Last Jedi and Force Awakens respectively. That also contributed to many fans choosing to no longer support Disney's progessive taken on the Star Wars franchise. Disney/Lucasfilms had forecast that Solo was going to do $170 million in its opening four day weekend, and even that was far less than any other Star Wars opening, but Solo barely managed to break $100 million dollars. Take a look at he snippet below from the Hollywood Reporter, posted just a few hours ago. There are countless others like this one. Does it sounds like they're calling Solo a blockbuster hit? Lucasfilm and Disney are facing a moment of reckoning. Over Memorial Day weekend, they were jolted when Solo: A Star Wars Story battled hard to hit $103 million domestically and bombed overseas with $65 million. The film badly trailed the launch of fellow stand-alone pic Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, which debuted to $155 million domestically in 2016 on its way to topping $1.056 billion globally. At its current rate, Solo may not gross much more than $400 million all in after costing at least $250 million to produce before marketing. Yes, Disney and Lucasfilms have a lot of future Star Wars productions in the works. The question is will they continue to embrace this "Force is Female" agenda or will Disney reconsider that approach given that a lot of moviegoers are simply not interested in that and want their Star Wars movies, TV shows, comics, etc. to be devoid of extreme social agendas. Solo (also labeled online as Soylo, So-Low and So-No) is just the first movie to experience the impact of this backlash from audiences. Many fans are already now labeling the new Boba Fett movie, Beta Fett If you want to see things through rose colored glasses and believe that Solo is a mega blockbuster and all is honky dory with Disney's "Force is Female" approach to Star Wars, then that's your choice, but the reality is the reality.

Thanks for responding and for these insights on Star Wars. I do agree with your take on what the BSA should be. I appreciate that you're a Star Wars super fan and apparently an ardent supporter of the new Star Wars movies launched under Kathleen Kennedy. I myself am definitely no super fan of Star Wars (of any generation) by any means. I think you're mistaken though, if you think that the Star Wars "juggernaut" will continue given it's current trajectory. The Last Jedi made a lot of money because people went to see it in good faith, expecting that it would be a good movie. Instead what they got was a bad movie laced with overt gender politics and leftist social agendas. If you enjoyed it, that's great. I'm glad you did, but most people were very put off by the movie. Yes, artistic differences are subjective and can be open to interpretation, but box office returns, budgets and financial figures are matters of fact. Disney, and Ms. Kennedy, injected feminism and their 'progressive' views into the Star Wars universe and for The Last Jedi, they upped the dosage and that's now backfiring on them. Plain and simple. You can ignore that if you want to, but the reality is the reality. People just want to see Star Wars. They don't want Kathleen Kennedy's "The Force is Female" take on Star Wars. Bear in mind that Disney is all about profit and right now Solo is not nearly profiting to the tune that they would like it to, since the majority of fans who turned out for The Last Jedi chose not to waste their hard earned money on Solo. It wasn't the marketing, it wasn't the Memorial Day weekend opening, it was the fact that people simply did not want to pay to be force fed (no pun intended) a lesson from Kathleen Kennedy and Disney on gender politics. They learned their lesson after The Last Jedi and weren't going to fall for that twice. Only time will tell, but I would venture to guess that Disney's pursuit of $ will drive some changes in the way that they approach Star Wars. Yes, a movie franchise and an organization for boys are distinctly different but to my original point, both chose to alienate their bases of longstanding supporters and proponents by embracing a feminist agenda and, I think it's safe to say that sadly neither the BSA or Star Wars are flourishing right now...can these trends be reversed and what will it take to do that? I personally do believe that Star Wars, in pursuit of $ will change its course, eventually, but I don't believe the BSA has any plans to deviate from their current heading.

I'm very sorry that this has happened to your son and to your family.

I started n Cub Scouts, Earned the Arrow of Light. Went on to Boy Scouts and earned Eagle. I was an Ordeal member of the OA (guilty of sash and dash). My older son is an Eagle Scout and my younger son recently completed his Eagle Scout service project and final merit badge. He's now working on submitting his Eagle application. Once finished, we will be washing our hands of the Boy Scouts of America/Scouts BSA. I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of girls in the Boy Scouts of America. I would be equally opposed to the inclusion of boys in the Girl Scouts. Although we're strongly opposed to the inclusion of girls in the Boy Scouts, that is not the primary reason why we are walking away from the BSA. There are a lot of very good people in the BSA, but there are also far too many adults and leaders who are in this for all the wrong reasons.

Late last year I wrote a post on the comparison between the feminist and social justi.ce themes being injected into the Star Wars franchise; which seemed to mirror the BSA's 'progressive' decision to allow girls to join the BSA While The Last Jedi movie faced greatly mixed reviews from critics, longtime Star Wars fans and new, progressive Star Wars fans; the financial success of that movie could not be disputed. Many longtime fans who were deeply put off by the overt feminist and social justice themes and undertones of the Last Jedi, however, swore to no longer support the Star Wars franchise given its current direction. The Solo movie, which opened this weekend, is now being called the first Star Wars flop ever due to its extremely low opening box office numbers, as many of these ardent, longtime Star Wars fans, chose not to support Disney and Ms. Kennedy's progressive take on the Star Wars universe, by voting with their wallet and not seeing the movie (myself included). Is it likely that changes will be made to Disney's take on the Star Wars universe given this financial hit? Should the BSA expect a similar financial hit, over its decision to allow girls to join the BSA? I know that many on this board are championing the inclusion of girls in the Boy Scouts, but are there enough of you who share that view to outweigh the number of Americans who simply feel that the inclusion of girls in the Boy Scouts of America, is political correctness run amok and ultimately a huge mistake?

What does "initial time" mean? Was there an agreed upon time to meet?

So what would you regard as a good indicator? Just skimmed the comments and the overwhelming majority are heavily opposed to girls in the boy scouts. Do you think that most Americans are 100% onboard with girls in the BSA? Maybe all those comments expressing opposition were written by imaginary people...yes, that must be it...the people opposed to girls in scouting are imaginary. They don't really exist and neither do their opinions.

Mike Surbaugh has done everything listed here...all before breakfast

I remember having fun doing Pioneering. Lifesaving was the most meaningful for me though

At bare minimum, a Swimming MB instructor should be Lifeguard Certified (ARC, YMCA or BSA)...again, that should be a bare minimum standard. A caveat to that, is that the person should be fully Lifeguard Certified and not hold the shallow water "lifeguard" certification, which in my opinion, the American Red Cross should not even offer. ARC WSI (Water Safety Instructor) is a more ideal standard for swimming MB counselors. Competitive swimming and coaching experience is most definitely a huge plus, albeit not completely necessary at the goal is for the boys to become proficient swimmers...not to become the next Michael Phelps. Just as a fun fact, many of the "lifeguards" at Walt Disney World have only completed Disney's own shallow water certification. They only have to swim 50 yards!! to qualify for that certification...that's kind of a joke. That's not to say all Disney lifeguards are certified for shallow water only, but I would venture to guess that a lot of them are (probably the ones working at the top of the slides and at the lazy rivers). Granted, Disney needs a lot of lifeguards...and all of their guards (at least from what I've seen) do appear to be very vigilant and observant, which is extremely important. All of this said, let your boys take the merit badge at summer camp. This is practically a rite of passage for boys in their first or second year...don't use "it might rain" as an excuse for the boys in your troop to not take the badge at summer camp and be grateful that they no longer have to do the clothes inflation.

You're wrong. Please spare me your semantics. The intention of "strong manner" is very clear, but you can go ahead and nitpick the wording if you want to. You wont be helping that boy to be a better swimmer, you'll just be enabling him to get by with poor swimming ability. If a kid is doggy paddling his way through any portion of either the BSA swim test or the swimming MB 150 yard swim, then that is not swimming in a strong manner. If he can't make his turns continuously and must stand up and/or take a pause or break after each 25 yard length, then that is also not swimming in a strong manner. I f he is constantly shifting from one stroke to another and may be flipping onto his back because he's too weak and/or out of shape to complete the swim using the proper prescribed stroke required, then that is not swimming in a strong manner. If at any point during the swim, his body is more vertical than horizontal - in which case he's then no longer swimming but rather treading - then that is also not swimming in a strong manner. No semantics and no enabling

I am glad to hear that. Good work.

You should work on improving your swimming.

"Strong manner" is hardly subjective. It's pretty straightforward.

I was talking to a friend recently who got as far as Star and even though he loved being in scouts he lamented how much he regretted not making a greater effort to go after Eagle. Not to be facetious...but seriously, what would scouting be without advancement...a group of boys just hanging out, occasionally going camping, hiking, fishing, etc., playing dodgeball...where and when would they learn first aid, ecology, pioneering, orienteering, swimming, civics, lifesaving, emergency preparedness, develop personal fitness, healthy family dynamics...the list goes on There are actually scouts who do genuinely want to advance and who are very proactive and diligent in working on rank advancement, however, rather than be applauded for their ambition and willingness to go the extra mile to advance, they're chastised as being overly eager or labeled as being "forced" to advance by mom or dad (which may be true in some cases, but hardly all cases), etc. and labeled as 'paper Eagles' or some other nonsense like that. If a kid wants to just hang out and not do anything towards his advancement, then that's his decision. Conversely those boys who are willing to put in the time, effort and commitment to advancing, shouldn't be denied the opportunity and labeled as someone who isn't in scouts for the right reasons. Being an Eagle does mean something. To me, it really comes down to being willing to put in the additional time, effort and work needed to earn it. This is why so many Life scouts simply don't achieve the rank. They don't go the extra mile to do the project, complete whatever remaining merit badges they need and just decide that they're content with being Life for life, or Star for Life...or 1C for life.

Triggered...?

Sounds like censorship and thought policing; i.e. the only views and opinions that are accepted are those of the ruling party, the all powerful BSA in this case Feel free to downvote me

I'm sure it's been done, but I think there are things you do with your family and there are things you do with your troop, and WDW definitely falls into the former...in my humble opinion

You're saying that I should look at my own beliefs...not "politics"...but rather my beliefs. Your beliefs are right and mine are wrong...? That seems to be what you're saying. I know the difference between right and wrong, morality vs. immorality and that, in the sad state of the world that we live in today, common sense, traditional values and truth take a back seat to sensitivity, political correctness and the social justice drivel that's undermining our society. This Iowa guy is part of the problem, not the solution. That's my belief. You can have yours. I'll have mine.

Would he be willing to put his politics aside for traditional American families? My gut tells me he wouldn't