Jump to content

Obama not speaking in person at Jambo

Recommended Posts



Exactly. It's not a matter of freedom of speech (which basically means that the government can't stop speech) but a matter of being courteous. Yes, the Scouts had a right to boo, but they should have been courteous enough not to boo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am not a fan of Obama and feel that he disrespected the scouts by choosing to attend The View rather than Jamboree. However, I do NOT condone the booing. I have stopped scouts from badmouthing political leaders from both parties. I tell them it's okay to disagree with someone's point of view, but they need to be courteous about it.


Also, if security was the real reason why Obama didn't attend Jambo, then that reason should have been told. I feel like it was a slap in the face to choose to go on a talk show that could have been done anytime, when this is the only time we will ever have the 100th anniversary of BSA celebrated at Jamboree. I agree with those who feel it's better that Obama did not attend, but he is an intelligent man and surely could have come up with a worthy reason for skipping Jambo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would wager that a large percentage of those complaining the President did not attend would be complaining just as loudly had he done so, and security related issues had made the show unbearable in some manner. Let's be honest; most of the ones upset are not happy with "anything he does".


Time to drop it, and try to remember what is really important; living the Oath and Law to the best of our ability, and teaching our wards the same if possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. It's about teaching the kids that there are thing in life that you have a right to do (like boo the President) and the right thing to do (which would be to show respect for the office of the president, despite your feelings, and behave in a Scout like manner) and that those two things are often in conflict with each other. It's easy to talk about engaging in civil discourse but putting it into practice can often be a tricky proposition. The earlier that you can learn to do that, the better off you'll be...especially as a leader.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Everyone, I just got back from Wood Badge and spoke about this to two people from my Patrol who just got back from Staffing National Jambo. I was told by both that the scout weren't boooing the President, but something else. This something slips my mind for the moment, but it has something to do with the organizers or something. It was explained to me.. but WB took a lot out of me..



Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, just passing along some information I got.. I wasn't there, but like I said I spoke to a couple of Staff members who were there.. Any How, The idea of Scouts and Scouter booing anyone is in bad taste and breaks the Law of the Scout. I hope that some of these words are getting filtered down to those who did this, and I hope they can see some light. I didn't vote for the man, and I don't like him as a president, but I'd never boo him.. nor any other person. And from another thread where I read a parent decided to wait to turn in his son's Eagle Project so as to get this President's signature instead of the last one is also wrong, and should be ashamed of himself. Scouting is no place for politics, and those who wish to play the political game should maybe think about getting involved in something else.. not scouting..


Just my 2 cents.. but a hard earned 2 cents..



Bob White

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about snarkily commenting that if the Boy Scouts didn't boo President Obama, then the Democrats didn't boo the Boy Scouts back in 2000. But that got me thinking. The one question that keeps coming to mind is "who's watching the watch dogs"?


We need to become a lot smarter about how we process information in this super-saturated media world. The first step is to question what we're being told by the media - no matter whether it's Network, Cable, Newspaper, Newletter, Magazine, Radio, or Internet. We need to gather as much facts as we can before making our judgements, and more importantly, be willing to modify our opinions when new facts emerge. We also need to start thinking much more critically of the facts that we are given.


Back in 2000, the "watchdogs" reported that the Democrats booed the Boy Scouts during their convention. Of course when it's reported in that matter, we immediately think all the Democrats booed the Boy Scouts. We learn through other sources that it was actually a small part of the delegation of the State of California that booed the Boy Scouts. While they were rightfully excoriated for their actions (they have free speech - but they should have been more respectful of a group of young Scouts that had volunteered their time to be part of an exciting event like this - we should be grateful that the Scoutmaster reported that in all the excitement, neither he, nor he believed, any of his Scouts heard the booing). Was it right to condemn all the Democrats for the action of some? Of course not.


And such is the case here - what's reported is that the Boy Scouts booed President Obama. Now we all have learned that it wasn't all Boy Scouts, that it seemed to be concentrated in one general section - but even in that section, the vast majority of Scouts were very respectful - yet there are some "watchdogs" attempting to paint this as all of the Boy Scouts booing the President. Is that fair to the Boy Scouts? Of course not. But we can be more rational and take just those that booed to task (and yes, they have free speech rights, but they should have been more respectful of the Presidency).


But then again, maybe we shouldn't. Maybe I should rethink my statement that the Scouts that booed the President aren't Eagle Scout material. Perhaps self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship there is because it can lead us to convoluted thinking elsewhere. I'm referencing the latest twiddle-twaddle about the community center that will be built in lower Manhattan - a few blocks away from Ground Zero (and let's be clear, it's not being built "at Ground Zero" and it's not a Mosque being built, it is a cultural/community center being built - there will be a prayer room, but a prayer room is not a Mosque - there are chapels in hospitals for prayer but no one calls a hospital a Church - and something most people know - there is already a Mosque a couple of blocks from Ground Zero - it's been there for years - but no one wants to talk about that, do they?). In the latest, we have GOP politicos standing up and saying they support the Constitution and they agree that the Constitution gives this religious group the right to build what they're building where they're building it - but that they should be "more sensitive" and not build it there. In other words, they're saying "You have the right to build - but we'd prefer you don't exercise your Constitutional rights". What could that lead to? Will they be telling us that we have a right to vote but would prefer that we didn't exercise that vote?


So given that, should we be telling the Scouts they have a right to boo, but we would prefer they didn't exercise those rights? I guess that's what I'm talking about when say when we get more information, we need to rethink our opinions. It wasn't until I saw the comments from some politicos suggesting that some people just shouldn't exercise their Constitutional rights that I started wondering if my earlier opinion holds up.


So we know that it was a small group of people at the 2000 Democratic Convention that booed the Boy Scouts. Those of us that comdemned (and still condemn) the entire Democratic Party for that really need to re-evaluate, as do all of us who are lumping the expressive few who booed the President into all Boy Scouts.


I also mentioned needing to think more critically about the pablum we're being spoonfed (and the media is doing that). The controversy started because a certain media outlet trumpeted that Obama was skipping the Jamboree because he was going to appear on The View instead. Since we don't take the time to do our own research, people are quick to jump on that as fact. When we do the research, we learn that The View is filmed live at 11:00 am Eastern Time in New York City. We learn that the Arena Show at the Jamboree started at 8:00 pm Eastern Time. New York City is about 250 miles from Fort A.P. Hill. With minor stops, that's just a 7 hour drive. But with that kind of distance, the President is on a plane - and that's a flight of a bit more than an hour - there would have been plenty of time for the President to make the arena show after filming The View. What we also learned is that the BSA was told the President had a conflict because he was attending a couple of DNC fundraisers that night in New York City (which is why he was able to fit The View into his schedule). So when we put all this together and think about it critically, we have to come to the conclusion that the "headline" about the President appearing on "The View" and not the Jamboree is just manipulation of the worst kind. And it can be very hard to admit to ourselves, let alone others, that we have been manipulated. Of course, that shouldn't stop us from wondering why he attended fund raisers instead of the Jamboree - but that's a completely different conversation then, isn't it - and not as "sexy" to certain segments of the media since most people would just yawn and go about their business.


So as we move on, let's agree on a few things for the future:


* Only a portion of the California delegation to the 2000 Democratic National Convention booed the Boy Scouts (which is their Constitutional right) - and we aren't going to allow all Democrats to be condemned for those people's actions.

* Only a portion of the Boy Scouts at the Jamboree booed the President(which is their Constitutional right) - and we aren't going to allow all Boy Scouts to be condemned for those Scout's actions.

* That the President could have easily appeared on The View and at the Jamboree on the same day and that the whole issue of The View is a red herring being used by some in the media and blogosphere to cynically manipulate us and public opinion, and that we will speak out against this kind of manipulation when we see it.

* That the "But it's the 100th anniversary of Boy Scouts" argument is just another kind of manipulation since the only possible response is "so what?" and the only possible answer is a circular argument ("so what?" "It was important!" "Why?" "Because it's the 100th anniversary of Boy Scouts" and on and on and on).

* That being asked not to exercise our rights under the Constitution is the most injurious attack on the people.


I know this is long - I got on a roll - but I felt it was something I had to put out there.



Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow up with my theme on getting new information and changing thinking - to walk the talk so to speak - Ken is right (and wrong). President Obama was indeed invited to speak at the Jamboree opening, which was in the morning - so the timeline I provided would be incorrect (the 8 pm show was the closing arena show, not the opening arena show). Mea culpa.


However, to say that President Obama was "scheduled" to appear is just flat out wrong. The Boy Scouts didn't schedule President Obama to appear, though they invited him to appear, because the Boy Scouts (by their own admission) were told that he would be out of town and would be unable to appear. He was previously scheduled to be at an event in Edison, New Jersey, and fundraisers in NYC in the evening. The President, according to his schedule, didn't leave the White House until 11:45 am - and went to New Jersey. The folks from The view adjusted their schedule to film in the afternoon. So the original point still holds - he did not dis the Boy Scouts to appear on The View. Believing he did so is still buying in to the media manipulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget the BSA knew for -two months- he would not be coming, yet kept the charade up that he would be coming until the rumors started going around AP Hill during Staff Week that he wasn't coming and then sneaking it in the Leaders' Update that it would feature a speech by Robert Gates. Then they went from there by having the President's face on the Patch of the Day. And then quietly made it known, through some random spokesperson, that the President had indeed notified them 2 months before that he wouldn't be coming following the Wednesday Arena Show. That sounds like quite the way to rile up the folks instead of giving them the actual story and reality ahead of time. How many kids would have not been quite so disappointed had the lack of POTUS been revealed when it was known he wasn't coming? Or was it better for the BSA's party line of "he doesn't support us!" to let the charade go on?


So, no, it's not like the President called up Bob Mazzuca at 10PM Tuesday and said "Yeah, no, I've got a date with Barbara Walters tomorrow morning. Say hi to the kids!" He was likely never scheduled for anything in the shows, and that was made abundantly clear by the BSA playing his video-taped message as intermission filler on Saturday night. Because Ted Nugent and random b-list celebrities deserved their 1-minute slots of video board time in the actual 100th Anniversary show more than the President of the United States did.


Again, Duty to Country, indeed.(This message has been edited by Bando)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...