July 27, 2017

That was a nonapology from the leader of the Boy Scouts.

All day, I've been seeing that there was an apology, and I just got around to reading it:
I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree. That was never our intent. The invitation for the sitting U.S. President to visit the National Jamboree is a long-standing tradition that has been extended to the leader of our nation that has had a Jamboree during his term since 1937. It is in no way an endorsement of any person, party or policies. For years, people have called upon us to take a position on political issues, and we have steadfastly remained non-partisan and refused to comment on political matters. We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program.
The leader (Michael Surbaugh, the Chief Scout Executive) is obviously reacting to criticism. He knows there are people who were offended, and he's mollifying them. It's not the most exaggerated form of nonapology, because he doesn't say I'm sorry if you were offended or I'm sorry that you were offended, but he's speaking to the offended and showing that he cares about their feelings.

It's also missing the most important element of an apology: An admission of wrongdoing. In fact, Surbaugh argues that the Boy Scouts did everything right. They were completely politically neutral, making the same invitation to the President that they always make and not intending for the President to inject any politics into the event. I'd say Surbaugh's purpose here is to defend the Boy Scouts and concede nothing.

Interestingly, Surbaugh does not even say that the President did wrong. The President got the standard invitation, accepted it, and showed up and said what he decided should be said. He was given a speech opportunity and he operated independently of the Boy Scouts, who just gave him the platform. He was free to speak, and, as is often the case, some people think he made some bad choices. What Surbaugh seems to care about is that the President's choices about what to say not be attributed to the Boy Scouts, because he, understandably, doesn't want any political positions to seem to belong to the Boy Scouts.

(It reminds me of cases in which a public school gives the valedictorian the podium at graduation and the valedictorian, given a speaker's slot, chooses to thank Jesus. The school isn't endorsing religion, just following a neutral policy of giving a forum to the student with the highest grades. In that situation, the school has an obligation to avoid taking a position on religion, and the valedictorian, speaking for herself, is free to thank Jesus. That can be accepted as perfectly fine.)

Something else that makes what Surbaugh said not a real apology is that there's nothing about the future. It sounds as though the Boy Scouts are going to keep doing what they've done since 1937 and invite the President to speak and that the President will be on his own. Surbaugh doesn't even say he hopes that the criticism the President received this year will influence Presidents in the future to keep politics out of the Jamboree speech. He just regrets that it happened this time. Regret is an element of an apology, but only one of several elements.

Conclusion: That was a nonapology.

92 comments:

mccullough said...

Some cruel neutrality from the head of the Boy Scouts

Big Mike said...

It's a nonapology precisely because the Boy Scouts of America have nothing for which to apologize.

Ann Althouse said...

"It's a nonapology precisely because the Boy Scouts of America have nothing for which to apologize."

No. It's a nonapology because it expresses a belief that they have nothing for which to apologize.

Whether the belief is true or false is irrelevant to whether it's a true apology.

People apologize all the time for things they don't need to apologize for.

Chuck said...

I am good with calling this a "nonapology." And I love this Althouse analysis, which is sparkling as usual:
"I'd say Surbaugh's purpose here is to defend the Boy Scouts and concede nothing."

I thank that's right. And what is Surbaugh supposed to say, beyond the notion that, We at the Boy Scouts have offered these presidential invitations for years and years and years, with the understanding that no president would ever be so crass as to turn it into a campaign-style rally. We've learned our lesson, and perhaps now we will wait for the next Current Occupant to offer up another invitation. Or perhaps not invite presidents anymore. Pity.

Chuck said...

"I think that's right..."

Spellcheck didn't catch that one. Sorry.

fizzymagic said...

You're completely correct. It was indeed a non-apology. But in this case I think it was exactly the right non-apology. It's a veiled reproof to those who insert politics into absolutely everything.

Had the Boy Scouts invited President Obama to give a speech (and for all I know they did) and he inserted politics into it (and for all I know he did) then these same people to whom the "apology" was given would have fallen all over themselves about how wonderful it was.

The non-apology was not intended for its putative recipients. It was a message to the rest of us pointing out the hypocrisy and self-serving nature of the criticism.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Chuck gives us the PC slither answer. Pity.

Paco Wové said...

"We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program."

I detect at least a slight chiding of the POTUS in that statement.

Jim at said...

The BSA - an organization the left absolutely loathes - now becomes some sort of sacred entity not to be besmirched by the ickyness of politics.

Mind you, this is the same BSA the left has been pummeling with THEIR politics for decades.

Pound sand, leftists.
You have no standing.

Unknown said...

The BSA should have reminded the WH communications team the protocol for delivering a speech at the Jamboree be non-political.

If the BSA did remind the WH and Trump ignored it, it is not the fault of the BSA.

If the BSA did not remind the WH then it is the BSA's fault.

People in positions of power have to take responsibility. On 2nd thoughts we are talking about the Trump-age ... Fuck it, do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.

tcrosse said...

Is it a true apology to apologize for the actions of others beyond one's control ?

Gahrie said...

That was a nonapology.

As it should have been.

And much more polite than "fuck off" which is what I would have said.

Ann Althouse said...

"I detect at least a slight chiding of the POTUS in that statement."

Or it's the usual nonapology regret: the regret that some people were offended.

Gahrie said...

Had the Boy Scouts invited President Obama to give a speech (and for all I know they did) and he inserted politics into it

Obama gave a taped speech to the Jamboree in 2010. It was under two minutes.

Drago said...

"Lifelong republican" Chuck was going to join the Boy Scouts, but he decided not to after he found out there was no Boy Scout Draft.

Drago said...

Chuck: "I am good with calling this a "nonapology.""

We won't know for sure until we get the Boy Scout chief and all his assistants under oath for questioning.

Gahrie said...

The Left has been imposing politics from the outside world on the Boy Scouts for thirty years......what's their beef?

John Constantius said...

Personally, I think the BSA were quite pleased with the politics that Trump inserted into the event. And I suspect they will be quite pleased for him to continue to do so again in future.

Apologies notwithstanding.

For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with them (him).

Gahrie said...

I was kicked out of the Boy Scouts and my whole troop disbanded. True story.

Troop 219 RAF Lakenheath, England.

Gospace said...

Ann Althouse said...
"It's a nonapology precisely because the Boy Scouts of America have nothing for which to apologize."

No. It's a nonapology because it expresses a belief that they have nothing for which to apologize.


They have that belief because the Boy Scouts of America have nothing for which to apologize

Bay Area Guy said...

The proper apology -- by John Cleese in "A Fish Called Wanda"

Mark said...

I've not seen the text of the speech.

But I am guessing that what Trump said was totally in line with what the Boy Scouts themselves have said . . . until just a few years ago.

How dare he!

Meade said...

Boyscoutsgate.

Feste said...

Sufficiently vague and ambiguous to reveal more about those who want to justify Trump than to understand Surbaugh’s statement. I don’t know Surbaugh. I don’t have access to the short, annotated, heuristic - “700 Volume Desk Reference to Surbaugh’s Motives.”

“ ... sincere apologies... political rhetoric that was inserted ... President to visit .. since 1937 ... no way an endorsement of any person ... We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program.”

Failure on this thread: to consider equilibria the other way – that Surbaugh might be ‘Kaepernick-aware’ of a President who brags about firing and keeping people out of jobs.

Middle ground - Surbaugh loves Sessions.

Suit yourself. Read this as you want - to justify or attack Trump.

My read - welcome relief from hyperbole and bi-polar partisanship.

Clyde said...

#NotSorry

Feste said...

Correction:

"Sufficiently vague and ambiguous to reveal more about those who want to justify - or attack -
Trump."

Birches said...

I still don't understand how this was a controversy. Breaking News: Trump gives speech that sounds like Trump. Followed by fake outrage by people that wouldn't be caught dead at a scouting event these days. It's so predictable. And then the moral preening by those who want to show that they are not BadPeople like Trump and virtue signal that yes, Trump is beyond the pale. We already knew all of this, why do we have to do this every week?

Ann Althouse said...

"They have that belief because the Boy Scouts of America have nothing for which to apologize"

All you are saying is that you agree with the belief. The truth of the belief remains irrelevant to the question whether the statement was a really an apology.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I really hate the double standard. The right politics = STUNNING AND BRAVE. The wrong politics = HOWLS.

I unfollowed Penzey's Spices, from whom I have bought from years, on Facebook because I was so annoyed by their sanctimony, pompousness and self-importance. You sell spices. You're not some magical oracle. But that doesn't stop them from adding the following onto an add for a box of spice mixes:

I wish it was over the top to be asking if government by, of, and for the people will be passed on to the next generation, but this truly is the struggle of our day. On one side is Republican and Russian leadership, Fox News, and their fellow propagandists. On the other is 241 years of American history, culture, and yes, Soul. My hope is for the Soul, and that is exactly what this box celebrates, and might I say it celebrates it in mighty good taste.

Midnight Monday ends our big—honestly too good of a deal—offer on our Brand New Penzeys American Heart and Soul boxes


I love how left wing politics are always welcome and no one ever has to apologize or even question whether they are in the right.

Ann Althouse said...

By the way, I have not watched or read Trump's speech. I guess I should but I just haven't gotten around to it.

Unknown said...

For the left, who are running around calling the Boy Scouts "Hitler Youth" right now, to complain about politics from the Boy Scouts, is simply astonishing.

We all know that if Trump had gone there and told them to mandate that every troop leader was gay, the people criticizing him would be over the moon.

They don't care one whit about politics, just the wrong kind of politics. Just like politics in religion: The Reverend Jesse Jackson can promote the left all day long, but when the Mormon or Catholic Church says that such and such practice is a sin and has been for all of human history, somehow that's politics and not religion.

--Vance

Unknown said...

It's the same with the howls about "Corporate money in politics! Always evil! Koch Brothers! Praise Apple, Google, and Microsoft for bullying states over LGBT issues--they are doing good work! Punish those states, good corporations! And Hobby Lobby should be seized by the government because they dare to have the wrong politics!"

--Vance

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

*or even question whether they are in the right by holding forth, no matter whether it's an appropriate venue or not.

It's so disrespectful. It's the same argument I made when a few drama friends were all heart-eyes about the cast of Hamilton lecturing Pence. I'm sorry. Your politics are your own, and if you talk about them as though they are the definition of correct while everyone else in the room who may not agree with you just has to listen, you are an arrogant, blinkered, pompous asshole. And this always seems to go in one direction only. I rarely been lectured from a right wing perspective and it happens DAILY from leftists, or as we call them in my house, Know-Betters.

Sebastian said...

Minor correction: it was an FU nonapology.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Vance--yes, this exactly.

Michael K said...

The speech was very popular at the Scout meeting.

The executive is bleating out an apology to donors who might be offended although almost all of those have left.

The left's war on the Scouts continues undiminished.

Jason said...

Forget nonapologies. I do nanopologies. Very small apologies. For my microaggressions.

So small you can't even see them.

tcrosse said...

The truth of the belief remains irrelevant to the question whether the statement was a really an apology.

So we have two questions:
Was it a true apology ?
Was an apology called for ?

Althouse raised the first question but not the second, but then I'm just a poor old country non-lawyer.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

This is the apology: "I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree. That was never our intent. ... We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program."

The part in the ellipses was an explanation not an apology, but the Boy Scouts official is certainly apologizing for the insertion. You can say that the use of the passive voice subtracts from the apology, but does it? It seems to me they have apologized for exactly the right thing.

As far as "there's nothing about the future", that's not true. In the whole statement beyond what's quoted here, the true spirit of Scouting is offered as the remedy.

Achilles said...

The scouts invited obama. They will invite Trump next year too.

Trump will get cheers and ovations again.

Democrats will ignore the invites because enough scouts will ask them if they believe they are Hitler youth and it will be embarrassing.

LLR's will be mad that someone defends the scouts and the scouts appreciate it.

Bill Peschel said...

The scouting leader handled himself with class. He said exactly what he meant to say and he said it politely. Notice that not once did he use the term "cockholster."

Nowadays, that's a class act. We need more of that.

Meade said...

"In 2010, a jury ordered that the Scouts pay $18.5 million to a Scout who was abused in the 1980s—it was the largest punitive damages award to a single plaintiff in a child abuse case in the US."

For decades, the BSA covered up thousands of cases of sexual abuse and molestation of boys by adults in the organization. If you want to apologize for something, apologize for that.

Feste said...

"In 2010, a jury ordered that the Scouts pay $18.5 million to a Scout who was abused in the 1980s—it was the largest punitive damages award to a single plaintiff in a child abuse case in the US."

Ouch. Missed that one. Punitive - feel the pain. Usually means the stink of intent. Need to study that one.

Add that to something Michael K said about donors.

I don’t know the funding base for the Scouts. Proportions of support relative to political party. In a tight election like this last one (popular vote), with an $18.5 million judgment, paid or unpaid, maybe a fine, fine, fine line to thread the needle on just how to characterize Surbaugh’s ‘statement.’

Or how he ought make it.

Still majors in ambiguous to me. Enough to drown myself reading the tea leaves.

Michael K said...

For decades, the BSA covered up thousands of cases of sexual abuse and molestation of boys by adults

I don't know about thousands but I assume to insertion of gay scoutmasters was supposed to fix this ?

Fabi said...

"We won't know for sure until we get the Boy Scout chief and all his assistants under oath for questioning."

Don't make me blow perfectly good Scotch out of my nose!

wwww said...


I found the situation depressing. My family has been involved in scouting.

The Scouts have nothing to apologize for. The President is the honorary leader of the Scouts.

The President should not have politicized his speech. The implication of lewdness by the builder of Levittown was not appropriate.

And he shouldn't have cussed.


Rusty said...

Unknown said,
"People in positions of power have to take responsibility. "

Yeah. Like for fast and furious, Black Panther voter intimidation, and Benghazi.
It isn't so much that you believe yourself a moral person, but that your morals are so fungible.
Trump is a rogue. He is the lovable rascal who we all know is lying. he lies with a wink and a grin and nobody gets hurt. he knows you're in on the joke. It's just tall tales. Paul Bunyan. Davy Crocket.
Compare that to Obama's lies.Hurtful lies-You didn't build that. If you like your dr you can keep your dr.Lies when the truth would be better served. Lies backed up with the police power of the state, IRS, NSA. Comforting lies to the left. To which fascism is an option. Progressivism with a lead lined glove. Lies for your own good. Lies in your best interest.
And I'm always drawn to this question. it's the first thing that comes to mind when faced with the moral inconsistencies of the left.
What is it about fascism that you find so compelling?

Meade said...

"I don't know about thousands but I assume to insertion of gay scoutmasters was supposed to fix this ?"

Maybe. Child molesters are rarely gay. And gay men rarely molest children.

buwaya said...

"The speech was very popular at the Scout meeting.

The executive is bleating out an apology to donors who might be offended although almost all of those have left"

Boy scout contacts say, yes, extremely popular, especially with boys, even the CA contingent.
However, the danger is indeed to donors who are still donors. They fear that these will be leaned on, as that's what's been happening. Also the providers of venues (a very important matter) in SF the Boy Scouts have had a very difficult time finding places to organize, save Catholic Schools, even today.

Ann Althouse said...

I'm finally listening to the speech.

Most of what he's saying is appropriate to the occasion and it's very entertaining and the crowd obviously loves it.

He goes off on a few things about his work, but it's a small part of the speech.

The "Hitler Youth" problem is incredible bullshit: He's talking about Boy Scout values of love for country and service to others and they chant "USA USA." If that scares some people, they seem to be out of the mainstream. I don't think it does liberals any good to get allied with the kind of lefties who are disgusted by this kind of celebration of patriotism.

And I just think it's mean of adults to take something that was so exciting for the kids and insist that it was actually horrible.

Meade said...

2 years ago, the Boy Scouts of America lifted its national ban on gay adult leaders. President Trump's Jamboree address 2 days ago can fairly be seen as an endorsement of the BSA's new liberalized policy.

Paco Wové said...

I guess the real test will be whether the invitation is extended again next year.

RonF said...

I was on staff for the National Jamboree this year. I had to cut my commitment short to only one week, so I was not there in person when the President spoke. I did listen to the speech on Youtube. I have read some information about the speech from the Jamboree staff. The speech was submitted to National Council. If you actually listened to the speech instead of just reacted to what people are saying about what you'll find is that President Trump made numerous excellent remarks about how the B.S.A.'s values and activities align and reinforce American ideals, how success comes from hard work and perseverence, etc.

The problem came from a standard device in such speeches in spots where it essentially says "[insert personal comments here]". That's where the speaker relates a story or commentary that personally links experiences from his own life to the point being addressed in general. Those were among the spots where Trump put in political commentary instead.

The B.S.A. is not responsible for the inappropriate components of the President's speech, so it has no reason to apologize for them. What were they supposed to do? Cut off his mike? Go out there and tackle him? The Secret Service would have taken a dim view of the latter, at least. Not invite him? That in and of itself would have been political advocacy.

I will say that it's rather hypocritical for the left to claim that Trump was out of bounds for injecting politics into Scouting. These are the people who booed when a group of Scouts - as they have for decades - were onstage to present the American flag at the 2000 Democratic Convention. Trump's predecessor chose to go on an episode of The View rather than travel all of 47 miles to go to the 2010 Jamboree during the B.S.A.'s centennial year. The left has relentlessly and with malice aforethought politicized the B.S.A. over social policies to the point that they can no longer even run "Get Out The Vote" campaigns because of claims that the B.S.A. is trying to promote voting by one demographic group over another by doing so. I think that Trump's political comments were quite inappropriate but the Democrats can go stuff it - they started it.

Meade said...

"Also the providers of venues (a very important matter) in SF the Boy Scouts have had a very difficult time finding places to organize, save Catholic Schools, even today."

BSA ended the ban on gays at a national level but allows religious groups to retain exemptions based on personal beliefs.

RonF said...

Paco - the National Jamboree is held once every 4 years. If Pres. Trump wins a second term he'll be invited to appear in 2021.

What's going to be very interesting is that in 2019 the World Jamboree will be held in the same location. The World Jamboree, also held once every 4 years with the exception of WW II (and 1979, when it had been schedule in Iran ...), will be in the U.S. for only the 2nd time and the 1st since 1967. I wonder if he'll be invited to speak ....

Sebastian said...

"If that scares some people, they seem to be out of the mainstream. " So far. But they are trying to use the mainstream media, the mainstream universities, the mainstream judiciary, the mainstream voluntary association to pollute the actual mainstream. They are succeeding.

"I don't think it does liberals any good to get allied with the kind of lefties who are disgusted by this kind of celebration of patriotism." Which liberals praise this kind of celebration of patriotism? Which liberals opposed the supposedly very different hate-mongering vilification of Trump and the BSA?

"And I just think it's mean of adults to take something that was so exciting for the kids and insist that it was actually horrible." "Mean." Yes. I suppose. In a manner of speaking.

Unknown said...

The Boy Scouts are doomed, because they collapsed and gave in to the leftists on gays.

The single biggest supporter of Scouting in America is and was the LDS Church; and they begged and pleaded with the Scouts not to cave. The Scouts caved. They tried to split the baby by saying they weren't going to force church scouting groups to put in gay scoutmasters, but that only bought them some time.

The LDS church is moving away from Scouting, and they make up something like 48% of all units. That's on the heels of most "fundamentalist" churches also moving away. That's what, likely 75% of all Scout units?
"On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law. To help other people at all times, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." By giving the LDS and other churches the middle finger and forcing scouting to violate the "Morally straight" part of the Scout Oath, they sold their soul.

By burning their bridges with the churches, what's left for scouting?

--Vance

exiledonmainstreet said...

I Have Misplaced My Pants, I am a former Penzey's customer too. He lost my business during the Walker recall, when he printed an anti-Walker screed in one of the newsletters. But he has said he doesn't want Trump voters as customers, so he doesn't need my money anyway.

Let me recommend the original Penzey family business, The Spice House, which sells some of the same spice blends. The quality is just as high. The Spice House is owned by Bill's sister, Patty Erd. Bill started Penzey's Spices after their parents died and he became estranged from his sister. She has said publicly that while her politics are different from her brother's leftism, she doesn't believe in pushing her own views onto people who only want to buy lemon pepper and dry rubs.

When I went into the Milwaukee store, I made a point of telling them I had stopped buying from Penzey's because of Bill's lectures and screeds, and the woman behind the counter said, "We're gotten many new customers because of Bill Penzey."


https://www.thespicehouse.com/

RonF said...

fizzymagic: "Had the Boy Scouts invited President Obama to give a speech (and for all I know they did)". They did. He sent a video in 2010, which got booed because the Scouts knew he blew them off to do an appearance on The View. He was certainly invited in 2013. He didn't show. I don't know if he sent a video.

John Constantius: "Personally, I think the BSA were quite pleased with the politics that Trump inserted into the event." No, they weren't.

Meade: "For decades, the BSA covered up thousands of cases of sexual abuse and molestation of boys by adults in the organization. If you want to apologize for something, apologize for that."

They did. And they have instituted training and reporting procedures that are now the model for other youth-serving agencies.

I suppose I should note that I was a Scout from the ages of 8 to 20 and have been a Scout leader for the last 25 years in various capacities at the Unit, District and Council level. I have some familiarity with the organization's function and history and some contacts at various levels.

Ann: "And I just think it's mean of adults to take something that was so exciting for the kids and insist that it was actually horrible."

That's what the left does. The ends justify the means, and the means are to be accomplished by any ends.

Meade said...

I was a Boy Scout in 1968. If LBJ had addressed a jamboree I attended, talked about "boy scout values" and then inserted the politics of his handling of the Vietnam War, I'm sure he would've been roundly booed.

Meade said...

"For decades, the BSA covered up thousands of cases of sexual abuse and molestation of boys by adults in the organization. If you want to apologize for something, apologize for that."

RonF said... "They did. And they have instituted training and reporting procedures that are now the model for other youth-serving agencies."

I commend you and BSA, Ron. Thank you and please keep up the good work.

Kevin said...

"And I just think it's mean of adults to take something that was so exciting for the kids and insist that it was actually horrible."

The people complaining that Trump politicizes everything are generally the ones politicizing everything.

The non-apology was not only warranted, it was more than they deserved.

Rick said...

It's also missing the most important element of an apology: An admission of wrongdoing.

It should be missing such an admission largely because they actually did nothing wrong. Inviting the president to speak is perfectly acceptable, what he says is on him. Fools calling them Hitler Youth are outing themselves as extremists and fools.

Obama made political speeches in front of children all the time. People on the left don't see it that way because they think their political beliefs are just common sense and thus apolitical. But we see they hypersensitivity when the subject isn't to their liking.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

exiled--that is so great to know! Thanks!

Chuck said...

Drago said...
"Lifelong republican" Chuck was going to join the Boy Scouts, but he decided not to after he found out there was no Boy Scout Draft.

I was a Boy Scout. After having been a Cub Scout, Order of the Arrow. I was a Life Scout, and I think I was about four merit badges and one service project away from being an Eagle Scout.

Rick said...

Meade said
For decades, the BSA covered up thousands of cases of sexual abuse and molestation of boys by adults in the organization. If you want to apologize for something, apologize for that."


I went up to see who brought this irrelevant issue into the conversation, disappointing to say the least. Did we link public school teachers molesting their students to Obama's creepy schoolkid loyalty songs?

readering said...

When you begin with, "I want to extend my sincere apologies . . ." either it's an apology or it's insincere (or both).

Ralph L said...

If he had criticized Trump directly, it would have injected the BSA into politics.
I noticed he didn't even try to apologize to the Like Hitler Youth crazies.

There was a senior leader/merit badge counselor (they called them something different then) who gave me the creeps. He wasn't in a troop but helped with several. Now it occurs to me he might have had Asperger's.

They now call Explorers Varsity Scouts.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Meade said...
"I don't know about thousands but I assume to insertion of gay scoutmasters was supposed to fix this ?"

Maybe. Child molesters are rarely gay. And gay men rarely molest children.
7/27/17, 6:33 PM

By definition, if a man is molesting boys, he is homosexual.

Jim S. said...

Ann, now that you've heard Trump's speech do you think the non-apology was appropriate?

Jim S. said...

It would have been funny if he'd said, "I'm sorry we didn't vet the President's speech beforehand."

Jason said...

Maybe. Child molesters are rarely gay. And gay men rarely molest children.

This is utter garbage. A pretty little lie people tell themselves to cover up the ugly truth. Child molesters are frequently gay. And gay men are even more frequently child molesters.

About a third of all child molestation victims are male. The percentage female child molesters is small. That means about 1-2 percent of the population is responsible for about 20-30 percent of the child molestation.

The gays are punching way, way above their weight in numbers here.

Meade said...

"By definition, if a man is molesting boys, he is homosexual."

Could be. Still, overwhelmingly, most child sex abuse is committed by heterosexual adults.

Meade said...

Unlike the way Clinton and Obama, for decades, openly supported the stigmatization of gays, I think President Trump has been on the right path of equal rights and normalization for... as long as I can remember.

Meade said...

"That means about 1-2 percent of the population is responsible for about 20-30 percent of the child molestation. "

Could be. But that 1-2 percent is overwhelmingly not gay. It is straight males molesting girls.

Jane the Actuary said...

It was a nonapology, but the great thing about it is that it was directed at fools who don't understand how apologies work anyway. So I'd say it's a win -- except for the risk that those same fools come to the conclusion that they own the Scouts.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Great points, Meade.
Hey, how do relative ratios work, again?

Most mass murders in the US aren't committed by Islamists, so Islamic terror shouldn't be a concern here.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Fetishizing young, at-best-adolescent boys definitely isn't a well known part of a certain "lifestyle." The acclaimed author of the celebrated play "the vagina monologues" didn't feel comfortable enough with the trope of older homosexuals inducting young children into sexual behavior to include a scene of exactly that (in a non-judgemental/celebratory way) in her play.
Nope. All cultures and subcultures are exactly alike. Thinking otherwise is a certain sign of bigotry and nothing else.

fizzymagic said...

"That means about 1-2 percent of the population is responsible for about 20-30 percent of the child molestation. "

Meade: Could be. But that 1-2 percent is overwhelmingly not gay. It is straight males molesting girls.

We were talking about the molestation of Boy Scouts. How is this relevant in any way?

Gospace said...

Meade said...
"That means about 1-2 percent of the population is responsible for about 20-30 percent of the child molestation. "

Could be. But that 1-2 percent is overwhelmingly not gay. It is straight males molesting girls.


The most dangerous place for a young girl to live is in a household with a single mother and her unmarried boyfriend. The second most dangerous is with her mother and stepfather. Creepy uncles are the standard trope for child molesters, but among the least common.

If you can remember the past when the media was all in an uproar about the Roman Catholic Church and child molestation? It was called child molestation to cover up the fact it was mostly post-pubescent teenage boys being abused by homosexual priests.

Ad for how often older females molest young men- well, I suspect the numbers are far higher then reported. There are websites devoted to showing female teachers who've slept with their "victims". I suspect the vast majority of underage males who manage to sleep with an older woman do not report it. Because they don't feel molested.

Drago said...

Meade: "Could be. Still, overwhelmingly, most child sex abuse is committed by heterosexual adults."

Simple. Overwhelmingly the population is heterosexual (despite what you see on TV/ads/etc.).

The only reason to use absolute raw numbers instead of ratios when comparing unique population subgroups is usually to obfuscate something.

Usually.


Jason said...

Umm... the 1 to 2 percent of the population I referred to are all gay males.

Holy crap, I thought that was fecking obvious.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Meade, the question I always have about gay Boy Scout leaders is: would you not be suspicious of a straight man who was dying to take young girls out camping? Perhaps not so much if he had a daughter in the troop (or if a gay man has a son in the Boy Scout troop).

I think men provide valuable guidance to kids and I hate that fears of being falsely accused of sexual abuse have kept good men from being teachers, Big Brothers, Scout masters and so forth. Unfortunately, there is no surefire way of knowing who the creeps are vs. the decent guys.

openidname said...

How many Scouts and Scout families were "fer" Trump's speech? And how many were "agin"? From the news coverage, there's absolutely no way to tell.

Professional lady said...

I also stopped buying Penzey's Spices. I don't need or want their annoying preaching either. Also, I bought their taco spice mix and it was mostly salt. It made my tacos so salty they were practically uneatable. When I read the jar, the first ingredient listed was salt - that's not a spice mix, it's a salt mix.

iowan2 said...

Like screams from the left of RACIST!, or, HOMOPHOBE!, ETC, This claim about our President speaking 'out of school' assiduously avoids the facts of what exactly the imagined slight consists. Facts can be used against the accusers, and we can't have that. As several that bothered to read, or in this case, watch, President Trumps message to the Boy Scouts noted, the Message was very up lifting, and motivational to the Boys in attendance.

This like almost all things, President Trump, is a fake kerfuffle, amplified by the media into something unrecognizable, from the event itself. Nothing more than a hijacked vehicle, used by the establishment to keep a phony narrative alive.

Happy Warrior said...

The definition of apology from Webster's 1828 dictionary (since I don't have access to the Althouse-fabled OED) demonstrates that, as described in this post, the statement by the Grand Scout Master was an apology. Apologetics in divinity school is a class on defending the faith; arguing why something was the right thing to believe, do, say, etc.

APOL'OGY, noun [Gr. discourse.]

An excuse; something said or written in defense or extenuation of what appears to others wrong, or unjustifiable; or of what may be liable to disapprobation. It may be an extenuation of what is not perfectly justifiable, or a vindication of what is or may be disapproved, but which the apologist deems to be right. A man makes an apology for not fulfilling an engagement, or for publishing a pamphlet. An apology then is a reason or reasons assigned for what is wrong or may appear to be wrong, and it may be either an extenuation or a justification of something that is or may be censured, by those who are not acquainted with the reasons.

What it wasn't was asking forgiveness, which would entail acknowledging that the act was wrong, and asking the listener to forgive the doer of the wrong.

Dude1394 said...

He has nothing to apologise for. Unless the Boy Scouts no longer want to invite anyone to their gatherings.

If the parents have a problem with the speaker, take it up at the ballot box. The Boy Scout leader should never admit wrongdoing by inviting POTUS to speak.

RonF said...

Ralph L.:

"They now call Explorers Varsity Scouts."

The divisions of Scouting are:
1) Cub Scouts - boys from 1st grade through about the middle of 5th grade.
2) Boy Scouts - young men from about the middle of 5th grade (or 11 years old if they were not Cub Scouts) until their 18th birthday.
3) Varsity Scouts - A program for young men ages 14 to 18 that concentrates on high adventure (backpacking trips, wilderness canoe trips, etc.)
4) Venturing - for young men and young women from the ages of 14 to 21.
5) Exploring - This used to encompass both what Venturing is now as well as career-oriented/special-interest topics (e.g., Law Enforcement or EMS). The split occurred about 20 years ago if memory serves due to lawsuits against the Chicago Police and Fire departments that were objecting to their sponsoring of Explorer Posts because the BSA did not (and does not) permit atheists to be Scouts. Exploring is now part of the Learning for Life division (next point) and like Learning for Life does not use the Scout Law and Oath or other aspects of traditional Scouting such as uniforms, etc.
6) Learning for Life - a program usable in schools from grade school through high school that "utilizes programs designed for schools and community-based organizations that are designed to prepare youth for the complexities of contemporary society and to enhance their self-confidence, motivation, and self-esteem, and for careers." Wikipedia has a page on it if you're interested in more info.

RonF said...

Every adult registered in Scouting has to take Youth Protection training, and they have to re-take it every 2 years or they are refused re-registration (Scouts and Scouters all have to renew their registration as members every year). It covers what the B.S.A.'s policies are to prevent child molestation within Scouting and how they are to be enforced, how to report violations (basically immediately, first to the cops and then to Scouting and for the latter you're provided with a local number to call that is answered 24 x 7), and how to recognize signs that a young person may be being subjected to molestation outside of the Scouting environment and how to report that.

One of the major elements is two-deep leadership. At any gathering of Scouts there are always to be at least two adults present, one of whom must be a Scouter (an adult registered as a member of the B.S.A.). The idea is that they will keep an eye on each other. No adult can meet with a Scout out of the sight of other Scouts and Scouters - if a private meeting is necessary for discipline or consultation they can move out of earshot but not out of sight. There are other policies as well.

Fernandinande said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
gay Boy Scout leaders


The homosexual child molesters don't want you to know they're homosexual child molesters, so you wouldn't know they were "gay" in the first place. An "out" guy in pink hot pants probably isn't interested in kids.

A good friend of The Woman had all five of her grandsons molested by a guy - grandma's friend - who seemed completely average, although some people got weird vibes from him.

Sam L. said...

The BSA can't keep the President from saying what he wants to say.