The Boy Scouts

The Boy Scouts Of^In America

So..The Boy Scouts are “removing” boys in favor of being gender neutral. They’re now calling themselves Scouts BSA and are allowing girls entrance and membership. Many Americans are worried about the Scouts making other fundamental changes.

A New Scout Oath?

On my honor I will do my best to be politically correct, to establish safe spaces, to fill all gender-diversity quotas, and to check my toxic micro-aggressive make privilege, so help me Whatever.

Well, The Old One Was “Offensive”

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; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Yeah, let’s me see. The actual Scout Oath invokes God, Country, references Morality, and uses the word “Straight.” So…Christofascist, Nationalist, Intolerant, and a dog-whistle / trigger for Homophobic.

Honestly, given how many changes in core organizations of America have been forced through political correctness and other expressions of oikophobia, misandry, and anti-White racism, I can understand the concern. I just think it’s misplaced this time.

Boy Scouts Then and Now

BSA’s Venturing, Sea Scouting, and Exploring programs – all for the problematical ages of 14-20 – have been coed for some time with no newsworthy issues. Venturing and Exploring have been coed since 1971.

Also, Cub Scout “dens” will be single-gender, with separate groups for boys and girls, allowing the organization “to maintain the integrity of the single-gender model while also meeting the needs of today’s families.” Or, as like to put it, to minimize the exposure to- and exchange of “cooties.” 😉

I just can’t see where the addition of the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts will suddenly cause an issue for the BSA or for concerned Americans. Sure, they could suddenly go all PC but, as they haven’t really bowed to most of that so far, I’m not worried about it much at all.

No, the only ones who are having and going to have more of a problem with the Boy Scouts going coed is the Girl Scouts. They’re already incensed because they’re staunch advocates of single-gender scouting, believing that only in a male-less organization can girls be safe and thrive.

Girl Scouts is the best girl leadership organization in the world, created with and for girls. We believe strongly in the importance of the all-girl, girl-led, and girl-friendly environment that Girl Scouts provides, which creates a free space for girls to learn and thrive.

The benefit of the single-gender environment has been well-documented by educators, scholars, other girl- and youth-serving organizations, and Girl Scouts and their families. Girl Scouts offers a one-of-a-kind experience for girls with a program tailored specifically to their unique developmental needs.


So, the Girl Scout are still a She-Woman Man Haters Club, to riff on a staple of Our Gang, with boys not being allowed to join – except for case-by-case exceptions for full lifestyle T-Girls, and men only allowed in troop leadership positions with heavy restrictions, e.g., never being allowed to be in the presence of the troop’s girls with at least one non-related woman present at all times. So, just the all-to-normal anti-male prejudices and double standards once again at play in society.

And, of course, there are no great, or even noticeable, numbers of people who want the Girl Scouts to change the sexually exclusive policies…though many wanted the Boy Scouts to change theirs. Yet, I don’t believe this is political correctness winning over Boy Scouts’ traditions or anti-male ideology trumping fairness in the case of the Girl Scouts.

Pragmatism Over Ideology

Simply put, I firmly believe that both the Boy Scouts’ choosing to allow girls to join the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, and the Girl Scouts’ anger and strident vitriol over it are primarily rooted is pure pragmatism and the organizations’ respective existential realities.

Scouting, much like youth sports, is in sharp decline. The Boys Scouts are down to about 2.3 million scouts from a peak of more than 4 million, and the Girl Scouts have dwindled to 1.8 million members from a high of 3.8 million. So, in my opinion, this is just the Boy Scouts taking a deliberate step to increase its odds of surviving into the next generation.

Similarly, the Girl Scouts’ complaints, while couched in the terms of special privileges, special “needs,” and misandry, are more than likely fueled by the fear of their organizations’ demise due to no longer seeming to have a monopoly on girls’ scouting.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

Someone Call Red Bull

Some call Red Bull. Obamanomics is in a flat spin and falling groundward at 177 feet / second. Someone needs to give it wings or something before it splatters all over the nation.

Someone Call Red Bull. They seem to be able to give anything wings
Obamanomics – No Gentle Landing Foreseen

Red Bull and Felix Baumgartner seem a better choice than the Federal Government and Obama, though Felix is certainly not as articulate as Obama. He seems to favor results over rhetoric.

Of course this is a perennial problem with amateurs. No matter how often their told that 90% of chute failures are due to poor body positioning, they’re still likely to get it wrong the first few times.

Obama - Head Up Ass
Head Up Your Ass – The Keynesian Position

Yeah, someone call Red Bull and Baumgartner or – and here’s a thought – let’s throw the worthless little failure out of the White House and replace him with someone who understands business economics and whose desires are more likely to encourage the private sector to grow again.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Who Pays My Debts?

Obama doesn’t believe – or claims during his ongoing campaign that he doesn’t – that business create their businesses. Instead, the boy says that someone else did that.

That begs the question of who pays for a business’ failure. If someone else built that business, are they, or should they be, responsible for paying off its debts if and when it goes under?

If I fail, who pays my debts?
If I Fail, Who Pays My Debts?

The answer, of course, is that the business owner and only the business owner is responsible for paying his company’s debt in the event that his business fails. While, according to Obama, he is never responsible for its success, he is responsible for its failure.

In what passes for the Liberal mind, profits are to be socialized via confiscatory taxation but risks are to remain purely privatized. The collective mind demands accolades but spurns jeers, whether either come from individuals or the impersonal forces of the market.

Caveat: Size Matters

This all changes when the business is a very large corporation.In those rarefied, “too big to fail” instances, it will always be the tax payers that get saddled with the failed business’ debts. And, of course, the government will step in to determine just which creditors – their donors and supporters – actually get paid and which get told to shut up or face the consequences.

Tags: | | | | | | | |

American Genius

American genius is nigh on axiomatic across the globe – or, at least, it was. It doesn’t seem to be anymore and I’m not sure when, where, how, or why we lost our inventive genius.

Inventive Genius - A Lost American Art form
Inventive Genius – A Lost American Art form

C’mon! This shouldn’t be a “motivational poster.” It should be de rigueur in America. Our nation was built upon our seeing a need – or creating one – and building some widget to fulfill it.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

Rapid Capitulation

As several people including Jennifer at Order in the Quart! have informed me, it took under a week for Komen For The Cure to capitulate to the baby killers’ screaming and reinstate funding to America’s number one abortion mill, Planned Parenthood. So the abortionists won this round and proved to themselves that they had enough useful idiots to enforce their anti-life agenda.

One the brighter side, approx. 1500 poor women per year will be able to be referred by Planned Parenthood to breast cancer screaming service providers.

For those Americans who understand that abortion is the murder of the most helpless and only guaranteed innocents in the world – and who are actually against it even if childbearing inconveniences some females, Komen’s rapid capitulation to the abortionists in painful and maddening. There are, however, other points to consider in this matter.

Do Not Act As They Do

Komen For The Cure’s mission is stated as the eradication of breast cancer, not the ending of on-demand abortions in America. The two things are not related beyond the simple fact that both are “women’s issues.” It just doesn’t make sense for Komen not to reverse their decision in the wake of the Feminists’ shrill and strident objections because not doing so could jeopardize the success of their mission.

Anger should be directed at those Feminists who placed on-demand abortion above women’s health, not at Komen. Remember always that it was exactly these Feminists who called for Komen’s destruction for not supporting abortion. Americans should not sink to their antisocial level and similarly put the fight against breast cancer in jeopardy.

Market Forces In Action

Utterly irrespective of whether we, as Americans, like Komen’s giving in to the abortionists, this was a direct case of free market forces in full operation. It was empirical proof that, in the absence of governmental intervention and meddling, people can directly impact and change the course of business. Certainly, we don’t have to like this specific occurrence but we must respect it for what it was.

Enough of Komen’s consumers were against the new funding policy to potentially negatively impact Komen’s revenues enough to make a difference. Komen responded as is required by the free market and, unless we’re willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we have to understand and accept that.


Many of us donated to Komen For The Cure when they donated approximately 0.17% of their annual outlays to Planned Parenthood, which funded only 4% the breast cancer screenings Planned Parenthood provided, and I can’t see the point in turning away from them just because they tried to change that and failed due to market pressures.

Our domestic enemies might be comfortable behaving that way, but we should be better and more intelligent than that.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |