Beavah

What I'm saying is that its very different from all of those other things Then yeh are left with da fact that in the rest of the world, Rovers under the age of 21 can be Scoutmasters (and it's odd for an older person to serve in that role). So now you're left with tryin' to justify an age limit that's based not on any requirement of intellect or maturity, and not on any skill set that is unique to scoutmastering. So what's it based on? I don't think it's kosher to make age-based distinctions between adults. So raising other administrative issues involving younger kids isn't relevant. Children cannot become Scoutmasters, we all agree. And I just don't see how allowing an under-21 Scoutmaster when that's the best choice for a unit prevents selecting an over-21 Scoutmaster when that's the best choice. You'll have to explain that to me again. Both have challenges, eh? Young folks might have to work harder to communicate with parents. Old folks might have to work harder to relate to and be a role model for kids. In both cases, yeh just provide training and support, and take da weaknesses along with the strengths. One or the other might be the right choice depending on the needs of an individual unit, eh? So why is it necessary to take the choice away from the competent adults who are in charge of and responsible for the individual unit? Because that's all a national policy does, eh? It takes discretion away from the local people who know the kids, the families, the candidates, the parents, and the chartered organization the best. Beavah

It is in my best interest that the children in my nation have a proper education. Yah, there's the rub. I agree with acco. So for my part, I am willing to contribute more than my fair share, based on my income, to successful education. I just don't want my money allocated by a bunch of smarmy lawyers who failed at da practice of law (meaning politicians ). I don't know what da best allocation is. I'd be happy if I got to give the money direct to a school or schools. No overhead, and I'd do the work to make sure I gave to schools that would use my dollars well. I'd be happy to give my money direct to individual students as a scholarship, selected by me or by a method I trusted. Again, no overhead, deserving students get the help. I'd be happy giving the money to parents to spend on a school of their choice, so long as da school was accredited by an independent outside agency of educational professionals. No overhead, and parents know their kid's interests and needs better than I do. I'm not very happy giving it to Washington, to be allocated by congress, to be dispersed by da DOE, to be delivered to states, to be allocated and dispersed by the state DOE, to be given to da local district, to be allocated by more politicians, da remaining fraction to be dispersed to da programs that might ultimately reach kids, provided anything selected by a politician will ever really help kids. BadenP is right, eh? A significant fraction of public education is failing, despite a fairly substantive investment. Investing more may be warranted, but why would anybody invest in a system with that kind of record? Even our "best" schools fall behind their international peers. Beavah

Even hints of Nazism there. LOL! I invoke Godwin's Law. B

Again you confuse the issue by trying to bring in legal issues. Yah, sorry about that. Old fellahs like me tend to fall back on da stuff we know best, eh? . All this other stuff about adolescent psychology and whatnot is pretty far afield and harder for me to speak to. Prejudice, though, is what it is, eh? None of us like admitting our biases, but we all have 'em. When we selectively read and remember a couple of small, limited fMRI studies and ignore a much larger and longer term body of cognitive psychology, that's bias. It's not deliberate, eh? We're doing what we all do, reading and remembering the things we like or agree with. Defending da things we like or agree with. Racial, gender, ethnic, age, intellectual, social, and other biases aren't conscious. That's why they're biases. They're hard to recognize in ourselves. I have a bias toward legal thinking. It's a bigger stretch for me to do packsaddle's scientific thinking, and I reckon I'll never figure out how women think. But because we can't easily recognize our own biases, I think we need to be thoughtful about it when others call us up on such things. That's naught more than a friend sayin' "your thinking is stuck in a rut". Teacher/scout did that for me, and she was right. You just did it for me on da legal argument thing, and you are right. I'm trying to do it for some folks on the age thing. But I might be wrong! So, if a person can be (and is allowed to be) a successful school teacher, a successful EMT, a successful professional wilderness guide, etc. at an age of less than 21, by what rational basis other than prejudice can we say that no one in the country under the age of 21 can be a successful SM? Especially when da rest of the world uses young Rovers as scoutmasters. It is courageous to make decisions only if you make them based on what's right and true, against the popular trend or da biases and prejudices of others. Just making decisions that aren't necessary, or making decisions based on popularity or our own bias is not courageous. It's foolish. Do yeh really think da world will end if we just left the decision on who should be SM to the people in the unit and CO who know the program and the people the best? To slip back into legal thinking, don't regulate what yeh don't have to. Beavah

Yah, surprised this thread is still goin' on. Da last few posts convinced me that we're lookin' for something that doesn't exist. Could someone please tell me the Method for first aid? There is no method for first aid, no simple pithy little acronym yeh can tell people that will allow them to be successful treating any group of patients that come along. Could someone please tell me the Method for engineering? For law? For auto mechanics? What's da four-step mnemonic for repairing all cars that yeh can teach a 14 year old in an hour and have 'em be successful? These simple, pithy little models and methods don't exist, eh? They don't exist for first aid, for engineering, for law, for teaching, for anything! If yeh want to learn first aid, yeh have to spend da time learning first aid. It takes learning lots of techniques and lots of mnemonics and how to evaluate a patient and use judgment to choose which technique to apply at any given time. But we expect scouts and scouters to really learn first aid, so we take the time to teach 'em for real. No different for teaching, eh? Beavah

But there's something else that differentiates teachers from Scoutmasters. Or aircraft instructors from Scoutmasters. Or lifeguards from Scoutmasters. Long-term mentoring is only one example of the multiple duties and responsibilities a Scoutmaster has. Oh, come now. Are yeh really trying to claim that da volunteer position of SM is so exceptional that it's something beyond da skills of a teacher, an outdoor guide, someone who trains people in performing objectively dangerous activities (like flying), an EMT, a firefighter, a newspaper reporter, a social worker, and a parent all rolled into one? Because young adults under age 21 can do all of those things, eh? Which is also what gives the lie to the popular press interpretation of "brain research". Those are studies of a few dozen Americans, eh? Hardly a large sample. And if yeh read the fine print, what da work shows is that da growth of brain structures are a result of learning, not a cause of it. If you learn to play tennis, the neurons your brain uses to play tennis will develop all kinds of interestin' changes that show up on fMRI. Only thing is, after a certain age that growth slows, which makes it harder for us to learn. Learn tennis at age 9, yeh learn fast and deep. Learn tennis at age 49, it takes longer and yeh never get as good. Which is another argument for 18 year olds over 49 year olds, eh? They learn new stuff faster and better. Which is why, despite da "brain research" , young adults are successful at all those jobs above that require maturity and judgment. Beav - the mud-slinging and ad hominems is getting in the way ... Yeh missed my emoticons then. Tone is gently chiding with a smiling face, not loudly accusatory. But then go back a ways, eh? "Black and white thinking" was a charge Lisabob and I leveled at young people in da previous thread, that other older adults agreed with. So if that's ad hominem, it was we adults who started it. I was mostly making fun of myself, since I recognized my error and apologized to them. We'll just have to disagree about prejudice. I think judging an individual's capability based on the general perception or averages of their demographic group is prejudice, and just plain wrong. Women on average score lower on tests of abstract reasoning and math/spacial relationships. So should I deny all women jobs that require those abilities? Should the government refuse to offer positions in public engineering schools to women because it makes sense to use a generality when setting policy nationwide for millions of people? Wouldn't we all agree that would be prejudice and discrimination and unjust? So I fail to see da difference between that and what we're discussing here. Most jurisdictions prohibit discrimination against those over age 40 even though the same research you report shows that, in general, those over age 40 are poor learners who have difficulty adapting to new environments. Of course we never want to see ourselves as prejudiced, or admit we're usin' da law and public policy to protect privilege for our own group over others, by making it legal to discriminate against da young but not the old. But if we honestly look ourselves and the data in the mirror and resolve not to lie to our children or our scouts, I think we have to admit our own bias. That's not mud-slinging or personal. It's just recognizing a behavior for what it is, eh? Prejudiced. When I made that generalization of young adults, I showed my prejudice. And I'm making fun of myself for it, so that I don't continue to make that grave error. Beavah

JoeBob, I'm a proponent of free market education, but I just don't get your claim about the federal government above. Every state, and every local school district (if the state law permits) is free to develop their own program right now. Every state and every local district can compete right now. If you're in a state that allows charter schools, they can compete as well. The Feds do a lot of things, but they don't stop states and districts from developin' their own programs. People can and do make district choices when they can, eh? Any real estate agent will tell yeh that. But by and large it's employment not education that determines da state or area of the state folks live in. especially in da current economy with lots of homes under water, folks are pretty locked in in terms of where they live. So they need local, not state-by-state competition. Packsaddle, comparing individual states to nations worldwide on educational achievement would be great! . You'd get all kinds of media play too, eh? Do yeh have the stats to do it? Beavah

I know bio mom or dad could be a perv too, but much less likely Actually, da most common perpetrator of child sexual abuse is the father. Mom and dad together are the most common perpetrators of all forms of child abuse. So perhaps your policy should be that da boys aren't permitted to tent with mom or dad, because stranger abuse is much less likely. Seriously, no BSA unit should be interferin' with what is properly da right and responsibility of a parent: to decide who is responsible for their child at a family campout. That way lies dragons. If you make a child sleep somewhere else against da wishes of the parent and anything bad happens at all, you will be roasted alive. Like several other things we're discussing today, it's just not reasonable to prevent a young child on his first night camping from sleeping with a trusted adult relative. Please consult with your chartered organization before acting on this "policy." If they don't do much youth work, yeh might suggest they consult a competent attorney and/or social work professional in your jurisdiction. Beavah

Yah, packsaddle's the academic, eh? I wouldn't believe what he thinks either. Sure, association is a fundamental liberty, but I didn't see anyone advocate that da government should force the BSA to accept 19 year old scoutmasters. We all know da limit is allowable, just as any private prejudice or black-and-white thinking is allowable. Just as it's also an associational right for the chartered organization to assign tasks to its volunteers, eh? Including assigning all outings, meetings, and PLC work to an ASM. The question raised by the original poster was not whether the BSA's age 21 minimum was allowable. We were asked to discuss whether or not it is justified.. We must ask if it's a good choice or not, eh? Is it ethical? Is it fair? Is it practical? Does it help or hurt program? Is it sensible? Should it be supported? Are our attitudes and policies toward young adults consistent with our Mission and our Timeless Values? We are, after all, the program that advocates for youth leadership. That believes we should never do for a young person what they are capable of doin' for themselves. Beavah

So 16 year old Scoutmasters should be permitted by the same reasoning? Yah, sure. If a court of competent jurisdiction has found that da 16 year old is an adult in the eyes of the law, and the troop community and chartered organization feel after considering all of their options that the person is the best candidate for the job, why would yeh substitute a generic number for such an overwhelming weight of evidence? But movin' off da outlier cases, we were talkin' about 19 and 20 year old legal adults who are engaged to be married, one of whom appears to be a certified K-8 substitute teacher in her second or third year of undergraduate study who knows more about child psychology than most of us here do. I forget MTIB's background other than bein' an Eagle Scout, ALS/WSI trained, which still puts him ahead of many SMs I know and work with. If da parent community votes for 'em (as they almost did) and the COR approves and the kids love 'em, what's the problem? I reckon it's us old folks and our black-and-white thinking and prejudices, eh? Beavah

Interestin', teacher/scout. Is da Meyers-Briggs really stable after age 11? IIRC, Gallup does another personality/strengths inventory for da workplace that's used by a lot of corporations for hiring and placement decisions. I think they determined it was stable down to at least age 14. Meanin' that by age 14 da traits that are important predictors of employment success in different fields are pretty well "set." All da rest is just experience, which like as not is picked up OTJ. Beavah

How many times have you had an 18-20 year old you would have picked (and the COR would have picked) as a SM had you been able to do so? At least a handful over da years. Yep, meaning that would be the best choice for the program and the boys. I reckon there are two questions, eh? Da first is whether the general age limit is just and reasonable in the first place. I'd say not, based on all da things I mentioned - that young adult SMs are common in worldwide scouting, that young people are entrusted with more demanding and responsible positions here in da U.S., etc. Unless yeh feel it's important for a Scoutmaster to be able to drink, an age 21 limit doesn't make much sense to me. The second is even if the generality is reasonable, justice demands exceptions. In general, it's reasonable to expel a youth who brings a weapon to school. However, "zero-tolerance" policies are unjust, because they don't allow for da exercise of judgment when an exception is required. Similarly, even if an age 21 limit "generality" is reasonable for some reason, then there also needs to be provision for exceptions when that is truly the just and correct choice. That's bedrock principle in our democracy, eh? 18 is the age of majority, but the court can grant exceptions. Prosecutorial discretion, jury nullification, and executive pardon all apply even to our most vital criminal laws. Justice demands exceptions. Beavah

An EMT might deal with high-stress, high-stakes situations, but these are typically with strangers in a one-time encounter lasting less than 60 minutes. Not the same thing as building a long term mentoring relationship with a group of youths. Yah, but then I mentioned that da minimum age to be a school teacher in most states is 18. Surely yeh can't claim that being a school teacher does not involve building a long term mentoring relationship with a group of youth! So if society allows a high school teacher to be 19 or 20 years old, and a 19 year old flight instructor can have a long-term teaching and mentoring relationship teaching a 15-16 year old how to fly an aircraft can we really claim that there is any justice in not allowing someone that age to take a group of boys camping? Even more than that, are we willing to substitute our generalization based on age for the direct evidence and judgment of the people who know the young man or woman personally, and the desires of da organization that is responsible for the program? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, our young fellow BS-87 advocated in the parent thread: This is a whole other argument, but I'm with Ron Paul who would abolish the Federal Dept. of Education and relinquish all control of education to the States. Hopefully the States would have the sense to put more control into the hands of regional administrators overseeing a few counties. That's at least a traditional conservative position, unlike da Bush-era NCLB expansion of the Department. Now BS-87 loses me when he claims that will somehow cause big changes in da states. The states have all of the authority they need right now to make big changes if they want, includin' all of the things he lists. So one wonders why they don't. What do the rest of yeh think? Abolish the Department of Ed? Will that really spur innovation? Or does innovation require a true open market, which means dismantling all government-monopoly schooling as packsaddle suggests? If we allow a true open market, what happens in rural areas where there just ain't much market? Or in urban areas where da needs outstrip the local economy's ability to support the market? Inquirin' minds want to know. Beavah

Yah, SP, they cope (or not), but they don't really change. Evidence is that personality is pretty hard-wired. But since we're havin' a fun time discussin' facts, I have to go back to respond to that HAM fellow KC9 who is keepin' up his end of an interestin' argument. But, there is a documented causative relationship between certain personal development traits and the number of years you've been on the planet. No there isnt. Theres a correlation. As you mention, it is equally well established that da interpersonal variance (difference between people) on personal development swamps the weak correlation, just as the interpersonal differences in people of color swamp the (stronger) correlation with crime. So when yeh judge an individual based on a demographic trend, knowing that individual differences are much larger than the demographic trend, that is not rational. Its prejudice. It's clear that we can make generalizations about an individual's maturity and capabilities based on age I disagree. That is not at all clear. Generalizations are useful only when applied to general groups. In public policy, it is perfectly reasonable to budget more for medical care for those over 40, because on average those over 40 require more care. What does not follow is that Bill will need more medical care because he is over 40. Now, yeh might say that da cost of doin individual evaluations in some cases is too high, eh? So when da negative consequences are low and the cost of doin a better job is too high, we settle on applying a general rule to individuals. We set da age of majority to 18 and so on (and then allow for exceptions). But in da case of selecting a Scoutmaster, we are already dedicating the resources to do an individual evaluation of the preparedness and maturity of the candidate. So there is no rational basis for applying a generality when we have full and complete access to the specifics required to make an informed choice. In fact, applying a generality in such a case is almost da veritable definition of injustice. Do we allow a 14 year old to join a Wolf den in a Cub Scout pack? I believe we do in some special-needs packs. Certainly we extend the eligible time to be a Boy Scout or Venturer. Do we allow a 17 year old to be an SM, provided there's a couple 18 or 21 year olds along just to keep it legal? Here we are limited by the societal age of majority, eh? However, I would have no problem with an emancipated minor taking da position if thats what the CO desired. Can a 13 year old get a driver's license? I believe da answer is "Yes" in some jurisdictions, if there is a demonstrated need. Ironically, in some states a 16 year old can fly an airplane solo before he can drive. What does that tell us about justly assessing someones skills and maturity? In my opinion, while we would certainly expect a SM to continue to develop these traits as an adult, it's not wrong to expect that an SM already have these traits developed to some minimum baseline. I happen to think that an age requirement is a starting point to address that. Yah, but the evidence would suggest that is a very poor starting point, when you have access to experience. Da question in units is often the difference between a young person with a half decade or more of experience vs. an older person with less. There is no reason to assume that a person doesn't meet the "baseline" by virtue of age alone. Or, put another way, it is perfectly legal in most states for a certified high school teacher to be under age 21, and there are quite a few. In fact, 18 is da minimum age in most states as far as I know. Similarly 18 is da minimum for EMT and for nursing, so that fellow savin' your life after the car wreck might just be workin' on the weekend to save for college during his senior year. I know rural high schools that encourage seniors to sign up for da volunteer fire department. So do yeh really want to claim that the young man who teaches flying lessons on the weekend and has two years of experience saving lives as an EMT isn't mature enough to take kids camping on his off weekends because he's only 20? If society lets a 19-year-old be an ER nurse or a grade school teacher, can we really claim she's not qualified to be a cub scout committee chair? Not without quite a bit of prejudice on our part, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, teacher/scout, I'm laughin' out loud. You are, I assume, correct on all of your facts, eh? That's my understandin' of it as well, from people who know far better than I. Personality gets pretty well set by early adolescence, which is exactly why yeh have the Brittany Spears effect. Always having been controlled by others, she never developed self-control at that age and it is much, much, much harder for her to change now. In fact, it's more like she has to develop ways of coping with her personality and addictions, eh? Because change in some cases is not possible. But teacher/scout, you're dealing with a prejudice here, eh? A bias against young people, by old people who want to preserve their rank and privilege. It's ironic that some of 'em were once da young people who hollered "Don't trust anyone over 30!" . When yeh get a bit more experience workin' with us older folks, you'll learn that you can't change a prejudice with the facts. Young people are more likely to re-think things, but old folks have been thinkin' along the lines they have for decades, and they have a personal interest in maintaining their own sense of self-worth and privilege. Only in rare, intellectual adults will yeh see an argument sway someone from a prejudice, and only because that's a deep-seated part of their personality. Just look at da birther and youth protection threads this week, eh? Facts and expertise don't move older people from their beliefs, they just make us louder and more child-like . So yeh might consider whether a different tactic is in order, eh? Since changing people's biases is a hard proposition and rarely accomplished by argument, what other possible tactics are there to accomplish what yeh want? I think there are lots. But you're taking psychology, so I bet you can come up with lots on your own. Beavah

Hiya Once_Eagle! You raise a good and common example of situations that happen in modern families that aren't strictly "covered" by any of the BSA guidelines. What do you do when the boy's biological father comes but he is no longer a legal guardian? What do you do with grandpa, who is effectively standing in loco parentis? And on and on. I think the answer is very easy and straightforward, eh? You always honor the instructions of the boy's parent or guardian. Always. If you do anything else, if you try to make some convoluted case that the BSA somehow trumps the rights of the parents, then you are only settin' yourself, your unit, and the BSA up for all kinds of problems. So yep, let grandpa come, and if the parents say so then grandpa can share a tent with junior. And if they've really gone through the trouble of assigning temporary guardianship, then you salute, shut up, and treat that person exactly as you would the boy's parent. And apologize to 'em later for making 'em go through that trouble. Again, the standard for all of these things is not what's written in a BSA guidebook, it's what a reasonable person would do, eh? And no reasonable person would take a young, shy fellow on one of his first campouts away from the close friend or family member who is there to support the boy. That would be negligent. Beavah

Yah, packsaddles, now yeh have to go report yourself to da SE! Beavah

The last step when all else fails is removing a scout from the unit membership. At that point the council is to be notified. Nah, you're cheatin' That's not what it says. In da section you mention, there's nothing about "at that last point". What it actually says is "Any violations of the BSA's Youth Protection policies must immediately be reported to the Scout executive." And again, right after da very line you quote "The unit should inform the Scout executive of any violations of the BSA's Youth Protection policies." So you ignored that very clear wording (twice!) and instead used your judgment to decide that it meant after all else had failed and it became necessary to remove the scout. Good for you. I agree. I wouldn't call da SE over a verbal insult either. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It seems to me that the point is that all these previous "super powers" built their highest level of success on focusing on their own infrastructures and people first. Only when they allowed themselves to reach too far, either militarily or politically did they begin to lose their grip on success. Actually, I think on reflection that all da previous super powers built their highest level success on conquest, eh? They invaded neighboring lands and incorporated their resources into the empire. Had they just stayed home and built their own infrastructure and people, they would have been like China, eh? They'd just get invaded by someone who wanted to incorporate their well-developed infrastructure and people into the empire. In many ways, we did this as well in our conquest of da native tribes and our war with Mexico. Then we continued to build those regions with immigrant labor. Where empires failed is that they reached a point where they couldn't keep expanding and ran out of human and natural resources. Like us. Our birth rate is down but we don't want immigration, and though we no longer have the natural resources in oil to sustain ourselves we refuse to develop alternatives. We recognize that our population is undereducated, but rather than fix that we extol da virtues of sports and entertainment, and we'd rather select leaders who talk nice or are good to have a beer with than ones who understand advanced economic theory. And on and on... Beavah

I thought the term "prejudice" referred to negative opinions made without good reason or thought process. Nope. If yeh look at da statistics on theft and violent crime, there's a very strong correlation to being a black man. But if yeh turn that around and argue that the correlation justifies a general policy of treating all black men with suspicion, that's prejudice. As you describe, there is some OK reasoning and thought process in both cases, eh? Despite the negative potential consequences, relying on generalizations is at least argued to be only way to effectively use law enforcement resources in a city of millions of people. Of course that means that the particular black man in front of you could either be my fellow who is a university professor comin' home from visiting his mom's grave in da old neighborhood, or your fellow who is down on his luck an lookin' for a liquor store to rob. Both are possible, as hypotheticals and in real life. But what kind of society do yeh want to live in? Me, I don't care for prejudice. One of the absolutely very best scoutmasters I know started as Scoutmaster at age 19 or 20, with the retirement in all but name of the man who had been his SM. Is there a reliable way to identify such a fellow from the 19 or 20 year old who is goin' to flounder? I'd say, "of course there is!". Yeh use the system yeh already have in place to select unit leaders - conversations with kids and parents, vetting by committee, approval by da Chartered Organization. Da same system yeh use to determine whether the 40 year old is goin' to make a good Scoutmaster or not. Nah, it's not perfectly reliable. Nothing is. But it works just fine. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Scoutfish, easy there. I have personally had to deal with a number of real genuine youth abuse issues, in scoutin' and out. Have you? Still, I think in all things there is a balance, eh? Strip searching is better than patting down, and so if we strip searched and did full cavity exams on everyone's six year old girls, that might be one incremental step toward better safety from whatever lunatic group folks are being made fearful of this week. I just don't think strip searching everyone's six year old is worth it. I think what we lose as a human society is greater than any tiny increment of safety we gain. There is a balance, eh? And as intolerably awful as youth abuse is, damaging someone's reputation with accusations of youth endangerment is a close second or third. Again, there is a balance. I would personally advise any scout leader who had a parent complain to the SE of a youth protection issue to immediately remove that family from da program, or to leave the program themselves. Why? Because it's the one area where even a rumored allegation can destroy reputations and livelihood, and you don't ever want to be responsible for the child of a parent who runs to that response at first blush or over ordinary events. Nor should a parent with a genuine concern about youth protection have his/her kid continue to participate. I confess that dependin' on da circumstances I'd also advise any such leader to file a John Doe slander suit and subpoena the SE as a witness to reveal the name of the complainer, eh? A person has a right and a duty to protect their own reputation, and those who make accusations should be held accountable. Remember, in the broader society, a reasonable person would have no problem with you driving your nephew, and would consider it inappropriate to call that a violation of youth protection. So there is a balance, eh? Predators are successful because they do the same sorts of things that the very best, most caring adults do when workin' with youth. If we start to report all of da things that a kind, caring, responsible adult might do on occasion, then we're goin' to sweep up a lot of kind, caring responsible adults with da one in tens of thousands predator. I don't think the damage to youth work, and to society, is worth it. Because yeh see, havin' those kind, caring, responsible adults around who really listen to kids (and who occasionally drive 'em home at night when their parent got stuck on da late shift) is how most abuse is really discovered and stopped. Beavah

Hiya NealeonWheels! Thanks for joinin' in. Of course it's a guidebook, but we can still read it well. When there's a paragraph in a section titled "Mandatory Report of Child Abuse" that means that the paragraph is to be read in the context of reporting child abuse. Or, as I mentioned, you can follow what the YP Training tells yeh, which is the same as what I'm telling yeh. Alternately, yeh can look at da whole set of YP policies in da section "Barriers to Abuse Within Scouting" and decide whether mandatory reporting to the SE makes sense. If in fact we are to report everything, that means, from a straight read of the policies, we must report whenever a boy fails to conduct himself in accordance with the Scout Oath and Law. For example, if a boy utters a verbal insult to another boy, it must be reported to the Scout Executive. All members of the Boy Scouts of America are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles set forth in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Physical violence, theft, verbal insults, drugs, and alcohol have no place in the Scouting program and may result in the revocation of a Scout's membership So, dare I ask? Are yeh goin' to do your duty as a unit leader and report the next lad who calls his tentmate a poopy face to da SE? Or the next time a fellow isn't Cheerful on a rainy campout, do yeh place a call to the SE's weekend emergency pager? It seems very clear to me. Beavah

Vol, da thing of it is that these citizenship issues have been resolved by law and precedent decades if not centuries ago, eh? A parent renouncing the citizenship of a 3-year-old has no legal effect. Having a non-citizen father does not affect citizenship status. Juvenile records in this country are generally sealed, so we've never known anything about da juvenile life of any other president (includin' the last president's likely introduction to alcohol and drugs as a middle-schooler ). Nobody considers middle school records for employment or background. These issues are settled law, and settled norms. Which leads us back to why a considerable group wants to re-raise long-settled issues in this particular case. What motivates that? Who profits by keepin' that goin'? What ends does it promote to question not this president's competence, but his legitimacy by birth? Beavah

Middle school age sets a lot of values and beliefs for young people as we all see working with youth (that is the real reason that we do it). Yah, rigghhht. So when was da last time you requested middle school transcripts and references from any job applicant? We work with young people hopin' to give 'em a start, but we assess adults by what they have done as adults. In da law, we have a statute of limitations on most offenses just because it's in the very nature of things to become more murky and suspicious over time. Witnesses die. Memories fade. Records are discarded or destroyed. Subjects move on and can't be found. All this is normal. How many of your middle school teachers are still alive? Is da school you attended still open? Has it been turned into a parking garage? Can you say where all your 6th grade classmates are? Obama went to an outstanding middle school in Hawaii under the loving care of a WW2 veteran and his Rosey-the-Riveter wife. So even though such a question would be out of bounds for any job application anywhere, it's been asked and answered. I agree that legitimate questions about background merit discussion. Did he have enough foreign policy experience? When he taught constitutional law, how did he approach it? With limited business background, what's his experience with finance and da budgets of major enterprises? All these and more are areas where his background can be called into question. I also reckon it's OK to ask folks to reflect on the nature and source of questions that seem to transgress the ordinary bounds of legitimacy. When people depart from da norms, there's a reason. I don't know or claim to know what it is. Misplaced anger? Transference of personal economic frustration? Over-the-top partisanship? Bias? Da fact that there are "so many questions" floatin' around the internet to my mind is only a reflection of da number of people holding such views, eh? Or da number of people who stand to profit by spreadin' such views. Neither constitute a reason for makin' such questions legitimate. Now I return yeh to BS-87's treatise on American exceptionalism Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)