Beavah

People have manipulate the truth for much much less. Yah, like tryin' to stay out of jail, eh? But yeh don't seem to be questioning Zimmerman's story, which unlike the young lady's has been remarkably self-serving and seems to have changed/developed with time. The girl's statement, by contrast, was simple and did not cast either party in a poor light. Martin said "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman said "What are you doing here?" . * While its true that he has no police record he apparently has multiple interactions with school authorities Doesn't change that he has no record, and assumes facts not in evidence. It would of course be illegal for school authorities to comment or release such records. You have bought into non-factual innuendo. * This may be the truth but is not the way it has been presented in any media I have read Then like BS-87 I'd suggest yeh read better media. Or, in this case, just look up the program online directly on the Sheriff's office website. * Whether it's "goon" or "coon" or "balloon" it's still another name, eh? I think yeh get the trend here. Yeh seem to be gettin' your information from some weird and unreliable media sources and need to cast your net a bit more widely and with a touch more skepticism. What you're takin' as "fact" is comin' from agenda-driven media, and it's messin' with your judgment. Edited to add: "lynch mob" is awfully loaded language, eh? I don't think a single soul here has advocated lynching. We have advocated investigation and prosecution. But I'll agree that folks biases and choice of information sources make me discouraged and sad. I'd like to believe that among scouters in America, the starting presumption would be in favor of the unarmed kid buyin' a snack and talkin' to his girlfriend. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BS-87, "preponderance of the evidence" is the legal test for civil trials, eh? That's not what we're talkin' about here. There can be all kinds of reasons for someone not to be charged, includin' politics and the prosecutor's workload and priorities. This is goin' to a grand jury now that other authorities have intervened, and I expect that you will see that a jury of citizens will return an indictment based on the facts obtained in a more thorough investigation than occurred shortly after Trayvon's death. People usin' the tale for political purposes are despicable, I think most of us would agree. That includes the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and also the bizarre political fringe bloggers and sites that you seem so fond of quoting. What they're doin' is the same as Sharpton and Jackson. I don't think anybody here (or, really, anywhere) has suggested that Zimmerman was out hunting black kids that evening. That sort of nonsense is like what I said about mixing up the meaning of prejudice for racist. Zimmerman has been seen as being prejudiced, but it's only the despicable political folks who turn that into being the same thing as racist, to suit their own agenda. So you should stop that, eh? Beavah

Nah, it just supports the notion there may have been a scuffle, JoeBob. That could just as easily have been Trayvon Martin who was defending himself. Generally speakin' in most jurisdictions that haven't adopted some cockamamie newfangled legal malarkey, if yeh pursue someone that's not self defense. But if yeh were being pursued by someone, that may well be. Again, there's no escapin' the fact that anybody being pursued for no reason by an armed man who hasn't identified himself as a law enforcement officer has a right to defend himself. Trayvon Martin was within his rights under Florida's law to pummel Zimmmerman, and to kill him if Zimmerman drew his weapon. And sadly, I reckon if he was older and a different color we'd have been supportin' the fellow for doin' just that. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Well Beav, that's great subjective interpretation. Yah, hmmm.... Of the fourteen facts I listed, which do yeh believe is somehow my personal opinion? Each is independently verifiable as close as I can tell. I did conclude with my own interpretation of course. Are yeh gettin' the two halves mixed up? Beavah

I explained that you had to know and stick to certain rules (objective) no matter how you felt (subjective). Yah, hmmmm.... I think this is exactly da wrong approach to outdoor safety and risk management. Rules-based systems work well in simple, repetitive environments where the complexity of the environment is low and the rules can therefore be kept few and simple. The classic cases are factory line jobs. Most rules-based safety originates from industrial environments. Outdoors programs are inherently complex, non-repetitive environments which are not amenable to simple rules. Most professional outdoors programs therefore focus on developin' judgment and experience, and avoid rules-based systems. Hence the greater emphasis on understandin' the objective ("hard") and subjective ("soft") risks in a given situation, because awareness is necessary for buildin' experience and judgment. I'm still confused about the whole problem with the word "safe" beyond the legal context. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Gunny, Zimmerman is an inherently biased witness with every interest in spinning and lying, eh? That's on top of the rather flawed judgment and perspective he demonstrated in the first place and (by his own admission) throughout the encounter. The "facts" are Trayvon Martin was an innocent, unarmed kid with no record goin' about his own lawful business. Trayvon Martin had no drugs or alcohol in his system. George Zimmerman has a record of complaints for assaultin' an undercover officer during a bar confrontation, and for domestic violence. Zimmerman did not attend Police Academy, but rather a citizens education program that was substantially shorter than police academy training and did not provide certification. George Zimmerman, based solely on "appearance" called in a report that incorrectly accused Trayvon of being on drugs and an ***hole who always gets away, along with perhaps other names. George Zimmerman ignored the clear recommendation and direction of the police dispatcher, and pursued Trayvon by vehicle and on foot. Trayvon attempted to run away from his pursuer. In the end, based on the testimony of his girlfriend there were words between the two. There may have been a scuffle in which Zimmerman may have suffered some relatively minor injuries. Someone cried for help. Trayvon was shot dead by Zimmerman. There is apparently no blood alcohol test on Zimmerman despite that being normal police procedure everywhere I'm familiar with. The police failed to follow even the most obvious steps to identify Trayvon and notify his family. The lead detective on the scene did not buy Zimmerman's story and recommended prosecution. Now, if you've never been EMS at a shooting scene, you'll just have to trust me that if EMS cleans up any sort of real head wound they're goin' to put a bandage on it, and if yeh have a broken nose yeh almost always have either cuts or soft tissue injury/swelling to that area of the face, even more so if you've been hit multiple times. I don't think Zimmerman was a racist. I think too often us white folks get defensive and don't make a distinction between "being a racist" (deliberately and consciously hating or demeaning people of other races) and being prejudiced (unthoughtfully or unconsciously making decisions about someone based on their race). I think he fell into the trap of not recognizing his own very real prejudices and controlling them, and then of exercising phenomenally poor judgment in seeking and precipitating a confrontation based on those prejudices. That is at least manslaughter. Edited to add: BS-87 is once again posting some nonsense from an extreme partisan blog run by amateur hacks. While humorous in a pathetic sort of way, it's easy to discount. OGE, I think da issue is at least in part the apparent lackadaisical and unprofessional conduct by the police department and the county prosecutor. Can you find me a 17 year old who was shot while going to the store who laid on a slab for three days without identification until the time had elapsed for the family to be able to file a formal missing person's report? When they had his cell phone? Or any time an unarmed 17 year old has been shot without drug and alcohol tests of the shooter and a full investigation? I think it was the ongoin' failure of the police department that raised this to being a national issue of interest.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Again based on my 100% non scientific findings, I have found that by dealing with people as individuals, catering to their own individual wants and needs much of the findings of the experts can be ignored with little or no real consequence. Yah, I reckon that's about right, eh? Da problem is when pop psychology and such starts supportin' our own natural prejudices and desires for "control", and instead of treatin' each lad as an individual we start thinkin' of 'em as an Age or a Stage or a Brain that isn't ready for real responsibility. Ages and Stages are mostly a cultural phenomenon, and will be different for different boys and families and for kids who aren't in the usual public school elementary - middle - high structure. Middle schools and junior highs in particular have always struck me as a bankrupt notion, done for economic reasons rather than havin' any basis in good practice. I think it's safe to say that by puberty a young lad has all the learning capability and potential mental ability as any adult, which is why for most of mankind through most of history, that was "coming of age" / b'nai mitzvah / confirmation at which point the young person was a full adult in the eyes of God and the community. So, treat all young folks as individuals for sure. But as a general rule, assume most of your scouts can be trusted, achieve, and behave as well as any adult colleague. Odds are they'll live up to that expectation, and you'll have done 'em a very good turn indeed. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Eamonn, read the Scientific American article I linked to in the original post, eh? It answers some of your questions and addresses the fMRI studies. Here it is again: http://tinyurl.com/bsbmt4y It downloads a PDF of the article for yeh. Beavah

[duplicate post](This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Kristian, welcome to da forums and thanks for sharin' your perspective. You're right of course. The notion that an 18 year old high schooler should hang around and tent with a 49 year old fellow, particularly a 49-year-old BSA-rulesmonger is silly. And a bit creepy. Especially when odds are that not only are yeh friends with 15-17 year olds, but yeh shower with 'em after sports practice at school every day. Sixteen and 17 year olds go for college visits and stay in the rooms of 19-20 year olds all the time. This is where yeh hope folks have a bit of common sense. My frequent complaint about how the BSA guidelines are presented and interpreted is that they're presented a bit too much like "laws", and inexperienced adults tend to shut off their brains and treat 'em like Gospel, in ways that they wouldn't treat many real laws. The fellows sittin' in an office in Irving are doin' their best within the constraints of the approach they've chosen, but it's just too hard to write "rules-like guidelines" for this case, especially when they start from a position of legal risk management lookin' at da crazy quilt of statute and case law across 50 states. The real guideline should be "use your brain." Beavah

Yah, Gunny, I'm just not sure it's worth goin' past the "facts" that are undisputed, eh? An unarmed kid with no intention other than buying a snack walked down to the corner store and was followed, chased, and eventually shot by an adult cop wannabe with a history of inappropriate confrontations. No intervening "facts" can justify that, eh? The question is just whether it's murder or manslaughter. The reason is that if yeh choose to stalk someone, yeh should expect to be confronted, shoved, or smacked. Followin' someone to spy on 'em is not somethin' that polite people do. Sayin' his clothes were suspicious is like the sexist numbskulls who blame the woman for being raped. "Oh, well, if she had just dressed more like my grandmother and not like a young woman this wouldn't have happened." But as Eamonn courageously admits, we know that what was "suspicious" was a black boy in a hoodie, not a boy in a hoodie. We've been brought up by our communities and the media to have that suspicion. It's somethin' we have to fight in ourselves, and work hard to overcome. Play this in your mind. The boy is white, a marine corps JROTC lad who has already committed to enlisting at the end of the school year. He is followed by a 28 year old black man who doesn't care for his skin color, short haircut and fatigues. If the young man confronts the fellow who was chasing him, are yeh really goin' to be upset with the lad? Or would yeh think, "That's right, approach and stand up to him!". Even if words and punches flew, is shootin' an unarmed kid OK? Especially when yeh knew it was started by doin' somethin' folks consider inappropriate, and that's followin' someone's kid around? I know, if I'm honest with myself, that there's a part of me that views that scenario differently than the one with Trayvon. A piece of me identifies more with the JROTC lad, and is more ready to take his side. And I know it's a part of me I'm not very proud of, and that I must reject with every fiber of my being. Because if I'm to be the man I want to be, I have to defend the lad in both cases. My initial response should be shock and outrage in both cases, and if more information comes out down the road that may be tempered a bit, but not abandoned. Because the already known facts are outrageous. And because if we excuse this in any way, it could be any one of our scouts or kids out there. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm with Lisabob, eh? The issue is that some nut job stalked and shot a kid because he was a kid. Again, it could have been any of our scouts who happen to be wearing a hoodie in the rain walking down to the corner store for a soda during a commercial break from the Final Four. By all accounts, Trayvon Martin ran away, and then opted to stand his ground. Under Florida law, being pursued by an armed man for no apparent reason, he was perfectly within his rights to beat Zimmerman to a pulp. That's the flaw in the law, eh? Both parties in a confused situation can act in accord with the law to harm each other. The law authorizes brutal or deadly battles in confused circumstances. It's worth rememberin' that the detective on the scene recommended arresting and charging Zimmerman, but the county prosecutor opted not to because of the law. This is about justice and the treatment of kids. Who among us wouldn't be beside ourselves if some armed man chased and harmed our kid because just because he didn't like his looks? That havin' been said, the even truer tragedy that should offend all sensible folks is that black parents tell us that they worry about their kids gettin' caught up in such "confused circumstances" all the time. That's no way for fellow citizens to live. How would it be to worry every time our kid went out that somethin' like this could happen unless we dressed him in a suit and tie (and perhaps even then)? We wouldn't stand for it! Nor should we now. Beavah

Yah, don't try to make sense of it, lad, there's no sense to be made. You're legally an adult, so my advice is just act like you're an adult. Take youth protection training, and be mindful that when working with or playing with minors yeh should not be one-on-one with 'em for the most part in a scouting environment. A true 17-year-old peer and friend is OK, but beyond that yeh have to be both wise and cautious. Nuthin' will make your life more miserable than someone's parent misconstruing a roughhousing match as a form of molestation, or seein' yeh walk off with a boy and assume the wrong thing. The no one-on-one rule is meant to protect you as an adult more than it is meant to protect the youth. Two deep is meant for the leaders who are responsible for youth when on outings with kids. That's just good outdoors practice, eh? Yeh want a second leader around in case the first becomes ill, gets hurt, etc. It doesn't apply to meetings or walkin' around a conclave. So put on your adult hat, pick up your coffee mug from RememberSchiff, and settle into the adult world. Consider it a bonus that for a few program activities yeh can still participate as an "old youth" in the BSA, but beyond that ignore the "youth member at 19" nonsense. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sure, usually no problem runnin' other long-term campouts during the year besides summer camp. Da trick is to get notice out way in advance and make sure it's somethin' really special / really fun that will attract boys and make it worth it to families. I'm not sure in that respect that I'd go with runnin' a bunch of badge sessions. Better to go with runnin' a river! B

Data shows the 65 year old airline pilot is as good a pilot as the 25 year old flying the same airplane. Well, allowin' airline pilots over age 60 has only been around for a few years, so I don't reckon there's much data yet, eh? I'm basin' what I'm saying off of the research review done by Dana Broach published by da Office of Aerospace Medicine. While there have been conflicting studies, the most methodologically sound showed an increasing accident rate with age. To quote the review, "However, while study outcomes vary, the overall pattern of results suggest that there may be some risk associated with allowing pilots age 60 and older to operate complex, multi-engine with 10 seats or more in passenger operations." None of that is particularly relevant to this discussion, though, because what the data do clearly show is that young folks do no worse than older folks, and are demonstrably better at dealing with new or unanticipated situations. There's no question that experience counts, and of course a lot of experience can compensate for our losses as we get older. Thank goodness! But young folks with the same basic set of experiences or time in type will do as well or better. Havin' kids in the car also affects the accident rate for adult drivers, eh? So I think we also have to be a bit circumspect about prohibiting passengers for teens when we know that passengers cause similar issues for adults. Again, I reckon this is better addressed with education. It's pretty easy to expose young folks to distractions in a safe way and help 'em learn when to ignore extra inputs and just drive the car (or pull over). The best way to solve da problem is not by hovering over 'em and removing or prohibiting one type of distraction, but to instead teach 'em how to recognize and handle many distractions of various types. By removin' distractions through law or policy we think we're helping, but in reality we're preventing them from learning how to cope. It's just another form of helicoptering. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, le Voyageur, I'm not sure I get your point. From a legal risk management perspective, telling participants that the activity is "safe" can be a problem, eh? That often is interpreted by da courts as a form of assurance or guarantee. It's not somethin' we should do. You seem to be sayin' something different here, though. Something like folks thinking things are "safe" makes them complacent and more apt to be surprised by an unusual happening, like a flock of geese killing both engines in your airliner. That strikes me as being more about experience and being prepared for Murphy than about the word "safe". And some of your post seems to refer more to what I'd consider cognitive overload, which is a third issue. Can yeh explain some more? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I am the only registered first aid MBC in my district. Holy Smoke! At da risk of takin' the thread off to neverland (well, Scoutfish seems like he got his answer anyways)... How is this possible? Is everyone doin' First Aid MB at summer camp? IMHO a terrible idea. It's hard to imagine only havin' one MBC for an Eagle Required badge in a district. Maybe troops have just given up on registering people? That seems to be increasingly common. Beavah

I'm doing this way too often...agreeing with Beavah Yah, well. I reckon it's because I sorta grow on yeh over time, eh? Like a fungus. B

The young, AS A GROUP, are significantly more likely to engage in risky driving behaviors than those 25 or older. Yah, but there's no way to separate that from lack of experience. Is it because they're young, or because they have only a few years of experience driving? And if it's truly because they're young, is it because of biology, or because it's the first time they've managed to get some freedom from helicopter parents and locked down schools? Or is it because "recreational driving" by all ages is a bit less safe, and young people do a lot more "recreational driving" as a fraction of their driving time, where the driving time of adults is mostly commuting? It's interesting to note that young pilots have comparable accident records to older folks, and actually show better safety statistics as student pilots than older people. A 16 year old flyin' by himself is safer than a 40 year old who is in the same phase of workin' on getting his license. In addition, all the evidence suggests that pilots over age 55 have significantly higher accident rates then young folks, and the FAA mandates retirement from airline work for a pilot at age 60. So if we use the statistics for flyin' airplanes, it's us old folks we should be worried about, eh? The 16 year olds do fine. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, this is a real challenge, eh? Eagledad is right, yeh have a whole new troop. Next time it's better to stop recruitin' a bit earlier . You'll find that there's also a "thing" that happens at around 50 scouts or so. Generally, if yeh want to keep growin' into the "mega-troop" range yeh have to substantively change your program. The SM becomes more of a manager of adult leaders and a totem, rather than the fellow who knows each boy well. Often troops that grow bigger than this start shiftin' into multiple ASPLs, and the SPL also becomes more of a manager. Yeh might decide that's not you... in which case if yeh grow much bigger you will lose boys. I think yeh need to listen carefully to both Eagledad and Eagle92, eh? Those are the horns of the dilemma. On the one side, yeh really need to "divide and conquer" the new bunch, and rapid integration into the patrols is the way to do that. On the other side, yeh can really burn your youth leaders out. Yeh definitely need to tone down your program expectations for a while as the new lads come up to speed. This summer is not the time for the whole troop self-guided whitewater raft trip. How yeh do that is up to your sense of things. Here's some ideas just in case a few seem like they'll fit. 1) Try to do a few special things just for the older guys and the PLC guys. Somethin' that's fun without the first years, but also somethin' that helps them build their confidence and skills so that they can be more effective. A couple extra outings, a long weekend Troop Leader Training, some extra activities tacked on at the start or end of summer camp, etc. 2) Consider whether yeh need to run some patrol outings on separate weekends. One of the things that you'll find is that your group of experienced adult leaders are also stretched by the influx. Not only are they dealin' with new boys, they're dealin' with tryin' to get new adults up to speed. It can help if for a month or two yeh take smaller groups out - maybe only a couple patrols each weekend. Keeps the chaos lower as you get the new boys up to speed, and yeh can often talk your "old hand" adults into doin' an extra weekend, which gives yeh a higher experienced adult ratio. 3) Look for a strong summer camp that will really be a good resource partner for yeh, but lean toward returning to one that you and the older lads know your way around. 4) Call your young college-aged alumni. Plead for help. Most get out sometime in May, and if they're back in town they're often happy to help out on a weekend or at camp. 5) Is there another troop around that has some older boys that are compatible with your guys / your program? Call their SM. Ask for help. Active OA in your district? Ask for some help from the Brotherhood of Cheerful Service. Scoutin' is a community that's bigger than just your unit. Addin' a few more enthusiastic, cool, experienced older scouts into the mix really helps to tip the experience numbers in your favor. 6) Remember, free play is an activity. Often it's better to let cats run around until exhausted rather than try to herd 'em. Havin' a massive group of new guys is a good time for car campin' at some interestin' spots. 7) Spin off a new troop. Lots of times, this is the right thing to do when yeh get big. It makes both your troop and scouting as a whole stronger. Remember, ol' Baden-Powell's max troop size was 36, eh? 8) There are other options. Many large troops move to age-based structures with high school high adventure patrols and several first year patrols and a bunch of 7th/8th grade patrols. Yeh can run that almost like 3 separate troops/programs with some independent and some overlapping activities. This is a common management structure for "mega" troops. That would involve introducin' a lot more direct adult leadership at the new scout level. Anyways, as yeh puzzle the whole thing out, remember that it's not about Activities. It's about Relationships. The young lads need to form relationships with each other and with the older boys and with the adults. Design things to do fun stuff together that builds those relationships. Don't spend time on doin' highfalutin' things so much as on spendin' time together. Beavah

Yah, it's really more than a bit disturbin' that the underground chain-mail media is now spreadin' the usual disinformation fog on this matter. I hear now that there's a doctored photo goin' around showin' Zimmerman in a coat and tie and some other young African American in prison orange and a gangsta pose... and the young man is not Trayvon. the shooter had returned to his vehicle, then got out to check his location on a street sign(sounds slightly odd but plausible) Let me see if I understand this correctly. A man who is neighborhood watch captain in a small gated community where by all accounts he has been patrolling regularly for months if not years, who has phoned in dozens of police calls from around the neighborhood suddenly doesn't know where he is without checkin' a street sign? When I moved at age 9 I knew every street by sight within a mile of my new house within a week. The fellow deserves a trial, and a fair one. The young man deserved a sound police investigation and a DA who didn't ignore the recommendation of the lead detective on the case. But when we look at it from afar, I can't see as how we can ever condone an armed man pursuing, harassing, and shooting an unarmed kid. By Florida law, as close as I can tell, I would have been perfectly within my rights to shoot Zimmerman dead on sight for the behavior he chose to engage in. In fact, so would Trayvon. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, like I said. Time to stop gettin' your news from the shallow echo blogs. Seriously. There are all kinds of sources of news information that offer relatively sound, sophisticated reporting. Foreign Policy magazine, the Economist, etc. If yeh are lookin' at the blogosphere, try things like this: http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/backgroundhistory/tp/topusfpblogs.htm . The link yeh provided is laughingly juvenile. "Obama lie and people die?" Really? Time to grow up. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I agree with the current neurological science, and act accordingly. Let's be careful about gettin' too far out there, eh? How many original journal articles on cognitive science or neuroscience have yeh read in the last year? Close as I can tell this is an active area of debate in the field, and so far the overwhelming body of evidence is on the other side. As is the notion of a youth-led, patrol-method scouting program. I never used the term "incapable" And yet when I suggested that with some discipline and instruction kids could in fact control their impulses and safely manage non-swimmers, you disagreed. Either they can or they can't. If they can't, then the word for that is "incapable", isn't it? If their brain structure doesn't afford them that ability, the word is "incapable", isn't it? You're correct, though, in that as I mentioned we've seen this argument before in da forums, and there's an extent to which I and others respond to the general argument because we've heard it before. That is our fault. In that case, though, I'd suggest that rather than comin' back with the ad hominem stuff, come back with a clarification. "I believe their brain structure allows them to do this but not that.". In any event, I never intended this to be a big debate. Yeh just said a couple of things that struck me (as a long timer with a lot of experience in the area) as being somethin' of a safety and best practice issue, so I thought it was worth mentioning. A Scout is Helpful. Yeh are always free to ignore the thoughts or advice of me or anyone else on da forums. For me, though, to answer Engineer61's oft expressed concerns about BSA leaders, I would never take kids down a river corridor if I didn't believe they were perfectly capable of impulse control. Because passing a swim test is really a low level of swim ability, and swimming ability is no proof against current and hazards and other stuff. If yeh can't keep a non-swimmer safe in a canoe with a youth BSA lifeguard then yeh probably can't keep a young swimmer safe in a canoe with another young swimmer. Beavah

Yah, well, let's consider a bit. If yeh don't actually believe that young people are fundamentally incapable of impulse control, then wouldn't the proper response to noting a lack of impulse control be to educate? Perhaps somethin' like what Eagle92 suggests? One of the things that's true is that free play for kids has declined dramatically in favor of adult-organized play dates and activities. So it should be no surprise that self-regulation and impulse control has declined in parallel with that loss of experience. The response then would be that kids need more opportunity for self-directed responsibility. Alternately, yeh could scan kids brains, notice that they don't behave the same as brains that have developed more self-control, and conclude that yeh can't do anything about it so yeh need still more adult presence and control. What struck me about scout_father's approach was that it inserted more adult control, and denied that education, developing discipline, higher levels of youth experience, etc. were able to address the perceived problem. The problem lies entirely with the boys. That to my mind is a statement that he feels the issue is indeed one of fundamental lack of capability. Those are my words, but only because I don't know how else to interpret those actions and words. If yeh believe it is a physical brain feature that yeh can't control, then yeh believe it's a fundamental characteristic. Now here's a thought experiment. When mature, full-frontal lobe adults get stopped by the police for speeding and asked why they're going' so fast, how many do yeh suppose answer honestly? And how many do yeh suppose give some excuse or say "I don't know?". The "I don't know" response from kids is the rational non-committal response to give to an angry authority figure. Like making excuses, it is a learned response, because yeh learn fairly quickly that sayin' "because I think the rule is stupid" or "because I thought it would be fun to try" gets the authority more upset. "I don't know" is a result of adult behavior, not a statement about the kid's mental state. As yeh get older, it's funny how some memories are really strong, eh? One for me is way back in nursery school, there were days when a mom would visit, and during snacks yeh could sit next to your mom. When my mom came, a little girl had sat next to my mom. I was flummoxed. I didn't know what to do. I had no experience with this before. So I pulled the chair out from under the little girl. I'm sure that when my mom, quite upset with me, demanded to know why I had done that I said "I don't know.". But that was just because that is the safest response to give to angry authority. I knew exactly why I had done it, it was because the norm was yeh sit next to your mom, I wanted to do that, someone was there, I'd never experienced that before, and I didn't know what action to take, so I tried one. That one didn't work well, so my trial helped me to learn. I was perfectly capable of controlling my impulses, and in fact I never again pulled a chair out from under anyone. The issue wasn't lack of ability, it was lack of experience. As a four year old with an assigned place at the dinner table at home, I had never had experience with "Excuse me, would you mind moving over one so I can sit next to my mom?". So my mom taught me that option. That's the difference , eh? If yeh believe that kids are capable and expect 'em to learn, then yeh do one thing, and that thing strongly resembles traditional, youth-led, patrol-method Scouting. Yeh give 'em chances to learn. If yeh don't believe they are capable, then yeh do another, eh? And that other more closely resembles adult-run, troop method scouting. Yeh assign seats from now on in young Beavah's nursery school. Beavah

Yah, I think yeh have to decide whether yeh think President Obama is a communist ("comrade") or an imperialist ("emperor"). Right now you're just being a bit incoherent. This doesn't trouble me in the least. It's the sort of thing yeh do in diplomacy all the time. Feel people out, buy some space if yeh need it. Whatever. Obama's foreign policy record has been pretty decent. Me thinks yeh doth protest too much. I reckon yeh should take a step or three away from the echo chamber media and read some news with some depth and real perspective. A Scout keeps himself Mentally Awake. Beavah