Stosh

If my ox is getting gored, I have a right to free speech and legal recourse to express my sentiments in a fair and just system. If your ox is getting gored, just quit whining, you're upsetting the neighbor's dog. Joseph Goebbel would be envious. Stosh

Cars too small for a whole patrol? PL + 3 members one vehicle, APL + 3 members other vehicle, PL/APL have decided prior to event who does what, patrol officers organize the duties enroute. Heck, the PL/APL have cell phones, they can work out glitches enroute as well. Time to leave? Each PL/APL collects up their 3 boys, APL tells PL he's ready, PL tells SPL he's ready, hop back in car and you're ready to go. No head counts and patrol officers take responsibility for their boys. Stosh

Vehicles are filled by patrol. Dash radio only, driver's choice. PL selects the vehicle. SPL makes final decision if two patrols want same vehicle. The ride up is not the time for entertainment, it's a time to review last minute details and make plans for when they get there, i.e. who does what, etc. Stosh

Welcome to the forum! If the CO, District and VFW are not at odds with each other, they can all do their part in helping the pack. First of all I have a Venturing Crew that has no permanent meeting place. Our CO rents a room at a church for their own meetings and the Crew is on it's own to find their own place. We have done so in a different district with a VFW meeting hall. They have graciously invited us in because they knew we didn't have a spot. It's a nice arrangement and everyone is happy. My Troop is also in a different VFW hall and because they are remodeling their bar area, we held a troop meeting in one end of the hall and the VFW set up a temporary bar on the other end of the hall. They were making quite a bit of noise when we showed up. The boys expressed concern over the issue of the bar in the same room. I reminded them we are here as guests and what the CO does is their business, we'll just work around it. The boys got together the flag ceremony and started out with the command, "Scouts and Leaders Attention!". I then stopped the SPL and had the boys all look into the bar area where every patron was on their feet facing the boys/flags. I told the boys, "These are our Veterans, not just bar patrons." The boys finished out their ceremony and nothing more was said. I would suggest hooking up as best as you can with a VFW. These men and women really believe in the Scouting program. If one as another organization that hasn't the time of day for the unit, VFW's do and will bend over backwards for the boys (and Girl Scouts) whether they are the CO or not! Stosh

On my last major outing, I was taking inexperienced boys white-water canoeing. I had two other adults, both of which were inexperienced to a certain degree. We were an all-guy thing until I decided to take a canoe/kayak expert along to back me up on safety with the boys in fast water. SHE did an excellent job and as a former employee of the US Forestry Service, didn't mind the bugs, hardships, and bathroom arrangements. When we hit camp, it was announced that our "guest" would be treated as such and the boys pitched her tent where she directed them, got her to the head of the line at meal time, and they did a little "hovering" over her to make sure she had a good time on the trip. Was it because she was a girl? or because she was a guest of the troop who had come along to assist the boys in being safe and having a good time. I didn't go looking for a guy to be our canoe/kayak expert, I was looking for the best in the neighborhood and she fit the bill. I'm working on getting her a more permanent/registered position in the troop, but no luck so far. I'm thinking she enjoyed her "guest" status too much. :^) Stosh

I hope, LisaBob, that you understood my posting as a wee-bit of sarcasm. If not, please do so. However, 10 adults for 6 boys is way out of line. A venture patrol needs but one adult that is "handy" but doesn't involve him/herself in the activity. I can see one, maybe two, for company, adults staying in base camp near the vehicles that camps for the weekend while the boys go off and do their independent thing in the woods. Surely one can find an area that can accommodate such an arrangement. If there is a problem two boys can return to base camp for assistance, otherwise they are on their own. Even with radios, one has to get to the vehicles and cell-phone range to get the appropriate help. If the boys are in cell-phone range, make the call to 9-1-1 and then to the base camp adults who can come to the assistance and/or wait for the medical/rescue people and direct them to the boys. For me this would be an excellent opportunity for me as an adult to work on my dutch-oven cooking skills, reading, or maybe a day-hike as long as I stay within communication range. If 10 people want to join me, fine, but they don't go with the boys, they stay in base-camp and we do our good-old-boys thing there. As an aside, if the ASM/venture patrol advisor, can't do the boy-led thing, then it's time to get someone in there that can, or best yet, leave the boys alone to do their own boy-led thing without adult's hovering around, no advisor at all. Maybe someone to assist in the planning, i.e. lining up rides, etc. that an adult would do anyway to ASSIST the boys in their planning. To me this smacks of Den Chief training. You are there to work with the boys BUT YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE. If a DC can figure this out, so can some of the more thick skulled adults. I was assuming that maybe the SM and CC were part of the problem, then a DE might be necessary, but if it's only the PA being a pill, then it's time for the boys to address this issue with SM. As a SM, I spend almost as much time helping the kids as I do keeping adults from interfering. The more we become boy-led the less I have to do to keep the adults out. Once they figure out the boys are capable and trustworthy enough to do the activity without adult intervention, they back off. Until then, protect the boys from the adults. Stosh

A step backwards always leads to a big step forward. :^) Now when the in-group people say you're old fashioned and out of touch with the boys, just smile and nod, they'll think you're either extremely wise or too stupid to understand the modern boy. My boys eat up the old books and are more excited about them than anything else BSA has to offer for training and literature. Last week I had to call around and hunt down my 1911 reprint edition from my boys. It was still floating around and I wanted to look something up. My ASPL had it. Boy-planned/boy-executed is too long to type out all the time, so boy-led works to get the point across. Enjoy! Stosh

It's kinda too bad the boys had to go along, the guys could do the good-old-boys, 6-pack thingy if it wasn't for the boys. Are you sure the boys have to go on ahead to allow the adults to sip along the way and the reason the boys don't know who the two adults are is because they haven't drawn straws to see who loses and has to go with the boys. This sounds like a serious enough issue to take to the DE and CO. If it was me, I'd quit just because it is obvious that the BSA program even in the most restricted sense isn't being practiced. I had explicit instructions for all my ASM's to shoot me before I get this stupid. Stosh

We've done the bed wetting thing in our troop. Depends/Pull-ups are a good recourse without the medications. The boy's buddy pointed out that his buddy had a bed-wetting problem when he saw his buddy using the Depends. I told him it was a medical problem/condition and would he feel any better if it was diareha instead? After that his buddy made sure he was ready for bed and kept the "secret" to the two of them for the rest of the outing. Kids will surprise you if you explain the problem and then make no big deal about it. By the way, the buddy will be getting his Eagle this coming Sunday afternoon. Stosh

Our ASPL is the PL of the troop officers, bugler, historian, QM, scribe, etc. He fills in as SPL and works with the PL's when the SPL is absent. The troop officers can function quite well with the temporary absence of their PL (ASPL) because they tend to be the older boys anyway. Stosh

I use unannounced drills. While on a hike I'll have one boy "twist an ankle" and it's up to the boys to get him back. I had one boy who did anaphilactic shock really well once. Another boy fell and did in his collar bone. I then "disappear" because the first words out of their mouths is "Mr. B____, John has hurt himself!". My answer is always "Bummer" and then stand and watch. The older boys have figured this out and it works pretty good and when I say bummer they then know it's a drill. I have to figure out a better routine. Stosh

Duh! Yes, Hillcourt! I'm having a senior moment here. Thanks for the correction. Stosh

When the Constitution was written the State was just that, the individual states, i.e. original 13. A State cannot establish an official religion, but not where does it say it shouldn't tolerate ALL religions. Unfortunately this has been reinterpreted that the State should tolerate NO religions. Unfortunately not establishing a state church is in no means the same as intolerance of religious organizations. According to the Constitution, this amendment applies only to the State, not the Federal, County, Parish, City, Township or any other form of government. Maybe it's time to just go with what's written and then accept a modicum of tolerance along the way. If a city wants a minorah go for it, a cross? sure, why not, we used to be a tolerant society, but with all the zero-tolerance rules being taught our children today, that whole concept may indeed pass into history along with the original intent of what Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness meant. Intolerance produces conflict and what our Forefathers wanted for us doesn't allow for a zero-tolerance stand on any issue. Stosh

It's the older leadership/organizational program where each patrol member is given a "POR". Patrol QM, Patrol Scribe, Patrol Grubmaster, Patrol Hikemaster, etc. Kudu has this program on line on his website and my boys ate it up as good stuff. At this point my boys are trained in both programs and all say the older stuff is better and easier to understand than the more modern JLT/TLT program. I use it because if my boys find it more helpful, then I go with it. Buffalo, as far as "no one wants the job" you and I are on the same page. A scout who wants the patch but not the job is basically not wanting the responsibility of functioning in the position. I always measure my boys on a scale of caring. Tenderfoot #9 is the buddy system. Can the scout take care of his buddy? If not he can't hand the responsibility of taking care of 7 others in a patrol and when he finally figures that out he's a candidate for SPL where he takes care of other PL's having proven himself as a good PL himself. Unless a scout cares about others he'll never function effectively as a leader. I can spend a lot of time teaching leadership "skills" to a boy that doesn't care, but I'm pretty much just wasting my time. Boys naturally follow caring leaders, it works for adults and it also works for other scouts. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

My boys get nicknames. They usually stick and become a "badge of honor" as time passes. "Slug" will be my 3rd ASM at the national jamboree next summer. Stosh

Our boys take the Totin' Chit training every year. As far as our troop is concerned Safety is #1 and too much training isn't an issue. Just like the swim test, it is an annual "requirement". If a boy is doing something incorrect with his knife, axe or saw, the card is torn up and he's reminded of the next class that will be coming up. Retraining is not something that the boy will be singled out when the NSP gets their training because everyone including the JASM's will be in the class with him. Our boys all know this process and there has never been a issue where a card was torn up. Stosh

Some statements are truly "unclear" and are 100% correct. When that happens it has to be taken into context or understood from an alternative source. Once that happens, the statement becomes clear. "During WWII we (the US) fought with Germany and Japan." This sentence makes total sense until someone points out that, "During WWII we (the US) fought with England and France." Now both statements are unclear. While both are clear in the context of history, as stand-alone statements they make no sense whatsoever. Only knowing history clarifies both statements. This works for any statement that is "unclear". The statement is correct or in the case of the example, both statements are correct, but mean two totally different things. Knowing an simple example of quantum physics isn't enough to understand, a short quote from the Bible isn't either. If one were to cherry pick the Bible it can lead to any meaning a person wishes to agendize. "Judas hung himself", "go ye and do likewise", "whatever thouest do, do quickly." Stosh

When it comes to biblical interpretation one must always take into consider the fact that traditional interpretation may indeed be flawed. Just because someone says it's so doesn't make it so. I can read something and understand it because I have a different level of sophistication, understanding, and can actually read what's written, where the next guy can't, makes up what it means by what someone says it means and builds a tradition on it. If one guy says baptism requires human intervention, i.e. understanding and acceptance, then it becomes an activity of man. Others say it's an act of God and the only human interaction is going through the motions on behalf of God. There's nothing wrong with the wording of the bible, only the flaws in human understanding and of course there are always people out there who think they know more than God and make up their own rules and agendas and tag God for it. We see a lot of that going on over the years. Like any other historical manuscript, whether it be the US Constitution or the Bible, others who were not part of it's creation have twisted and distorted it's original clarity through flawed interpretation. It goes part and parcel with the games people play to make themselves appear better than others. Remember, NOWHERE in the US Constitution does it say "separation of Church and State", yet it is bantered around in today's world as if it does.

If American A and American B, both who cannot speak Spanish, are looking at a sign in Mexico City confused as to what it says, does not make the sign unclear. If American A speaks Spanish and B doesn't, only A will find it clear, B will still be confused. If both speak Spanish and neither can figure it out, then there just might be a problem with the sign, OR maybe it's written in Spanish slang and A and B only took high school Spanish. Sorry Merlyn it would seem that no matter how hard I try there doesn't seem to be much clarification on your part and so Adios, Amigo! Stosh

Ok, for clarity sake. ;^) "The problem with Merlyn's logic is that if A and B can't agree on the interpretation of X then there's something wrong/unclear with X. However, if there's nothing wrong with X then either A and/or B are wrong. The faulty logic lies in the fact that there's an assumption that there is a problem with X. I contend that there's a problem with either A or B. Therefore it's always possible that either Merlyn and/or Ed is wrong. Let the reader decide for themselves. The problem with Merlyn's logic is that if A and B can't agree on the interptation i.e. clear understanding of the statement X then there's something about X that makes itself unclear. However, if there's nothing unclear with X then either A and/or B may not be capable of understanding it's clarity. Someone can put an algebraic formula in front of my and no matter how much I try I'll never figure it out, yet a mathematician can take a glance at it and he/she fully understands what the formula means. There's nothing wrong with the formula nor is there anything wrong with the mathematicians understanding of it. However, I haven't a clue what it means because I'm not a mathematician. The "problem" does not lie with the formula X or person A, but person B is totally clueless. I do not know what the letters of the formula mean (meaning of words in a statment) nor how those letter and numbers in that particular sequence gives meaning to the formula(grammar, intent and meaning of the statement). The logic falls apart when person A (mathematician) looks at the formula X and says ok, no problem makes sense to me. And Person B says, formula X is unclear, not because it is, but because they don't have the capabilities to understand it. To call the comment a straw man argument leads me to believe that one doesn't understand that I was not attacking the person, I was questioning the logic applied to the situation. One must always allow for the possibility of false assumptions in the argument. To assume that person B doesn't understand the statment means the statement is unclear that might be true but it doesn't mean that the statement is unclear to person A. This is Math 101 logic. Stosh

I guess I really don't see this as bad news. I'm seeing some great response to boy-led from the NSP and your future lies there. It's just getting you through the present that's the challenge. My suggestion: 1) If no one wants to lead the older patrol, the SPL steps in and takes over temporarily until he gets another patrol member up and running as a functional PL. As PL of that patrol he picks his best potential leader from the NSP to be his assistant. His role is two-fold, keep the patrol functioning and training someone from that patrol to take over and run themselves. The key word here is functional. It looks like no one wants the job, they all want to be taken care of and they are too lazy to cooperate as a team and no one is ambitious enough to step up to the plate. Maybe it's time to rename them the Welfare Patrol. 2) Operate this way for 3 months while the patrol takes TLT and Harcourt training, reorganize themselves into a functional patrol and then release them back into the wilds. It will be benficial for the APL (New Scout) to witness this reorganizational process because he'll be your best bet for next year's NSP PL. Everything he learns in rebuilding a patrol he'll be able to use when the new Webelos cross-over. 3) If one is concerned about these boys dropping out, don't be, they are basically in the program just to take for themselves. They will never learn group dynamics and will walk away with a me-me-me-Eagle Patch. How they are ever going to lead a project is beyond my comprehension. 4) Look at this "problem" as an opportunity. The potential new scout leader (APL) will get some valuable insight by learning from your best (SPL). The SPL (optional anyway with only 2 patrols) will be able to step in and show his organizational/inspirational metal. The patrol will either step up or drop out, their choice, and those that stay will be excellent scouts. I'm thinking that for the most part the older boys figure they either know-it-all, or are taking advantage of enabling leaders which allow them to sluff off. I'm thinking that from the tone of things you may be transitioning from adult-led to boy-led and during this transition time you will have exactly what you have described. This is not a problem, it is normal. Older boys (adult-led) will do things or try to do things that allow enabling adults to re-step back into the process to save their butts at the last minute. The NSP (boy-led) don't know what adult life-savers are and are stepping up and leading themselves. These transitional times can be very difficult but don't let the boys let you slip back into the old adult-led ways. They'll challenge you, make you feel guilty, and use every other trick a 12-14 year old can come up to avoid growing up. It's normal. Good luck! You've covered all your bases by doing a good job of evaluating the problem, now get the boys involved with a solution that works for themselves. Place your best boys in the key positions and trust them that they can pull off a small miracle. You may be surprised. Reassure your SPL he is really the SPL and that it is his duty as SPL to recruit, train, and inspire PL's. This is what he will be doing by using the patrol as his teaching aid for his potential new PL that will take over. Just remember, a boy in a boy-led program that solves this problem will be 100% better than an adult in a fledgling boy-led program trying to do it. If your SPL (with SM support) pulls off this, you will have a fantastic boy-led program in the long run. Stosh

3,000,000 soldiers and 400,000 casualties has shown that secession is illegal, and Texas ratified their position in the US as a sub division of the whole. Therefore they cannot secede but they can rebel. The constitution states a State cannot enter a state of War without Congressional consent. However, the Declaration of Independence does state: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..." Once the principles outlined in the DI are abolished by our present leaders, we as a people have a right to correct it back to the way it was and has been for the past 200+ years. It sounds like more than just Texas is running short on patience. But keep it in mind, the last time someone tried such a move, 3,000,000 soldiers and 400,000 casualties resulted in defining it. At some point it may just be worth trying again, but it might be a ways off yet. Stosh

The problem with Merlyn's logic is that if A and B can't agree on the interpretation of X then there's something wrong/unclear with X. However, if there's nothing wrong with X then either A and/or B are wrong. The faulty logic lies in the fact that there's an assumption that there is a problem with X. I contend that there's a problem with either A or B. Therefore it's always possible that either Merlyn and/or Ed is wrong. Let the reader decide for themselves. Stosh

This stuff happens all the time. One can't fight city hall. For those troops that have adult leadership that does this there's probably nothing anyone can do about it. Obviously when one gets a pass-the-buck response as you did, that's probably the last you'll ever hear about it. Remember, you were put in there to buck the good-old-boy system. Ever hear of a snipe hunt? left handed smoke shifter? Good Luck! Now if it were me, I'd make so much noise everywhere I went, they'd ask me to step down and then I wouldn't worry about it anymore. Remember, there's no good turn that goes unpunished. Sound cynical? Sure, but one must accept a certain amount of reality along with the situation or you'll go insane. If one is given all the responsibility and no authority, the job isn't going anywhere. Stosh

LOL! When I was in grade school I had terrible penmanship and my mother made me practice for hours until it met her expectations. My only regret is everyone picks on me now because I "write like a girl!" Thanks for the "fond" childhood memory refresh! :-) Stosh