Beavah

Yah, lots there, John-in-KC. I wonder, if camps serve minor children, who serves the major children . I think our view differs on da roles at this point: In this thread, the OP is at that point: Things went awry. Why did that happen? IMO, it happened for two reasons: The Camp failed to put on a quality program, and the unit failed the Scouts by not highlighting the disconnects while there was time to fix them. The SM at camp is busy enough dealing with homesick kids and this, that, or the other thing that it's unreasonable to expect most of 'em to make it out to observe and assess the program areas daily. And even if a SM runs about from program area to program area, he's not going to catch most of da mistakes. That's not his job.. It just ain't the job of the customer to troubleshoot the service they're paying for. Now, a friendly customer might offer feedback, but that's a gift, not an obligation. A truly upset customer might demand a refund. But most customers most places either chalk it off to a bad day and work around the problem, or chalk it off to poor quality and choose not to return. It's up to the camp to solicit feedback (from both the youth and the adults) and work to offer a strong program. That's not the job of the customer. So what happens when a SM hits the end of the week and finds out a kid has been shortchanged? The SM should take care of the kid, not the camp. Most of the time, that's goin' to mean he or she finds the lad a real counselor so the boy really gets the full experience of the badge. Yah, sure, if there's time and it's not too disruptive, a lad might repeat part at camp, but that's not usually possible. What it doesn't mean is giving the boy a badge he hasn't really earned. That would just be silly. Nothing in the rules, regulations, bylaws, or program guides says that the SM is expected to be a tom-fool nitwit and award a badge that wasn't earned. Program guidelines define the normal procedures. It's up to people of good will to handle things appropriately using their own good judgment when da normal procedures break down. So that's : Camp's job to maintain program quality, SM's option to help by giving feedback. SM's job to do what's right for the boy. Beavah

Yah, end of the week, tired lad who collapses immediately into sleep as soon as he hits his mom's car, mouthing off to mom like an ordinary teenager. Sometimes a lad who is extremely overtired should be cut some slack for being an ordinary kid, eh? Heck, I'm not sure I'm not grumpy after a week of lots of activity and less sleep than usual So I don't think this calls for removal from da troop, but it does sound like the SPL job is a bit too much for him at the moment, and his "example" is not one yeh want to let stand as the proper behavior of an SPL in front of others. So time for the SM conference to tell him he's no longer SPL. He'll get another chance to run the next time yeh have elections, if he can demonstrate he's ready for that responsibility in the interim. And time for da SM conference with the ASPL for an "attaboy" over his demonstrated responsibility at camp, and to give him the pep talk to step up to da SPL role. The best leaders are the ones who are smart enough not to want the job. All ordinary scouting, all good lessons for boys becoming men. Beavah

Yah, shortridge, I agree with yeh on all of your points (though perhaps I'm so old that my definition of "young" is a bit different than yours ). But this thread wasn't about how those of us who are council scouters should work to do better with camps, eh? This was about what a unit scouter should do when confronted with a situation where a lad got shortchanged. I don't think the SM, the boy, or the unit is "locked in" to a poor MB experience just because some tired staffer pencil-whipped a report form. The badge should be refused. You're completely right that shoddy program should not be excused. My only point was that in some cases mistakes get made or shoddy program happens, and then yeh have to deal with it. And you're completely right that it's a help to the camp for a SM to give feedback in an appropriate way. But it ain't a requirement, and it shouldn't be an expectation. SMs have enough to do at camp, and they're paying us to handle the other stuff, eh? We're not paying them to troubleshoot program. Their feedback is a gift, it's not a responsibility. The responsibility is on the camp staff and the council folks to solicit feedback, and to do our own monitoring of program quality. As for da rest, I reckon we all know that very few camps have the resources to pay adults to be the sole instructors for da bazillions of MBs issued each week, and few units would pay the price necessary to make that possible. Most councils struggle with this and make compromises. But being 18 or 21 doesn't magically make yeh competent or immune to mistakes or pressure, either . Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, absolutely! But what does the PLC think? Beavah

Yah, yeh all need to stop blathering about policy this and rule that and playin' amateur attorneys with a childrens' program. The use of age minimums is a perfectly acceptable thing when it's da right thing to do program-wise. And there are all kinds of reasons why in a particular case it might be the right thing to do program-wise. Sometimes there are resource limits. A camp might only be able to offer a few sessions of Shotgun Shooting, and it wants those sessions to be used by lads who have the highest likelihood of being successful. So they put limits on signups by age. Perfectly acceptable. Perfectly within da rules. Sometimes resource limits have other forms. A Law MB counselor might be an attorney who is being very generous with his time, but wants his time to be treated respectfully. Sending the man a bunch of immature 10 year olds would only result in losing a fellow who is a good counselor. So a MBC putting limits on who he will counsel, or a troop establishing such "rules" for such counselors/badges is perfectly acceptable. Sometimes individual boys just aren't up for a badge. A lad who isn't a strong swimmer signing up for Lifesaving, etc. Sending 'em to a group-instruction MB setting just isn't fair to the counselor and the other members of the group, or to the boy. It's just hard to accommodate a lad who is unprepared in a group instruction setting. Lots of times young lads' eyes are bigger than their stomachs, eh? And while there's always an exception here and there, those are best handled as exceptions. The norm for a program decision has to be set to da average, not the exception. So sometimes a norm of being of a certain age to do a certain thing, whether it's be SPL or take Whitewater MB, is just fine. Nothing wrong with it. Then yeh make an exception if a lad's been paddling Class III since he was 7 years old. Personally, I think to do some of da citizenship badges well/properly, the lads should be in high school, or at least be pretty savvy/mature 8th graders. It helps that they reach an age where they are formin' their own opinion about things and watchin' the world around them a bit more. Otherwise those badges just become a school-memorization exercise, rather than a more fun and interesting counseling arrangement. I counsel Cit. World (nice tie in with international scouting), and most of the time the young fellows just aren't up to it yet. Those are but a few reasons, eh? I reckon there are others. Point is, it's a normal, ordinary, and acceptable program decision. In fact, it's a necessary one in most kid programs. We even strongly encourage units to think in such terms by publishing "Age Appropriate Guidelines", which include recommendations to limit some sorts of MB activity to older boys. Should there be occasional exceptions? Yah, sure. Programs should try to do what's right for special individuals when they can. But it's just fine to set a norm for the group. Beavah

Get Outdoors: ABSOLUTELY WRONG, SIR. Nah, John-in-KC, I've been readin' your line of argument throughout this thread, and I have to disagree. I think you're gettin' it all wrong. Scouting isn't about regulations and contracts. A blue card is most definitely not a contract with a boy, and it's improper to think of it that way. In fact, blue cards themselves are just an optional record-keeping tool, eh? They don't mean anything on their own. Scouting is about helping young people to learn and grow. That and that alone is what should guide the Scoutmaster in how to handle the situation, and the BSA has mechanisms for allowing the Scoutmaster to do that. If a conscientious scoutmaster like joeracz or others discovers that a boy has been issued a completed merit badge form improperly, his job is to refuse it, and then help the boy find a better counselor so that the lad is able to really learn the skill. Here's what the Scoutmaster or unit committee member is asked to sign on the Advancement Report Form: I certify that the the following record of advancement is correct and that it meets the standards and requirements of the Boy Scouts of America Yah, that makes it clear, eh? If it's da Scoutmaster's opinion the MBC didn't adhere to the standards and requirements, he must be trustworthy in filling out the advancement report, and therefore he must not submit the merit badge for credit. Period. Now, I appreciate the advice to Scouters to offer feedback to the camp. That's good advice, but it's a different thing than honestly filling out advancement reports or doing what's right for the kid in question. It's not the Scoutmaster's job to fix the camp. Yah, sure, a Scoutmaster may optionally choose to give the camp feedback, but it's his choice, eh? It's the camp staff's job and the Scout Executive's and the camp commishs' job to monitor and improve the camp. Transferring that responsibility onto the units just isn't right or fair to the units that we are supposed to be providing services. The Scoutmaster's job is to do what's right for his CO, his unit, his boys, and that's a big enough responsibility. So no, we don't really expect scoutmasters to monitor all of the programs at camp and catch and correct things on the fly. To expect that would be a complete abdication of our proper role as council scouters. We expect unit leaders to do their job and make sure that the scout gets a good program even if the camp lets 'em down. Then it's our job to deal with the camp. Show me a council scouter who makes a big deal about the SM stepping up and I'll show you a council scouter who doesn't understand his own responsibility and should probably go back to unit work. Besides, can yeh imagine how disruptive it would be if every SM followed da advice here and interrupted the young MB instructors every time they got something wrong? That approach just ain't courteous. So in my not-so-humble opinion, joeracz as a unit leader should be honest and not approve the MB. The clear text of the requirements and what we teach at Camp School is that Swimming MB requires a strong, proper-form stroke, and the lad shouldn't be desperately struggling to finish. That's the requirement, and especially for bigger troops or adventure bases, we rely on Swimming MB to be "real" for safety purposes. It shouldn't be issued if it's being issued dishonestly. It's disappointing that the camp staff reported the badge as complete, but as folks have pointed out, camp staffs are young, there are lots of kids to keep track of, and lots of pressure from campers, weaker unit leaders, and parents to "cave." A badly issued MB report might result from anything from a paperwork error to three different fellows named "John" that the counselor didn't keep track of. No matter what da reason, when the camp hasn't held up its end, the Scoutmaster is expected to step up to the plate and do what's right for the boy and the program. Because he's given us his Oath, eh? "On my honor...." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, what's missing in the report is whether the lad had already had a meeting with the scoutmaster or the adult web host. Sounds from the letter like the answer is "yes", since the letter seems to be responding to prior questions from the boy. And of course we didn't get the whole letter. I'm with moosetracker. This isn't a parent issue, it's something a Life scout needs to resolve with his SM. Doesn't matter if da SM made the wrong call or communicated it poorly or didn't check in to hold the boy's hand for months. Refs make the wrong call, bosses sometimes communicate poorly, teachers don't always hold your hand. Learning to have the character to deal with that while acknowledging his own mistakes is the most important lesson here, not wheedling credit for a poor job to make da hovering parents go away. Besides, the letter was written to your son, eh? Not to you. When we talk or write to teens, it's often necessary to be blunt. Male teenagers just don't "get" subtle. Yeh get to be important teachers for your son, eh? Do yeh want him to learn that mommy and daddy will always fight to keep him spoiled and privileged, or do yeh want him to learn how to own up to his own mistakes and act with grace and character instead of like a whiner? If it's the latter, yeh support the SM unequivocally. And then, after everything is resolved and temperatures have cooled, yeh offer the SM gentle feedback on what would have made a better letter for you. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

In talking to a lawyer, a waiver was recommended. He however, didn't suggest he would help my son do this for his project but quoted $250 an hour. What an arse. Sometimes yeh just have to shake your head at some members of da profession. Remember, mdlscouting, the job of an attorney is to give yeh the best possible, most conservative, legal advice. And bill yeh for it. That's not the best possible overall advice, eh? In fact, in a lot of cases it's the worst possible business advice, or personal advice, or ethical advice. But the way the law works in this country, it's up to you to make decisions about all of those other things (or talk with an MBA, a friend, or a minister ). An attorney only provides you with legal advice. Lots of times, yeh need to thank an attorney for his advice and then ignore him. Without giving you legal advice, which I can't, I'd gently suggest that I reckon this is one of those times when the man's behavior speaks for itself and you should ignore the fellow. But if yeh really want your son to have this sort of "learning" experience, have him call your scout council office and ask for the name of an attorney serving on the district committee or council executive board. I reckon they'll be more Helpful and Friendly. And maybe your son can get a Law MB out of it. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

To compare their willingness to lay down their life with the risk a skateboard takes when he jumps off a stair railing--well, there is no comparision. Yah, desertrat77, that was exactly my point, eh? Thanks for making it clear. The risks aren't the same. They are far less for the lad who chooses to give his time to build a skatepark than they are for the lad who chooses to give his time to the Armed Forces. So we should be (much!) less worried about the skatepark builder. Of course, both are giving to the nation and community according to their interest and calling (and age and ability), and therefore both are to be encouraged and supported even when we disagree with their cause. And we have plenty of soldiers in da service who kept themselves fit and alert by skating, eh? Even in your run down, we have these qualifiers: Yah, force of habit, eh? Nobody is licensed to practice in all the several states, and we do call it "practice" not perfect. But I was being completely honest when I said that the poster and her son had the maximum level of protection that is available while still living in a free society. Or, to put it another way, I challenge yeh to find any case anywhere that approximates these conditions was ever brought, let alone survived summary judgment. If that isn't enough to allay your fears of liability, then I reckon yeh need to move to one of those middle eastern kingdoms and work for the king. Beavah who really must be addicted to this internet stuff to be writin' on legal issues from da field. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmm. Welcome to da forums, mdlscouting. Please don't think my remarks are offensive in any way, but they are meant to be challengin'. And informative. The challengin' comes from my astonishment. Guess I'm just an old fellow. Some folks are sending their kids to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some are afraid of sending their child to build a skate park? Theres this story I remember, about a man injured by robbers and left along the side of the road, and various upstanding citizens going by. I suppose a few may have thought Maybe he or his family will sue me if I dont do a perfect job helping. And so they leave him there, eh? Only a young Goth fellow (or someone from another outcast group that good families sneer at) has the courage and decency to assume the risk that comes with doing what is right. We remember him as the Good Samaritan. If your good deeds are contingent on being risk- or inconvenience- free, then I reckon they arent worth much. I think its better that yeh teach your son that America is the home of the Brave, eh? We do good deeds even when there is risk and liability. As oft as not, we put our sons and daughters in harms' way to help others. But in this case, there is almost no risk. 1. As a volunteer for a not-for-profit, you have statutory immunity from negligence claims. You are exempt by law. 2. As a minor, your son doesnt likely have any personal responsibility. 3. As the parent of a minor, most states cap your responsibility for his actions at some very low dollar amount (if they allow such claims at all). 4. As a community, da skaters and other extreme sports folks tend to take personal responsibility. They arent a very sue-happy bunch. That distinction is reserved to the old and the well off. 5. Despite what yeh hear, the liability waivers used in such places can be effective for extreme sports. 6. Its hard to imagine a jury of ordinary folks finding such a claim cognizable. Despite what yeh hear on the internet, more than 99% of da time the court system works well. 7. It would be the park respondin to any plaintiff action. Then maybe da BSA and the CO. That puts yeh behind tens of millions of dollars of insurance cover. In short, you and your son have as much protection from liability as it is possible to have in a free society. Backing your car down your driveway is ten thousand times more risk in terms of liability. Dont be afraid of doing good deeds for your community. Ever. And please don't teach your children to be afraid. Buildin' a skate park is a fantastic idea, and a needed service in many communities where da young folks need a place to play and the old folks don't like 'em doing it around town. Your son is thinkin' well, and should be commended and supported, even if it's not da project you would have chosen. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The knots and other patches have been used to start conversations... about ME and motivate scouts... by showing them how cool I am. (that must be motivating for boys...) Telling my 'scouting tales" is something that I love to do,... because they're all about ME Yah, I don't mean to be picking on Eagle92, eh? And I trust he'll take it in da tongue-in-cheek way it's intended. It's just that whenever I hear those explanations, that's what I think of and see in my head, because I've watched it so many times. Nah, not every adult is like that, and I expect Eagle92 isn't. Besides, such adults are still fine people who do good scoutin'. But most often adults put dewdads on their uniform for attention, and they get attention, which gives 'em a chance to talk about themselves and their awards and their scouting experiences. It's OK. I'd just suggest instead of talking to boys about our adult uniform, that we hush up and spend our time listening to their tales, and interests, and most recent adventure. Maybe ask 'em about their uniform, if they've got somethin' personalized on it, or about an unusual badge they've earned. I just think it's much more productive scoutin' time than talking about ourselves. When we really listen to the lads, we often find they aren't motivated by the same things we are. Their great adventures aren't goin' to be the same as ours were. But if we listen closely and support the boys' goals and dreams with our interest, it works a special magic. That's where things are truly boundless. Beavah (wonderin' if this will make it through these fancy portable wireless repeater jobbers...)

Yah, I once went to a true Irish wake for a fellow. Now that was a party. Here I was settin' down to give yeh a proper toast and send-off before settin' off for a different big party. Now you're tellin' me it ain't the time. Ah well, a toast to yeh anyway! Hope the details work out without too many devils, and that new door opening leads to a grand new path of adventure. Beavah

Yah, BadenP, none taken. I enjoy talkin' (actually, mostly listenin') to lots of different folks about theology. Everybody from a local Rabbi to a Jesuit attorney who I do lunch with once a month. I know da things I don't know, and I'm comfortable in my own unsophisticated faith. you are either one school of thought or the other. Yah, lots of folks think that. I've never been quite that black and white, eh? I think there's a balance. Yeh don't have to compromise your own beliefs, but yeh can moderate your own actions and interactions with others. So chalk me up as "disagree." For this thread I think it's necessary for everyone to share their faith perspective in order for us all to understand the issues. I just didn't want it to become a debate about theology. Those can be fun, too, eh? But they're best spun off so that this thread can keep to somewhat of a focus on what makes sense for a scouting context, or how different scouters approach da issue in their own troops and districts. Beavah

Yah, I hoped this thread would provide insight, eh? By asserting publicly that your religion is the one true way and you won't comingle, educate yourself and be firm enough in your own beliefs to know that by hearing others you aren't going to be converted -- you're condemning your fellow scouts who believe differently and consider then 2nd class citizens. I think yeh missed the point, jhankins, and are accidentally slippin' into doing the same thing that you are accusing others of. Many, most religions do assert that they are the "one true way", eh? That's not being judgmental so much as it is being honest and true to one's own faith. I don't think anybody's opposed to education or worried about being converted, they're worried about being dishonest or being a poor example. And da thing is, when we get down on folks who are being honest about their beliefs and accuse 'em of not adhering to the 12th point of the Scout Law by treating others as 2nd Class citizens, we're the ones who aren't respecting their beliefs and treating them as second class citizens. Dat's why I brought this up, eh? I think these kinds of "services" can be quite a minefield, and do more damage than good in a lot of cases. Been there, seen that, got da T-shirt. I was just curious what others were seeing or experiencin'. I'm sorta of the same mind as bacchus, eh? I think real respect is better engendered by attending each others real worship services, much as we all do for weddings and funerals. (Added: Let's all be careful to keep this a scouting program thread, and move da substantive theology discussion over to Issues & Politics.) Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm sorta perplexed what da safety concerns are. It's summer, all they're talking about is hiking and camping. Being away from a toilet requires a bit of instruction, but it isn't a safety concern. What are da real worries here? The kids are scouts, right? I'm sorta with Eagledad, eh? Yeh give kids responsibility until they're on the edge of being overwhelmed, because that's what challenge is and what growth comes from. Here, there seems no safety downside to doing so. If they get tired early, they camp short of their goal. Beavah

Yah, didn't want this announcement (what a horrible way to die) to get lost in Yet Another Merlyn Thread: Heck, this is as good a place as any. Looks like my scouting days are about over. I just got offered a job I can't refuse. Wow, I can hardly believe my luck! Anyway, I'll be spending a lot of time in beautiful exotic places and living among many beautiful exotic people...and not killing them. But that pretty much puts the end to my time available for the troop so I guess I'll reduce the BSA membership by one as of next registration. (In case anyone is wondering, it has nothing whatsoever to do with any BSA policy ) This has been in the works for a while now and I was afraid that it really WAS too good to be true. But it happened today. If any of you guys ever make it to the nature island of the Caribbean, drop me a line. I'll stay registered here just in case...and I'll probably lurk for a while as well....kind of like that Dave Steele guy who thinks everyone forgot about him while he watches these threads... but I didn't forget. Hear that, Dave? Ya'll play nice now. Wooohooo! (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Yah, so to be clear, yeh want me (or law enforcement) to strip search your child and all of his possessions whenever another kid in his class passes along an anonymous tip about possible drug use? Keeping in mind that the only way to really find personal-use quantities of illegal substances is to strip search, dismantle electronics and other possessions, etc. Really? Given how protective yeh are of your wife's son, I'd be really surprised if you didn't go ballistic if someone did that to him. Beavah

Merlyn, da question is whether you speak for BSA national, since yeh claim to be more of an authority than any of us who are actually in da organization. Of course, if yeh knew what you were talking about, you'd know that member registration is a local council function, not an Irving office one. You know, I saw once on YouTube that in order to be an atheist, you must love blueberry pie ( ). So I don't care what you or any other atheist claim is really true, I know that blueberry pies are always a requirement for atheists. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Merlyn, da original post concerned Taoist boys. The BSA welcomes Taoist youth as members. Even though you see some or all Taoist youth as "atheists" and therefore ineligible for membership, we do not. Since it is our organization, what we say goes. It truly is not a problem. Beavah

OK, vol, I'll give it one more go just for you Like I said Beavah, that's how people bend the rules. BSA officials have stated in court under oath that youth members who are atheists can't join. You can break that rule if you want, but it doesn't make it go away. Like I said (and like the Supreme Court said in Dale), it is the BSA and it's membership that define how it's rules are to be interpreted and applied in practice. Just like it is climate scientists who can tell you authentically how to interpret and apply their writings on climate. Outsiders with an agenda who try to pick apart individual sentences out of hundreds of pages of documents inevitably just get it wrong. Like I said, the job of an attorney is to provide a zealous defense for a client in a litigated dispute. But not everything is a litigated dispute, eh? There is a difference between how one responds to someone who is going out of their way to pick a fight and how one responds in other cases. Court cases resolve disputes, they do not define business practices. Again, it is da BSA, not Merlyn, who is the authentic interpreter of its own policy and practice. This forum has BSA members from across da country, from dozens of different chartering partners, from all levels of da BSA. They have all told you the same thing, consistently, year after year, and pointed out how da BSA's written documentation differs for youth and adults on the matter. Like a climate change denier, yeh continue to ignore expertise and the entire body of evidence and pick on out-of-context isolated quotes as "evidence". Physics tells us that when an object is very dense it distorts all the light around it. Don't blame those of us shedding light on da matter for the distortion you see. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, no ego on my part, BadenP. I wasn't involved in developing national's materials nor do I usually serve as a camp chaplain, leastways not for any faith other than my own. Just had to adjudicate too many hurt feelings and objections over this stuff over the years is all. Seems like it engenders ill will as much as it engenders good will. As several point out, da generic stuff is objectionable to many Christians and most Muslims, the Christian-patterned stuff is offensive to Jews and Muslims and for Eastern religion kids it baffles 'em with boredom. That's just my experience, eh? Glad to hear some folks have had different experiences, eh? But then it might depend on whether or not you're serving in a position where you are more likely to get complaints or be listening to lots of different unit folks. Beavah

REally? spending 10, 15, 20 or 30 minutes cost a bunch of time and effort? Yah, now add in the hiking time and time gettin' guys together. Then multiply by the number of kids and adults, and add in all of the time the chaplaincy put into getting the program together. Dat's a lot of person-hours spent on something that doesn't even qualify as "emergency rations"' eh? I get the argument, sort of, that it gets a lot of kids their first / only contact with communally expressed faith. But not if what we're giving 'em is so weak, eh? And it often is. Beavah

Which doesn't match their stated policy... In the opinion of an outside, admittedly biased observer who is willing to : 1) disregard the expert testimony of those who are real scouters and more familiar with both the policy and actual practice 2) ignores the context and nature of the litigated disputes. 3) attempts to make a policy case out of one sentence of one form, while ignoring the rest of the form and the other BSA documentation. Like all folks with prejudice and bias approach topics, it ain't particularly rational. I reckon that da BSA volunteers and pros are the ones who are most qualified to interpret the meaning of the policy and it's actual practice. Remember. kids don't know how to use a car on their own until they reach a certain age, eh? Beavah (who, having brought things back around to da earlier exposition, will now watch with amusement as Merlyn gets da last word. Several times)

And for all of that, it would still be a car club, and it would still be OK for them to not accept those who didn't like cars and wanted to spend time talking about how cars were stupid and unnecessary and harmful to the environment. While still accepting young folks who were thinking of possibly getting a car, or at least were politely agreeable to car talk. A union picnic doesn't have any union purpose beyond fellowship with like minded union families. But even though there is no overt union activity at the picnic, or it's an optional meeting on the side, doesn't mean it's wrong for participation to be limited to those who share a viewpoint. Folks who share viewpoints like to hang out together sometimes, whether it's picnicking or doing scouty stuff. Not welcoming anti-union politicos to the union picnic isn't a bad thing, even if there is no overt union activity at the picnic. Beavah

It's not your lunch. It's not breakfast. It's not even an emergency ration Then seriously, why bother? It costs a bunch of time and effort. Time and effort that could be spent providing a nutritious breakfast. Beavah