Lisabob

In thinking about the variety of things I dislike about the MB Days I've seen so far, one of the items on the top of my list is that they seem prone to misuse by SMs. Last month I helped (against my better judgment but that's a long story) with one of these for our council. I am a counselor for communications. Now, this can be a fun and interesting badge to earn and I did my best to make it a lively interactive session rather than a typical classroom experience. But several SMs had signed up boys who had JUST crossed over from cub scouts! Here these kids were, 10 or 11 years old, with no personal desire to be there and a lack of maturity. They seemed like nice kids, sure, but they didn't belong there. They'd have been better off doing finger printing or art or something a little more simple and hands on. Other SMs had registered older boys who were apparently "stuck" on the path to Eagle and who also clearly didn't want to be there. I talked to one of the SMs who did this because "his" guys were extremely disruptive and downright rude (and believe me, it takes a lot for me to get to that point). Actually I was sympathetic to their plight - they'd been signed up for Communications, Citizenship in the World, and Citizenship in the Nation, all by the SM without their interest or really, consent. What a boring Saturday for a 10 year old brand new scout! The SM opined that this was a good opportunity to get these Eagle-required MBs "out of the way" early in their scouting careers. We can and should fault poor planning and poor execution when these MB Days are not well done, which seems to be much of the time. But unless we also start holding SMs' feet to the fire w/ regard to how the MB Days are used, there are still going to be some bad experiences out there.

Gonzo, I sympathize and I'm happy to know that you have the desire to put so much of yourself into this troop to make it the best possible experience for the boys. As an outsider - and over the web at that - what I am about to say may not be a good fit so take it under consideration. But I wonder if part of the problem here is one of perception and approach. Just from what you've posted here, the dynamic I sense is that you have come into this troop like gang busters, sending the message that they're "doing it all wrong" and that you'll fix it for them. You've been with the troop for about 2 months and already you're "taking over" the PLC and now training the adults too, who have worked hard for 4 years to get this troop off the ground. Several of them probably do view you as trying to engage in a hostile take over of the troop. Please, don't take that the wrong way. Actually I'm sure that your insights into what the troop ought to change are on the mark. It's just that while their apparent lack of interest in improving the program (or accepting your help) isn't so good, it is still reality that you'll need to overcome their defensiveness to get things done. What I suggest is that you - and the CC and the SM and other interested parties - get together and come to some agreements on priorities for change. Maybe bring in the friendly UC if they have one (and a good relationship with him or her), or else someone other than you in a position of authority to run the show. Or, if they hold an annual planning day (for the adults, not the boys) then maybe that's an opportunity to hash things out. Build a common vision and you will stand a much better chance of achieving it. Then you can set up a plan that works. As is, it sounds to me like you have buy in from the SM but if he is "weak" as you say, you haven't gotten the support of the folks from whom you will need help if your desire to improve this troop is to succeed. Otherwise it will be you and the SM - and maybe just you when the going gets tough - against the group, and you will have a much harder time. So in a nutshell: I'm suggesting you work on achieving "buy in" from the people in positions of power first, and then start tackling some of the bigger issues, rather than engage in a fight over every issue whenever it pops up. The latter is likely to leave you frustrated, tired, and unsuccessful if you don't have support.

The more experience I have with these MB Days, the less I like them. Our district allows a local APO group to do one of these every year. Problem is, this is a fundraiser for APO and until recently, the local APO chapter had no scouts or scouters involved. So they had a weak understanding of, or commitment to, the program. Results were predictably bad. This year the student in charge is active with scouting and that went a long way toward improving the quality - as did some serious limits put in place by our DAC ('bout time!). Class sizes were 10-20 instead of 100-200 and boys could only work on 2-3 MBs, most of which were designed to produce partials. And personally, I made very sure that my contact info was available for any scouts who wanted to follow up on MBs for which I'm registered. So things were better and our scouts actually really liked some of the sessions. But in my opinion, MB Days should not include the Eagle-required badges at all. These can't be done justice in a classroom setting, especially in a one-day format. They should be as hands on as possible and they require a huge amount of preparation to do them well. Groups who are organizing them "just" for fundraising probably shouldn't be involved at all. On the other hand- recently our district held a HAM radio day where boys could work on a MB. This was very targeted and I like that idea better than these blanket "come and earn a fistfull of badges" types of deals.

I think you need to decide whether this particular windmill is worth tilting at. Maybe the answer will be "yes." But other districts/councils do also limit their MBCs. In our district the limit was put in place a couple of years back and is set at 5 total per MBC. Recently I've looked at our district MBC list and there is a paucity of counselors for many non-Eagle-required MBs. This might be due to the fact that many troops prefer to have MBCs for the Eagle-required badges "in house," and with the new policy there isn't room for these people to also counsel other badges. But the answer to that may be, do a better job of recruiting MBCs, rather than having one person counsel 20 different badges or something like that. As for "fairness" when other districts in the same council don't have these limits (or have different limits) - fairness to whom? There's nothing saying a boy has to work only with counselors from his own district. And from the MBC perspective, why would you see the # of badges a person in one district vs. the other district may counsel as a fairness issue among adults? Is more necessarily better? I'm not so sure about that. I think the better question is whether there is a NEED (from a program perspective) to allow MBCs in your district to counsel more badges.

For the boys: The troop uses patrol calls. This seems to work out about half the time. The other half, only when the SM follows up with the SPL & PLC to get feedback on who did/didn't make the calls. Since this is not something our SM of the last couple of years has done, well, you can guess the results. For the adults: Email, no rules about who can/can't. But not everyone (like our SM) reads email and then there's a tendency for people not to update their address books so that new members get left off and people who haven't been around in years get left on. We have a website but that's only helpful if someone is serious about updating and maintaining it. Face to face at weekly troop meetings seems to be the most reliable form of communication among the adults. I don't know about all of you but I really dislike phone calls, esp. to cell phones, as a means of regular communication. You never know who/what you are interrupting and many people do NOT seem to turn them off in situations where they wouldn't want to be interrupted. I just dislike that. Some of our perenial difficulty with communication is boys not being responsible or interested in conveying information. Some of this is that not all adults set a very good example on this front! THat bugs the heck out of me (it isn't rocket science) but then I remember that the same adults who tend to be the worst at communicating information to groups are also sometimes the ones the boys connect with best on a one-to-one basis. So I try to take slow deep breaths and ignore that prickle of irritation! Oh and I volunteer to do a lot of the communication stuff because at least then I know it got done.

Happy Easter (though slightly belated) to all who celebrate it. In past years the family tradition for us was pork roast with gravy and potato dumplings (mmmm...) but somehow it morphed into ham and scalloped potatoes somewhere along the way.

Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me. (Matthew 25:40) I can't answer the WWJD question in the affirmative but I'm pretty sure the answer wouldn't be "not my problem."

I think it depends a LOT on your audience. Is this troop leaders only or are you including cub leaders? How experienced are the people who come to your RT? Do you have a lot of folks with relatively weak outdoor skills? Or even a sizable minority of such people? As for me: I'm in the "keep it simple" camp. Handouts are great but all too often what newbie types get is just a barrage of recipes hastily printed off the internet, some of which are better/easier/more realistic than others. I'd prefer to see two or three tried and true recipes for beginners (things they'll actually consider eating too) and then maybe two or three more adventurous recipes. Oh and give them the eggs in a bag, sure, but give them a couple of other options too. Don't give them exactly the same thing they'll get at OLS or Outdoor Leader Training for Webelos Leaders. As for demos: I've always heard about boiling water in paper bags/cups, etc.. But with the exception of my dad (yup, a scout) doing this when I was a little kid, I've never seen it done even by the most "experienced" folks who tend to boast about it. If you expect to have some folks there without much experience, maybe you can demo some of these sorts of things so they know it WORKS. Plus it can be a fun trick. Re: cooking technique, especially if you are working with relatively new leaders, give them whatever hands on experience you can in the confines of RT. Teach them how to build a box oven. Give them the opportunity to set up the backpacking stove. Just like with the boys, hands on training means they might actually use it later. And maybe you split them up according to comfort level or the technique they're interested in learning (maybe have stations instead of one big crowd?). Box oven people over here - backpacking stoves over here - camp stoves over here - dutch ovens - cooking over coals - whatever else. Make clear for your newbies that where they are likely to get the best hands-on basics if that's what they came for. And of course food is ALWAYS good!

Ed, you are correct that there is some tension between the establishment and free exercise clauses. But note that the courts have never really interpreted the free exercise clause to be about absolute freedom of ACTION - they have interpreted it to be about absolute freedom of BELIEF. You may believe anything at all, but the courts have always (even the most conservative courts) come down on the side of allowing certain limits on behavior. Moreover, while you can probably engage in most religious practices too in your private life (there's that free exercise business), there are some public instances where this is inappropriate (in the Court's eyes) if you are an agent of the government because at the very least, it will APPEAR as though you are speaking for the gov't when you do so. For example, as a public school teacher/principal or as a judge while on the job. Others who do not share your belief might reasonably suppose that public professions of religion from such as those carry with them a certain threat (you'd better profess a similar belief or else you'll be graded differently, receive a harsher penalty, etc.). And this bumps up against the establishment clause. Now, in the case of public schools, the Supreme Court has said over the years that while schools MAY sponsor Christian clubs or Bible study clubs (or atheist clubs) or what have you, that there are some criteria that apply. First, these clubs cannot formally exclude fellow students from joining on the basis of religious belief (nor, for that matter, can membership be compulsory). This is an enormous difference from the BSA, which both can and does exclude some people on this same basis. Second, the clubs cannot be an attempt on the school's part to proselytize, and the club must follow the same rules as every other official school club. Again to put this in practical terms, what most Justices have said over the years boils down to two things: You do not have to check your *beliefs* at the schoolhouse door, but the school officials cannot actively promote the practice of religion because of the establishment clause. Some schools take this to ridiculous extremes but this is not because the Constitution or the Courts require them to do so - it is a matter of occasional nut cases on local school board or in principals' offices (or a few parents) being waaaayyyyy out there and usually without a solid grasp of the law as a basis. Oh and I forgot to include the link to the GSS data from my previous post. Here it is if anyone is interested. http://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Descriptions/GSS2004.asp

WHy wouldn't they wear them? Why wouldn't you encourage them to wear them? Think of it this way: First, cub scouts and boy scouts are just two parts of the SAME program. There should be more, not fewer, ties between them. If you have leaders at one level who understand the other level really well (because they were or still are active leaders there) then that will strengthen your own program and especially your ability to recruit and retain new scouts. Second, these are volunteers! Celebrate the fact that they care enough about the program and the boys to do all the things necessary to earn those knots, rather than perhaps looking down on them discouraging them from wearing the knots. The official policy is that they can wear them, so encourage that.

Hey Gonzo, yup, we have a few of those pizza chefs (among the adults too). For a few of the women with longer hair there just isn't a good way to deal with this either; I don't suppose they'd take kindly to being told that they must cut their hair in order to wear the beret properly, this being a volunteer organization and not the military after all. But mainly it isn't so much an issue of knowing how, it is an issue of doing it! 10 & 11 year olds aren't that interested. I've been told that in years past (before my son joined) the troop would devote a couple of meetings a year to beret care, believe it or not. This ended when the very militaristic SM who had been there for a long time left. Can't say I'm upset about that. I think spending troop meeting time on something like this is too much, not what boys joined scouting to be doing. There are, of course, others who disagree. Still, the berets do have a certain coolness factor with the boys!

I really don't know if I ought to be posting this here or in the thread on "the rule of 25." But here goes. People have made various assertions about the current religious make up of our country. Well ok, here is some data from a highly regarded source. What follows is a survey question from the General Social Survey. The G.S.S. is conducted annually and asks a wide variety of questions about all sorts of aspects of our society. These same questions have been asked (with some minor variations) for close to 40 years now, providing researchers with a rich base of information for comparative purposes. This particular question and results come from the 2004 GSS. The question asks about the religious affiliation of the person taking the survey. While it does not get into specifics for some lesser-known religions (such as Wicca - part of the thread on "the rule of 25"), it is quite interesting to see the results anyway. And although there are statistical issues with assuming that this survey is a perfect mirror for the American population as a whole, in general the GSS follows the best practices in survey research (sampling techniques, etc.) and is fairly reliable. And I'm not going to do the statistical analysis to come up with exact measures of reliability or margins of error tonight. Do it yourself (or hire someone) if you want to know. What strikes me from these results though, is that only about 76% of respondents identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics, and about 14% identify as having NO religion. That's a pretty big group there in the "none" category. 124) What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion? (RELIG) (RELIGION) TOTAL % 1) PROTESTANT 1483 52.7 2) CATHOLIC 656 23.3 3) JEWISH 55 2.0 4) NONE 403 14.3 5) OTHER 37 1.3 6) BUDDHISM 13 0.5 7) HINDUISM 13 0.5 8) OTH.EASTRN 13 0.5 9) ISLAM 16 0.6 10) ORTH-CHRST 13 0.5 11) CHRISTIAN 71 2.5 12) NAT.AMER. 1 0.0 13) NONDENOM 26 0.9 99) NO ANSWER 12 0.4 TOTAL 2812 100.0 If you are interested, check out the 2004 GSS. Here's a link from the Association of Religion Data Archives. You'll need to click on the GSS and then do a search for "religious preference" in order to find this question.

Ed, Gonzo, the reason why it is acceptable for public schools to run certain clubs that are all one gender or the other and yet not acceptable for schools to run clubs that treat people differently based on religious faith (or lack thereof) is due to the fact that the United States Constitution provides specific protections for religion but less so for gender. The first amendment to the Constitution begins as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..." Now you can put whatever spin on this you personally desire but over the decades and centuries the Supreme Court has ruled that this means we do, in fact, have separation of church and state (this is the "establishment clause." Look at any standard Constitutional Law textbook if you don't believe me but I teach this stuff for a living too so I do think I'm qualified here. The second clause, the "free exercise clause," is a somewhat different issue although they are commonly, and somewhat wrongly, conflated in public opinion.) And in practical terms, particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries, the Court has ruled that since public schools are part of the government, this applies to them. They cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. Whether that also means that schools must give the same credence, leeway, sensitivity, etc., to atheists as to various religious groups is still an arguable point (see the Newdow case, but that was a messy case for reasons that had little to do with the basic religious argument and so it is an issue that will probably surface again in some other form in the future, IMO). But there's little contention about the fact that public schools are not supposed to support any particular religious expression. This is the basis for why the BSA backed off from having public schools as COs. While you've got that Constitutional Law textbook out, let me suggest as well that you look up "selective incorporation." This is the tenet that the bill of rights ought to be interpreted to include not only Congress, but also the states (and by implication, local gov'ts which are creations of the states). While this has happened on a case-by-case, right-by-right basis since the early 1920s, the net result to this point in time is that there is very little from the bill of rights that is NOT applied today to the states as well. And this is not because of state-level constitutions. Rather, it has to do with the 14th amendment and in particular the part in section 1 that begins "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens...." The 14th amendment was one of the so-called "Civil War" amendments, ratified just after the end of the war in 1868 to keep states from passing what were known as "black codes" (laws that systematically stripped people of their rights explicitly because of their race) and while it was really only about race in the context of the times, it has been interpreted and applied more broadly (by many people) since that time. Now look again at the Constitution and search for references to women's rights. Yes the 19th amendment guarantees the right to vote for women (though not until 1920 - not really THAT long ago). But there is no broader protection or requirement that government provide equal protection under the law or otherwise treat men and women the same. As I'm sure you'll recall, the Equal Rights Amendment of the previous era failed in the early 80s. So the Constitution is somewhat more ambiguous on this issue and thus it may be permissible for government institutions like public schools to have all-girl or all-boy clubs. Still, federal law does require some gender parity when it comes to public schools and sports via Title IX (another controversial topic for many, I'm sure). And beyond sports teams, it is exceedingly rare to find school clubs that are limited by gender. It might be that some clubs simply draw more participants of one gender than the other but that's not the same as setting rules that say "no boys" or "girls keep out." So even here, I don't think this is a very good comparison point to be perfectly honest. Finally, whether the 14th amendment extends to gender (or sexual orientation or a host of other rights claimants) is also a debatable point. Some tend to read it very narrowly and say no, while others read it more broadly and say yes. But regardless of how you read the 14th amendment, the 1st amendment guarantees not only free exercise but also prohibits the establishment of religion which has, over time, come to mean a "separation of church and state" in practical terms. You might not like this but it is none the less the way it is. And as a society that places a great deal of emphasis on past decisions (precedent) in terms of jurisprudence, this is not likely to change any time soon.

Edit to my previous post: that would be 27 MILLION people.... (thanks Trev! I'll blame that one on the lack of coffee at work today)

Sometimes, when people say things like, "We're 91% Christian" and from that they extrapolate that the majority ought to get their way and minorities will just have to suck it up, a little perspective is in order. For example, in our country right now, the US Census Bureau estimates that there are 301,541,563 people. (Check it out at http://www.census.gov/) So for that 9% or so who self-identify as something other than Christian? That's about 9 MILLION people. Seems a little more serious when we talk about the basic rights of people rather than percentages.

Crew - Zap! Glad to hear your incredible Lightening Bolts are getting so much from the program. Gonzo - we special order them with our troop # embroidered on them, I'm told from the same company that produces the military's "Green Berets" (ours are green too but not for that reason - rather because school colors are green/yellow and the troop adopted those colors as well). The boys love them - usually - but the downsides are that a) they're wool, so hot in the summer and b) if you don't take time to shape them properly they look a little poofy and goofy. They're a sought-after trading item at summer camps though!

It sounds like you have a functional den program, is that right? So is the burnout happening when it comes to pack events? If that's the case, maybe you can do one of the following: 1) For pack meetings, use your resources well. Use the program helps guide for ideas (don't re-invent the wheel here). Assign other parents specific and manageable tasks (don't do it all yourself). If other people will not step forward to do some things, then they just don't get done - make sure your other parents in the pack are clear on that. And keep pack meetings short! An opening (assign it to a den), a couple of skits/songs/game (assign to another den), a demonstration of some sort (assign to another den - what have they been doing this month?), presentation of awards, closing (another den) and juice & cookies and you're done within an hour. Put parents from the assigned dens (not DLs if you can help it) in charge of some of these specific parts of your pack meeting. Need ideas for making pack meetings more fun? Need a reference for songs/games? Send them - NOT YOU - to one of the following web sites: http://usscouts.org/usscouts/bbugle.asp This is an "online cub roundtable" with links to the monthly program helps for cubs in "Baloo's Bugle." http://www.geocities.com/~pack215/home.html The Virtual Cub Leader's Handbook (one of my personal favorite sources for all things Cub-related). Check out the section on "meeting dazzlers for leaders." There's also www.macscouter.com but for some reason I can't get the site to load today. It has all kinds of resources for games, skits, songs, ceremonies, etc. though. 2) For support stuff cut as much of this down as you can for now and ask your unit commissioner (if you have one) to point you toward good district resources and people who could help you with the rest. For example, we have a person from the district membership committee who will, if asked, come in and help a pack organize/run their cub roundup night. 3) Over the summer see if you can make some ties to a local troop or two, if you haven't already. Once you know each other, you can ask them to lend a hand with events on occasion (like doing an impressive flag ceremony at a pack meeting, helping with your pinewood derby if you have one, etc.). The biggest lesson I learned as a pack leader was that you really don't have to do it all and in fact doing so can be counter-productive. People will fear volunteering to help because they see how you are in up to your eyeballs and don't want that for themselves. If no one else will step up to help with a specific event, cancel it. You'll probably only need to do that once before other people get the picture! Either they'll start pitching in or your calendar will have fewer cub events on it - but either way, you'll retain a bit more sanity.

Such a sad situation. My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and the community and the troop. It is truly heartbreaking to think that any person would feel so hopeless in life, and a child at that. I hope his soul has found peace.

within a few weeks of crossing over they're out-scoring the established patrols on uniform inspections! The troop really stresses the uniform method and it is unusual for any of our scouts to show up without the shirt, pants, book & beret (the belt, socks, necker, and membership cards are somewhat easier to "forget" it seems), but these new guys really got it together quickly!

I understand your concern but I also hope you recognize that no matter what the den does, it is likely to cause difficulty with someone's schedule. For example, the DL might not be able to start earlier because of work or family commitments. The meeting location might not be available earlier, etc.. Definitely begin by talking with the DL and then the other families in the den (as a group). Maybe meeting on a weekend would be better for your den? If the DL can't get there earlier, maybe you can volunteer to do the opening and early part of the meeting and the DL can do the second half of the meeting once s/he gets there? For next year (when the boys aren't tigers) maybe those parents who could get there earlier can provide transportation for boys whose parents need to come just a little later? If it is a dinner issue, maybe nutritious snacks can be provided by the families as part of the den meeting to stave off hunger? A little creative thinking ought to go a long way toward resolving this. For us it was generally the pack meetings that were at issue - now that's harder to resolve (so many more people involved).

ASM162, I realize that and I am sorry if my comment came across as a little bit harsh. But like most other trainees, I am also a volunteer with a family, a life, a job, and other scouter hats to wear, and I resent it when people waste my time with poorly executed training. Especially when it has all been laid out for them by national in a syllabus that they can't be bothered to look at, let alone follow. The person who ran the troop committee training I attended announced that he'd been given exactly 10 minutes notice that he would be teaching, because the guy in charge forgot to tell him in advance - this poor volunteer trainer hadn't been active in years and had only just moved to the region from the other side of the country. Poor guy, I'm sympathetic to his plight. But I paid $20 for that training, arranged child care, drove 3 hours, and committed an entire Saturday for this. And this is not an isolated occurrence. I can count on one hand the number of people in our district who say "wow, I had this great training session recently" when asked. No, they practically always say "what a waste of time and why are we forced to pay for this garbage?" In comparison I'll take the online training any day because at least I know I'll get the basic content and besides it is free. Don't tell me to start volunteering myself - I already am. I've been trying for almost a year now to convince our district cub training chair that there even IS a syllabus for cub leader specific training! And frankly, she's a big improvement over the last person to hold the job, who half the time didn't even show up for the courses he was supposed to be running (see above problem with the troop committee training as an example). OK, rant off. Phew!

We're beginning to gather information about camps for 2008 and a question has come up about possibly attending a camp in Canada. There are at least a couple of camps in western Ontario that would be "local" for us, just across the border from our home state. However, the initial response has been that we can't do that because a) the cost of a passport for every youth & adult is problematic and b) Canadian scout camps don't run the same type of program or do their merit badges the same way as the BSA, so any advancement/merit badge work wouldn't "count" back home. I admit I know very little about Canadian Scouting, but I'm wondering if anyone knows whether the above concern re: large differences in program and advancement is true?

Hi Lizzy, Not usually, because that wouldn't give the guys time to work on electives once they'd earned their rank badges. The way most packs do this is that the boys continue to work on electives for their current rank (Tiger, in your case) until the end of the school year. At that point, they can start working on the next rank. If for some reason you are in a pack that doesn't follow a school calendar, then it is typical to use June 1st as the date at which the boys move on to the next rank. Hope this helps and congrats to your Tiger den!

I wish I had the perfect answer to that question! I was probably a bit mean. Once I realized (at the pack level) that it was the parents, not the boys, I started "selling" the upcoming opportunities more directly to the boys and told THEM to let their parents know they wanted to help out with whatever project was up next. I also heavily promoted the world conservation award, again, directly to the boys. And I arranged to have the boys interact with wildlife experts, who could make the whole idea seem very exciting by talking about the impact that conservation activities have on animals. The people from the zoo and local nature center were especially helpful in this endeavor (they brought animals with them...) By the time I was done with them, the poor parents probably felt ambushed. Oh well. Even so, turn out for our actual conservation activities (not just the build up to them) tended to be less than half of the pack no matter what, where, or how the weather was that day.

"So, if we kick God out of BSA by dropping the DRP, then we will have to change the Oath, the Law, heck, we might not even be prepared or do good turns." Gonzo, I'll let this go after this but I believe the above is at the heart of the disagreement here. I don't believe that dropping the DRP requires removing religion from the BSA. I believe it allows individuals of all religious or non-religious backgrounds to decide for themselves whether they wish to be part of the BSA, given the fact that there are religious elements to the program. What I'm arguing for is moving from a blanket prohibition on membership imposed from above by the BSA (as the DRP currently requires) to an individual level decision by specific families. Leaving EVERYTHING ELSE the same, let parents decide whether they want little Johnny to be exposed to the Scouting program, regardless of the parents' religious perspective. The campfire sounds great. It's supposed to snow up here again later this week (boo, hiss!) so you're always welcome to stop by but you'd better grab a winter jacket.