Etiquette

Today we went to Sweet Tomatoes.  It was a Tuesday.  Shouldn’t be too busy, right?  WRONG.  It was INSANE.  I don’t think I’ve ever been in a more noisy restaurant.  We’ve got 5 people eating meals now, so booths are a bit tight.  And there weren’t any available anyway.  So on the far side of the restaurant there was a table open.  It wasn’t too bad when we sat down.  There was one group of moms with a gaggle of kid (almost definitely Mormon; one lady had a total Utah haircut), but they were in the corner.  Then within minutes of our sitting down, the already crowded restaurant swelled.  Apparently a soccer team decided to have a team dinner at Sweet Tomatoes tonight.  And we were surrounded. Now, I’ve been in noisy situations with lots of kids before.  Anyone who’s been in our ward understands this.  But this was unreal.  The kids were loud.  And ravenous.  But the adults were even louder.  These were obviously parents who were used to yelling at people across a soccer field.  And for some reason they thought this was appropriate behavior for a restaurant.  Granted, Sweet Tomatoes is not a fancy place.  It’s very kid-friendly, which is why we go there more than any other restaurant.  But we did pay for our meals, and they were creating a down-right unpleasant environment.  I could VERY clearly hear a conversation that was happening two tables away, yet my own kids sitting next to me had to shout to be heard. “Mom, can I have some macaroni?” I don’t even hear them this first time, so the request is made at a louder volume. “Mom, can I have some macaroni?” “What?” “MOM, CAN I HAVE SOME MACARONI?” After my brain filters this information past all the extraneous and unwanted input it’s receiving, I answer.  “Sure.” “What?” “SURE!!” And so it went all evening.  The food on the buffets was gobbled faster than the employees could put it out, and they were certainly working their tails off.  It got to the point that anytime I saw something decent on the table I would run and grab two of them, since it would be gone in 30 seconds and that’s when my kids would ask for that particular thing.  I think that this was one of the more stressful dinners I’ve ever had.  And my kids were good!  I don’t know about anyone else, but at about 5:30 noise starts to get to me.  I can tolerate it all day (which is a good thing, since Paul can be LOUD).  But then 5:30 hits and I’ve reached my limit.  I start to twitch (mostly internally) and then it makes me start to freak out.  And I was very close to having a nervous breakdown in public from all that noise. So I have some general guidelines for those that might encounter or cause a similar situation. 1.  Think very, VERY hard about taking an entire soccer team of 9-year-old boys, their parents, and all their siblings to dinner at a restaurant.  An acceptable noise-level on the soccer field is absolutely unbearable in an enclosed building. 2.  If you do attend such an event (soccer or any other gathering), control your children.  The adults congregated at two tables and completely ignored all the kids.  They were left to run amok without any parental intervention.  And they NEEDED intervention.  I frequently heard, “I’ve had four desserts and seven slices of pizza and NO VEGETABLES!  YES!!”  So that’s why there was no pizza and the ice cream was out of the machine.  If you don’t care what your kids eat, whatever.  No big deal at all.  But teach moderation and CONTROL THE CHAOS! 3.  Teach your child how to wait in line and proper manners.  I wanted to smack some of the kids that just ran right in front of me to grab something with their bare hands, knocking over my four-year-old in the process. 4.  Remember that you’re not in your own home.  This is a public place that people have paid to be at.  Shouting at someone three tables away IS NOT OKAY! 5.  Apologize to anyone around you.  Isn’t this general courtesy?  I try to let the people around me know that I’m sorry if my kids have acted up in a restaurant.  It really goes a long way towards soothing bad feelings.  This group acted like they were in someone’s kitchen and were completely oblivious to all others. 6.  If you’re one of the other patrons, MOVE AWAY.  I saw some open tables and was tempted to move, but I didn’t want to be rude and cause a scene.  I now realize that was a big mistake.  Like anyone would notice us moving in that mayhem. Sorry for the rant.  I know that my kids are not angel children.  We’ve certainly been in our share of loud and embarrassing situations that have been caused by one (or more) of my offspring.  And I’m sure I’ve been guilty of forgetting my manners when it was convenient.  But, as I’ve said before, this was ridiculous.  I needed to vent.

In what universe is this considered clean?

I don’t know if everyone has noticed (I’m not sure how you can fail to notice, actually), but dishwashers are no longer cleaning dishes.  Why?  Because some boneheaded politicians have decided to be everyone’s mom and ban phosphates from dishwasher detergents because they are thought to contaminate the water supply.  Not a bad idea, you think?  Well, they banned these when there is no commercially viable substitute available for phosphates.  New Mexico has not banned phosphates, but what company in their right mind will continue making, selling, and distributing two versions of the product?  It’s not a profitable strategy.  So now it’s virtually impossible to find a dishwasher detergent that actually cleans here in Albuquerque.  Example: Disgusting.  I used to wash my dishes on the normal setting with only the cleanser portion of the dispenser filled (no prewash needed).  Now I have to pre-rinse (never needed to do that before), completely fill both receptacles AND use the heavy setting.  And my dishes are still filthy.  So I have to wash all glassware by hand now, which uses far more water (and time!) than the dishwasher.  Net effect: at least twice as much detergent (more contaminants in the water and twice as much money spent), far more water used, and more energy, since the dishwasher runs longer and hotter on the heavy setting.  This is an environmental improvement? You can still buy aluminum phosphate at Home Depot and Lowes.  So you’d better believe that we’re going to be concocting our own dishwasher detergent.  And we’re certainly not the only ones resorting to this.  Surely our home-brewed concoctions can’t be safer than the commercially-prepared cleaners made by chemists.  I propose that anyone elected into office be required to take (and pass!) basic economics.  Any student worth her salt could discuss unintended consequences, and could probably list many of the consequences of this particular action.  But until then, ignorant but well-meaning (the worst combination) people will continue to be elected into office.  So I’m now off to research dishwasher detergents.  If you have any recommendations of detergents that still clean, please let me know.  And I hope that the politicians toasting themselves for this brilliant political move have to hand wash their own champagne glasses (although I seriously doubt it).

Political Commentary

I generally don’t veer into the serious on my blog (because with kids as cute as mine, it’s hard to discuss more weighty matters), but I cannot be silent about this any longer.  The United States of America was founded on many great principles, and one of the greatest is freedom of religion.  Many of the first settlers in the United States came here as a result of religious persecution.  Here they found a land where they could worship as they chose, and the Constitution was written specifically to protect that freedom.  Our record has not been clean on this issue.  Members of my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were mobbed and driven from their homes.  Jewish people experienced great discrimination, particularly in the nineteenth century.  In 1960, Americans were warned not to vote for a “Papist” Catholic.  But despite these blemishes, America has striven to guarantee freedom of religion to all its citizens.  The issue of the “Ground Zero Mosque” calls that commitment into question.  Politicians, particularly members of the Republican party, and religious leaders have used this issue to inflame and divide.  Rhetoric, inaccuracies, and falsehoods are being flung about.  I have been dismayed and disgusted at the ignorant comments made by leaders of my political party.  Recently, the Republican governor of Tennessee questioned whether Islam could even be considered a religion.  He claimed that since it is more of a cult than a faith, it may not be protected under the Constitution.  Of course, politicians are always making ridiculous statements.  However, instead of denouncing this bigotry, Republican party leaders have embraced and repeated such claims. I truly feel that citizens need to inform themselves, to learn the truth about the “Ground Zero Mosque,” and to let their leaders know that this type of bigotry will not be tolerated.  This video explains the many inaccuracies that are being presented by politicians and the media.  It is well worth watching. Thomas Jefferson wrote that “among the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that ...of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will…”   I have great respect for Islam and for the teachings of the Koran.  I certainly denounce extremism and violence, but Islam, when its founding principles are adhered to, is a beautiful and peaceful religion.  Please share your feelings with your friends and political leaders.

Internet Safety 101

So apparently there was an Oprah episode on internet safety (I'm not quite sure, since I didn't watch the episode) a while ago that caused a huge stir. People left and right are making their blogs private, and I wanted to share my thoughts on this. 1. One incident isn't the norm. People don't stop driving their cars because someone heard of someone in some other state who got in a car accident. We would think that was ridiculous. However, when we hear about some girl in Australia whose photo was used for an advertising campaign without her permission, we all rush and either stop blogging or publishing pictures online altogether or go private and make it such a hassle for people to view them that it seldom is worth the effort. 2. You are in more danger from those you know than from those you don't. People who are concerned about blog privacy often are worried about "lurkers" they don't know obsessing over their blogs. Statistically speaking, you are far more likely to come to harm from acquaintances than from random people. I'm afraid that it would take a "perfect storm" for the scenarios that so many people envision to occur. First, someone with an obsessive tendency would need to stumble across your blog and become obsessed with you or your family. Second, they would need to able to gather enough personal information about you to be able to stalk you or your children. Third, they would actually need the incentive do so. It just seems very unlikely to me. 3. Just because Oprah says it doesn't make it so. Likewise, just because other people are doing it doesn't make it necessary. People ought to think critically about what they hear and see from other sources. Wikipedia has taught us that group think is often correct, but it is still up to us to think for ourselves, especially about issues that are so open to interpretation. Now, having said that, I do believe that internet safety is important. I think that there are smaller, more important, and more useful steps that people can take to protect their families. Here is a list of some of my ideas: 1. Remove any references to your last name. If your blog address is thesmithfamilyinriorancho.blogspot.com, change it. Don't use "The Smith Family" as your title. Only list your first name (or a nickname, if you want to be even more secure) in your profile. 2. Consider removing references to the city you live in if you want to be extra safe. NEVER show pictures of the exterior of your house or your child's school. 3. Use a watermark on your photos. Place a transparent watermark on your photo that cannot easily be cropped out. This is easy to do, and I am going to begin watermarking the photos I put on this blog. I will be happy to make a tutorial showing how you can do this. I know that one reason people are making their blogs private is that they worry about people using their photos inappropriately or without permission. This can go a long way towards mitigating those fears. 4. Don't post your full email address in a forum, blog comment, or anywhere else that may be unsecure. I've seen people who are (apparently) concerned enough about their family's privacy to make their blogs private but will post their full email addresses in other blog comments. This is not smart or consistent! At the very least, form your email in such a way that bots can't harvest it easily; for example, myemail AT whatever DOT com. 5. Keeping your blog out of the google directory will reduce the number of unwanted visitors. In blogger, there are a number of privacy settings under "settings." I'm sure wordpress has similar options. 6. Use an internet filter. If you're truly concerned about keeping your family safe on the internet, use a filter. It's just common sense. We use Safe Eyes and have been pleased with it. I know there are several other good ones out there. 7. Think beyond the internet. Remove your phone number and address from the phone book. Place your home phone and your cell phones on the Do Not Call Registry. There are several other steps that you can take to protect your family that I won't list here. Truly, I am understanding of those who feel the need to make their blog private. I just feel that there is a lack of dialog on this subject and that some people are not thinking about the information that is coming to them from the media. Remember, the media's job is to sell, and fear is one of the best ways to do it. There are so many wonderful blogs out there, and it would be a shame if they were all closed because of sensationalized reporting.

A stimulus by any other name...

I've become very tired of hearing soundbites of President Obama trying to "promote" (read "strong-arm and bully") passage of the stimulus package. He sounds like a petulant child who is unused to not getting his way. Although his election was hardly the mandate the Democratic Party spins it as (less than 53% of the popular vote), Obama confidently strode into the White House, anticipating easy passage of all of his pet projects. Now that his so-called stimulus package has met resistance in both the House and Senate, he's throwing a tantrum. When accused that his stimulus bill is actually merely a spending spree, he responded, "What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point!" Ummm...no, Mr. Obama. That's not what a stimulus is. In the most basic sense, a stimulus is targeted spending by the federal government designed to promote economic growth and aid in recovery. It's not an engine to pass every Democratic pet program they've been trying to get through Congress in the last 40 years. $335 million set aside for condoms and sexually explicit "STD prevention" programs is not "stimulus." There's $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts to help "the arts community throughout the United States;" the NEA has never been what one would consider an engine of economic growth. Head Start receives $2.8 billion--let's get those toddlers to work! An astounding $20 billion (!!!!) is going to the food stamp program, not to mention billions upon billions of dollars going to other welfare programs. This is the direct opposite of a stimulus. As any econ 101 student can tell you, the more attractive you make unemployment (in this case, by increasing welfare benefits), the more people will choose to be unemployed. Not stimulating. Obama, Biden and their minions have been tirelessly promoting a quick passage of this bill. I can tell you why they want quick passage: that way, no one truly has a chance to examine the contents. The United States Congress was deliberately designed to work slowly. As annoying as it may be when a critical piece of legislation is held up on one floor or the other, it is far worse to have a shoddy piece of legislation hastily passed through without proper vetting. I can think of three examples (without even trying hard) of poor legislation that was rushed through Congress: the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, and, most recently, the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (another blogpost entirely). In each example, these massive acts of legislation had unintended and very serious negative consequences. When lawmakers are encouraged to bypass the standard vetting procedures, the results are disastrous. I'm not denying that something needs to happen. But gigantic spending sprees with little or no thought given to the outcome will do nothing more than bring stunning deficits and tighter chains by the federal government. Kudos to those Republicans who voted no on this bill. And shame on those in the Senate who are said to support the revised (but still lacking in stimulus) bill. While I have not been a particularly proud member of the Republican party in the last few years, at least I can say that they made the right decision in this instance. When responding to criticism, Nancy Pelosi famously said, "We won the election; we wrote the bill." That's not change, Nancy. That's more of the same.

I'm going to kill my kids!

They are in destruct-o mode today. First Katie emptied the entire bottle of handsoap (which is PURPLE--never buying that again) all over the bathroom sink and the handtowels. This was done deliberately. Then she peed on the floor (not deliberately, but still frustrating), including her pants and socks, necessitating yet another load of laundry. And just now I found the 2 of them in their bathroom, squirting their toothpaste all over the floor AND LICKING IT OFF!! Gross! And that toddler toothpaste is so expensive!!! I'm going to go nuts! ETA: Funny how I can go from completely in love (see previous post) to fuming in a matter of minutes. Kids will do that to you.

Is This Really Necessary?

The city of Albuquerque is currently being blanketed with radio advertisements for foods stamps. I was astonished the first time I heard these advertisements, and I was even more surprised when one version of the ads failed to mention that there was a income requirement. In the spot that I have heard most frequently, they discuss how a person would be surprised at who would qualify for food stamps. They were right. I am very surprised. The food stamp program was established during the Great Depression, when it truly was needed. But like so many programs instituted during that time period (think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD...), the food stamp initiative has doggedly persisted. And like the other programs of that era, it has not only persisted but grown. It is now viewed as "something we ought to take advantage of if we can," instead of the welfare program that it is. Bureaucrats and lawmakers are worried at the low rate of food stamp usage. However, instead of using this as a signal to scale down the program, they are using tax dollars to advertise it. This is a textbook example of goverment's inability to reduce a bloated bureaucracy once it has been established. The bureaucrats aren't the only ones to blame. We can also thank our lawmakers for the persistance and the increase of the food stamp program. Here are a few examples: According to Minnesota Public Radio: Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, says the 22-page application form is one reason the program has stagnated. Berglin has introduced a bill this session to trim the application to three pages. Berglin says other obstacles are a monthly reporting requirement and a rule which caps benefits at a low level if recipients don't use the full allocation every month. And in Iowa: State officials have conducted a campaign to increase the number of Iowans who're getting "food stamps" -- and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is giving Iowa a nearly half-a-million dollar "bonus" for the three-year effort. Jessica Webster is a member of the St. Paul Legal Services Advocacy project. She wrote a report which estimates that 189,000 state residents are eligible for the food stamp program but are not currently participating. She had this to say: "This is a federal resource that we are not utilizing," she says. "By not capturing this resource we have lost $838 million since year 2000." I was appalled when I read that statement. The federal government is not a beneficent uncle, longing to distribute money among his citizens. The program is not free. The money to fund the food stamp program and the campaigns promoting it has been forcibly taken from you and from me. If you do not believe that your "contribution" to the program is forcible, see what happens when you don't pay your taxes. Since my money is taken from me against my will, I feel that it ought to at least be spent on valuable services. To use my tax dollars to promote the expansion of an already bloated program to those who probably don't need it is insulting and infuriating. Part of the American Dream is self-sufficiency. This will be impossible to achieve if we persist in the entitlement attitude that benefits us at the expense of someone else.