Daily Dose of Common Sense

Today’s post is courtesy of Cherie Strand, an occupational therapist and world traveler from Idaho.

Just because a hotel SERVES breakfast does not mean it is your home kitchen.

My family has the opportunity to travel quite a bit because we live in the witness protection program in rural Idaho. Well, maybe not the WPP, but we do live about 3 hours away from an airport, Target, Walmart, Costco and doctors. (No kidding.) So, we do frequent overnight trips to stock up on things.

We love that many hotels have a hot breakfast included in the stay. Many are very well apportioned–everything from cheese omelets, bacon, hot and cold cereal, pastries, waffles, fresh fruit, yogurt, etc. Budget hotels have moved way beyond the stale danish that they used to offer. And, this is especially nice for families as it saves the time and money of taking kids to a “real” restaurant.

On the flip side, over the past 12 years, we have noticed more and more people take this breakfast offer a little too casually. Some folks appear in the breakfast area in their pajamas, hair completely uncombed (clearly) and often without shoes (despite signs saying proper attire and footwear required). It used to be just small kids that looked as if they were plucked straight from bed and brought down to the communal breakfast. Now, it is the entire family.

Whether it’s 7 AM or 9:30 AM, it is common now to see a grown man and woman with their three or four children, all still in PJs, slippers (or barefoot) and looking exactly as if they rolled out of bed and came right on down to the breakfast area. The rest of us try to keep down our breakfasts while treated to what these folks really look like without any semblance of morning hygiene–no imagination necessary! It is not as if we are eating at 5 AM and expecting everyone to be there in suits (which, incidentally IS the case because the business men and women are up early, dressed, and ready to go).

So, would you waltz into a restaurant like that? (Well, yes, because I have seen that too, but mostly from teenagers and college kids.) I do NOT want to see you or your family with bed head, pajamas, bare feet or ratty slippers. It takes about 10 minutes to get kids up and pull their hair back and get dressed yourself. You can even use your room coffeemaker in the meantime to have a cup of coffee to get geared up for all that work it takes just to put on regular clothing. Asking for a little courtesy while strangers are eating breakfast doesn’t seem like too much to ask, does it?

I don’t want to see your toe jam while I’m trying to eat my jam on toast.

Photo

Cracked has a great post on eight adults who got a little too carried away at youth sporting events. And, by a little too carried away, we mean went completely NUTS.

The Texas cheerleader mom is there, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. For instance, there’s the dad who fashioned his son’s football helmet into a secret slashing device. FIVE players suffered lacerations before the refs caught wise and started checking equipment. And, let’s not overlook the dad who used ipecac to poison his son’s nemesis, only to have it affect the entire team. Crazy, but not nearly as nutty as the volleyball coach who grabbed a cleaver out of her car to threaten everyone with. (Why, exactly, did she have a cleaver in her car?)

What is it about kids playing sports that causes some adults to become unhinged? Some parents think that their child should never lose. Ever. Even if it means spending a little time in the pokey. Whatever happened to the fun being in the game itself, regardless of the outcome? I hate that “everyone is a winner” mentality. Isn’t it better for them to learn that sometimes you lose? Life isn’t fair. Get used to it now, kids.

Photo

I know it’s not very PC to say this right now, but I’m one of those parents that occasionally let my kids eat fast food. We eat the majority of our meals at home where I can watch fat, salt, and sugar intake. But, as a fun outing, we take the two little ones to eat at McDonalds and then play on the indoor playground.

And, sometimes my kids get a toy with the meal that they are mildly interested in. For a minute.

Well, Santa Clara, California wants to take those toys away. They have passed an ordinance where meals sold to children have to meet certain nutritional guidelines in order to include a toy.

Any meal that has more than more than 485 calories, more than 600 milligrams of sodium, more than 35 percent of total calories from fat or more than 10 percent of calories from added sugar, or any individual food item more than 200 calories cannot include a toy under the ordinance. Violations would be punishable by fines of as much as $1,000 for each meal sold with a toy.

Now, I know there is a childhood obesity epidemic in this country. No one can deny that U.S. kids need to eat better. I have watched Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution in West Virginia with interest, and I’m encouraged by the idea of National Salt Reduction Initiative. It seems like a ball is rolling that will improve the quality and quantity of our kids’ food. But…the toys? Really? Talk about taking your eye off the big picture.

Should we take away the crayons and color books at the sit-down chains? Their food isn’t much healthier for kids:

For example, popular choices on the Kid’s Menu at Chili’s Grill & Bar might get your child anywhere from 210 to 890 calories just for the entree and a side dish, even before you add on a drink, dressing (like a side of ranch dressing for the Chicken Crispers – 240 calories), and dessert.

Do you really think that our kids are fat because of the Avatar figurines included in a Happy Meal? The toys aren’t the lure; it’s the FOOD. Deep-fried and salty, the food is what most kids really want. And, that’s not the end of the world every now and again.

Even when served with a toy.

This post originally appeared on RationalMoms on Monday, May 3, 2010.

Photo

As the weather turns warmer, kids start breaking out bathing suits. And, sadly, this means a lot of kids will drown. In fact, drowning is the second-leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., and 3/4 of all drownings take place between May and September. It stands to reason, then, that teaching kids to swim is an important safety skill.

However, parents might also be tempted to rely on water wings or floaties for the safety of their water-loving tots. It may seem like a good way to keep kids above the water, but this plan of action is not recommended:

Do not use air-filled or foam toys, such as “water wings”, “noodles”, or inner-tubes, in place of life jackets (personal flotation devices). These toys are not designed to keep swimmers safe.

Many experts believe flotation devices have no place in helping a child learn to swim and should be used sparingly, if at all. Most importantly, these should not replace close and constant parental supervision. Children need to experience their own weight in the pool (while being held or closely supervised by an adult) in order to feel the buoyancy of the water. Always having a floatie or water wings on gives kids a false sense of security: they think they can swim when they really cannot. One of the best floatation device policies we’ve seen, complete with explanation, can be found here.

On separate occasions, I have witnessed two children, recently removed from toy flotation devices, jump into the pool and then flounder underwater. The kids forgot they didn’t have their water wings on and could not swim back up to the surface. Both episodes ended happily, with caregivers nearby pulling the children to safety.

Teach your kids to swim safely. And stay nearby. Even if they know how to swim, they could still get in trouble and need help.

Photo

I’m a big fan of going to baseball games. There’s nothing quite like sitting in the warm summer air with a hot dog and some Cracker Jack. Oh, and watching the game, of course. Imagine a dad’s horror when, during a family outing with his daughters to a Philly’s game this week, they were purposely barfed on.

Yes, barfed on. An unruly fan, Matthew Clemmens of South Jersey, put his fingers down his throat and threw up all over the man’s daughter. This was after Clemmens and his friend had been spitting at the girls.

The revolting display followed several innings’ worth of slurred curses, spilled beer and spit that Clemmens and another man directed at Vangelo, his two daughters and one of their friends, said Philadelphia police spokesman Lt. Frank Vanore.

Is this what our country has become? Where we’re spitting and vomiting on each other for laughs?

Then, the barfer had the nerve to physically attack the dad, who is a cop. Unbelievably, the dad didn’t fight back because he didn’t want to get arrested or detained anywhere away from his kids. This, of course, is the right, responsible thing to do, but I can’t say I would have been able to restrain myself. If anyone deserves a serious beat-down, it’s someone who spits and barfs on other people.

[Via the fine folks at Pat's Papers]

Photo

In the land of the free, it’s always surprising to me that any book would be banned. But, we’ve all heard stories about towns and schools that refuse to lend such books as Huck Finn or “Are You There God? It’s Me Margaret.” (We wouldn’t want young people reading tamer language than they hear on the street every day, or learning about those pesky women’s issues.) There are other books, however, than have been banned at one time or another that may surprise you.

Oh, like, THE DICTIONARY. Various schools have banned it over the years because of definitions that were deemed inappropriate for kids.

But, my favorite banned book story, by far, is of “Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?” by Bill Martin, Jr. If you don’t have kids, you may not know this simple children’s book that emphasizes color and animals. According to the Huffington Post:

This beloved children’s book was banned in January 2010 by the Texas Board of Education because the author has the same name as an obscure Marxist theorist, and no one bothered to check if they were actually the same person.

Really, Texas? First, how much of a threat are obscure Marxist theories? I’m guessing not much. Second, no one bothered to look at the book titles that were being banned? Way to go that extra mile for your school children!

NO book should ever be banned. Let them be read, I say! You can’t shield people from ideas, language, and images just because you don’t like them. That’s censorship, and it’s just plain wrong. Not to mention illegal in some circumstances.

The law requires that if a book is to be removed, an inquiry must be made as to the motivation and intention of the party calling for its removal. If the party’s intention is to deny students access to ideas with which the party disagrees, it is a violation of the First Amendment.

Hey school boards and libraries: Let parents, teachers, and students decide what books are appropriate for reading. Restricting access to a book only brings more attention to it anyway. And, if you think the kids aren’t sneaking and passing banned books around behind your back, you’re wrong. Instead of banning it, you’d be better off having a dialogue with your kids after they have read the book about why you disagree with the author.

Photo

You know how you can’t even sneak a bottle of water through airport security? Well, two British women thought they could get a dead guy past security. Sounds like something straight out of Weekend at Bernie’s, but it’s true.

The BBC and other British media reported that the women placed the man, a relative of theirs, into a wheelchair and covered his face with sunglasses in a bid to get him aboard a flight to Berlin.

Boy, those two women are ballsy. Either that, or they are secretly filming a British sitcom with plenty of high-jinx and hilarity.

These days, airport security is an invasive process: No shoes, no metals, no liquids, no coats, etc. And it’s only getting worse. Attempting to sneak a dead person through is a really, really, bad idea. (Especially when you can just take a train instead.)

I don’t agree with everything Bill Maher says, but in this particular case, I think he nails it.

Maher just wrote a piece on Huffington Post called, New Rule: Let’s Not Fire the Teachers When Students Don’t Learn–Let’s Fire the Parents. It’s a long title, but a great read.

A struggling high school in Rhode Island fired every single teacher recently. Certainly there might be bad teachers in that group, but ALL of the teachers? That sounds reactionary and drastic. And, more importantly, it’s not putting a big chunk of blame where it should be placed: the parents.

From Maher’s piece:

According to all the studies, it doesn’t matter what teachers do. Although everyone appreciates foreplay. What matters is what parents do. The number one predictor of a child’s academic success is parental involvement. It doesn’t even matter if your kid goes to private or public school. So save the twenty grand a year and treat yourself to a nice vacation away from the little bastards.

Teachers make a pittance of what they should and most of them work incredibly hard to make our kids better people. Yet, we continue to set them up as the fall guys. A speech pathologist friend of mine said, “There are many more factors to consider as to why these students are failing: learning disabilities, parent responsibilities of making sure homework is done and kids are on time and in school EVERY day, a stable home environment etc.” In other words, it’s not always the teacher’s fault.

So, give teachers a hand and spend some time helping your kids learn.

Photo

The fastest growing group on Facebook is the 35-54 set, which can lead to sticky situations with real consequences for many people. Therefore, who you friend is as important as who you don’t. As an example, a survey out this week found that 56% of people believe it’s irresponsible to friend your boss on Facebook. Seems there are more categories to be considered as well. So, here’s our common sense list of “To Friend, or Not to Friend.”

Should you friend…

…your boss? As the survey lends us to believe, it’s probably a bad idea. Not only are you possibly exposing awkward photos, status updates, and Wall posts, but your boss can actually SEE if you’re on Facebook at any given time. (The “Friends Online” feature reveals who is logged into the site.) Unless you plan to do all your Facebooking after hours (ha!), then let the boss actually think you’re working. Also, it’s hard to claim a “sick” day when you post photos of your impromptu trip to Six Flags the next day.

…your parents? This is tricky. It really depends on your parents. Are they the judgmental type? Do they disapprove of your lifestyle, job, or friends? If they’re the easy-going, we-love-you-just-the-way-you-are parents, then you’re probably safe. However, you don’t want to become the black sheep over your online revelations. Plus, if you connect to your folks, you might learn more than YOU want to know. (Be prepared for a barrage of Farmville.)

…your kids? As we just talked about, you might learn more than you want to know. Are you invading your child’s internet privacy? Or, are you just trying to stay more connected? If it’s the later, that is certainly a noble reason. Just don’t expect them to appreciate it. More than likely, you’ll just embarrass them.

…your ex? Before you try to maintain a friendship (albeit an online one) with an ex, ask yourself if you’re ready to hear about his or her new relationships. If you can handle seeing vacation pictures of he and his new girlfriend in Bermuda, then it’s probably OK to be Facebook friends. But, if hearing about how happy he or she is without you sends you over the edge, it’s not worth it. Also, if you friend an ex just to keep tabs on him or her “just in case” (or worse, for some revenge plot), then that’s just wrong.

…randoms? If you can’t remember the person from high school, then why stay connected to them on Facebook? Ditto for a friend of a friend, or someone who was blindly suggested by Facebook. Yes, you can hide friends from your News Feed. But, if you friend someone knowing that you’re just going to hide them, why friend them in the first place?

Facebook isn’t just about collecting as many friends as you can. It should be about interacting with a network of people you’re interested in. Don’t let the friend requests bog you down. When in doubt, IGNORE!

Here are some of our favorite brief Web stories from this week.

Some people had common sense.

• The city of Boston dismissed thousands of tickets and tow fines for people who were issued violations while preparing for a storm that never came. The city had declared a snow emergency in expectation of the big storm cutting up the eastern seaboard. Stay classy, Boston.
• A 5-year old girl in Indiana called 911 when her dad experienced chest pains. She remained calm and stayed on the line for nearly ten minutes. She is now credited with saving her dad’s life.

And, some did not.

• Southwest Airlines kicked Kevin Smith off a flight for being too fat. Smith claims he fits between the two arm rests, which is the test of whether a person is too large for their seat. Huge PR nightmare for Southwest Airlines because Smith is a celebrity. I ask why the airlines even let him board in the first place, instead of kicking him off once on the plane?
• New toy: Fisher Price’s Bigfoot the Monster. It’s cute in a Muppet-gone-bad kind of way, but do we really want to encourage children to believe in this nonsense?