Breakfast. The best meal of the day.

It occurred to me that if I was going to make a post about waffles and pancakes, I would be remiss in not mentioning french toast. Breakfast

itself, when it is given the proper attention, is by far the most interesting meal of the day - full of all the four major food groups and also the requisite sweets, all without dessert. On a workday I will inevitably have some cereal or toast, but on a non work day I strive to fulfill the basic human need for syrup.

That's not waffle at all: Waffles are by far the funnest of the breakfast breads. And it should be clear here that I mean real waffles, not toaster cardboard. Waffles are the most uniform, and the little holes in them are a great place to store syrup. They can be eaten by hand, and if you can't finish them, you can out them in the fridge so you can toast them later.

There is also a good variety of waffles - gingerbread waffles, for example; or you can add blueberries; you can top with icing sugar; or you could fry an egg and out it on top.

One the production side, waffles are the easiest to make, if you have a waffle iron. The little green or red light will come on when they are ready, and they are always done perfectly. The batter itself is usually light and easy to mix. Mainly because of the iron, you can pour some batter and go sit down and enjoy the meal while the next one is cooking; you don't need to worry about them burning. Also because of the iron, waffles are the easiest to clean up after.

French me and be toast: French toast is the quickest to make. You only need the eggs and bread (milk is also a good addition), and maybe some cinnamon for the extra zing. Prep time is less than five minutes; you only need one pan and a spatula. If you want, you can whip some cream to go on top, but icing sugar is just as good.

And the toppings, the variety of toppings! Fresh fruit goes best on french toast. You can throw on an egg, but since the bread is dipped in egg, it is kind of redundant. The syrup will soak into the toast, adding a wonderful bit of sweetness, but jam goes just as well. Lemon jam in particular is a lovely touch. An added advantage of french toast is that if you don't finish it, you can out it aside and make sandwiches out of it later. A ham and cheese sandwich made with french toast is particularly good.

Time for some hanky-pancakes: Pancakes have the most variety of all. There are thick pancakes, thin pancakes, crepes, every possible flavour, adding any type of fruit. They are good with any type of syrup. They are also the most creative in what you can do with them - like mi

ckey mouse shapes! You can even buy preset pancake shapes, which just adds to their fun appeal.

Pancakes do take slightly longer to make, but that is part of the process. You can make the batter overnight, or you can premix the dry ingredients and just add the liquids when you actually make them. Pancakes have the potential to be the most healthy, as whole wheat or multigrain pancakes still taste good; while whole wheat waffles or multigrain french toast is just kind of non-tasty.

What I think: I think my pancake bias is showing. It is pretty darned difficult to pick one over the other, though, because they are also so darned good. And they all have different times when they are appropriate - I particularly recommend pumpkin pancakes at thanksgiving, french toast on bastille day or Jean Baptiste day, and gingerbread waffles at Easter.

How I relate: I like to eat all of them. Breakfast is tasty. Plus, I suppose, waffles remind me of my grandma; crepes of my mom, and french toast of my wife. No matter what, the only syrup you should ever use is maple, or perhaps saskatoon or some other berry syrup; but never fake aunt jemima stuff. That would ruin it.

Okay, now I want some pancakes. Maybe tomorrow morning. Or waffles. I haven't made waffles in a while. Or french toast - I have some Italian bread. Hmm.......

More about Drunken Teens!

Rereading one of my posts from a few weeks ago, a found my reference to parents who allow their teens to consume alcohol in their homes. That seemed like a good one to talk about, because i think it is an interesting topic. I was waffling about this one (hey, that would be a good post - what's better, waffles or pancakes?) and was actually thinking of posting something on the CFL vs the NFL, but I really wouldn't be able to be unbiased about that. The CFL is dramatically better. For many reasons.

If they get drunk, I'm getting drunk with them: The first point of all this is that parents are generally responsible. Not all, of course; but most. And most parents don't want bad things to happen to their kids. So if they feel that they can help keep their kids safe by allowing them to drink at home, then they should be allowed to. Ultimately, if anything does happen to their kids, the parents will not only feel horrible for all the usual reasons, but also will feel responsible.

Property rights have a bit to do with this as well. Generally, people are allowed to do things on their own private property that they would not be allowed to do on public land or other person's property. For example, a parent could let a child drive a vehicle on their own property; This could be dangerous to many people, but is still legally acceptable (if not always socially acceptable). Consent is also a legitimate concern here: parents can consent for their kids to undergo dangerous surgery, for example; or sign them up for potentially dangerous sports - so they can certainly give their kids consent for something like drinking.

The most popular argument for allowing parents to do this is twofold: they are going to do it anyway; and we did when we were young, so why should we deny our kids what we took for granted? Both parts are valid, and don't really need much elaboration.

Do as I say, not as I did: The last part of the argument above is the easiest to refute. Times change. We used to not wear seatbelts as well, but now we make our kids do that. And maybe they won't do it anyways. If teenagers don't have a place to drink, then maybe they won't. Tacitly encouraging them to drink by giving them the means is counterproductive to both the individual and society in general.

Property rights are not absolute. Yes, you do have control over your property, but that does not give you the right to break the law on it. Law enforcement looking the other way is not the same as being allowed to do something. Comparing teenage drinking to teenager sports is actually insulting - one is in a very controlled environment, the other, by the nature of it, is uncontrollable. A parent can't - and shouldn't - willfully put their kids at risk.

Parents are actually not that responsible. Often that's how they became parents in the first place. Being a parent does not automatically make a person responsible, and the fact that a parent would allow their teenage children to drink clearly is a sign that they are not responsible. That is precisely why we have laws - because people are not responsible unless we, as a society, force them to be.

What I think: I really like the rule of law. But I also think that it is far safer for teenagers to drink in a controlled environment. The fact that alcohol exist means that we have to accept the consequences of it's existence; the fact that we culturally and socially encourage everyone to drink means that we need to have safeguards in place to minimize the damage. So I think that if parents want to host parties for their kids to drink in a safe place, then so be it - let them. And if other parents want to allow their kids to go to those parties, then also so be it. I don't think that anyone should be allowed to complain about them unless they do not allow their kids to attend and they do anyway. To clarify that last point: parent A should not be allowed to file a complaint about parent B hosting / allowing a party, unless parent A's kids attended without their consent. That satisfies my need for the rule of law as well as the need for a safe environment.

How I relate: I spent many a drunken teenage night in the party room at our apartment building. I don't expect Dad and Mom knew exactly how much we drank there - if they did they might have been less accommodating - but they did know we drank, and they let it do on because it was safer for us. Our friends: they never told their parents, I am certain of that. Had that situation taken place now, in the US, my parents would have been at considerable risk. So that I am in favour of something that I experienced is not really a stretch. And a caveat I always attach: I don't have kids. I know many people who forget pretty much everything they learned growing up once they have their own; so my own view is coloured by that.

I haven't had a post about movies, books, or songs in a while. Maybe I should in that direction. Maybe something about sequels. Or Waffles.

Uniforms are not Unicorns!

This, then, would be the post on school uniforms, completing by 2 part series on junior high. The reason why this is about junior high and not about elementary school or high school is that in elementary school you have no choice; while in high school, you can always leave. In junior high, you think you have a choice, but really don't. Junior high seems to be the point where people really start to feel frustrated with their limitations. But more about school uniforms.

And, FYI, I define junior high as grades 6 to 9. There are variations, such as 6 to 8 or 7 to 9, but 6 to 9 will fit for my purposes.

Uniformly bad: There are several problems with uniforms. The first is that they impose the will of the person who select the uniforms on everyone. As anyone who has been forced to wear clothes they don't like can tell you, forced clothes are horrible. They never look good, they itch, they fit horribly. And the person who picked them doesn't have to wear them.

The next problem with school uniforms is that they aren't fair. That is to say, the teachers don't have to wear uniforms but the students do. This may not seem like much - I mean, life is unfair, right? But this has a stronger negative effect in that it teaches kids that authourity is to be obeyed, even if the authourities aren't following the rules. This leads to an unquestioning population, which while may seem like a good thing actually leads to things like totalitarianism.

The last major problem is that they encourage two archaic beliefs. The first is that boys will be less distracted by girls (and vice-versa) if they all dress the same; and that if all the kids look the same, they will be less likely to form cliques. This is a problem because kids will form cliques based on whatever they want - clothing is only one part, and besides, kids will dress however they want outside of school anyway. And the former is a problem because the simple acknowledgement of that belief perpetuates and encourages it - it teaches boys and girls that they should be distracted by the opposite sex and their appearance.

We're all the same, and have the uniforms to prove it: Any small problems with uniforms are vastly outweighed by the benefits. Uniforms come in many sizes; it's not like they are one size fits all. One of the strongest benefits is that uniforms teach kids to dress in accordance to a certain set of standards. Virtually any workplace, expect for virtual workplaces, will have a dress code. Just as english class teaches kids how to put thought into a coherent argument, so uniforms, so uniforms teach kids to dress appropriately.

True, kids will form cliques. But in order to do so, they will have to actually talk to the other kids and make a judgement on more than just a first cursory glance. If uniforms make kids have to place less value on appearance, that's a good thing. And maybe dealing with the symptom - boys getting distracted by girl's clothing and vice versa - is a good step to find the cure. Most junior high school teachers don't really care if they are perpetuating some archaic belief. They just want to have the student's attention. One less distraction is a blessing.

Lastly, uniforms are cheaper. Kid's clothes can be expensive. Every person who was a teenager remembers this, and not having to buy 8 million outfits for their kids is great. Any parent will tell you that if they can save money on a cosmetic part of their kids lives, they will be able to spend more on the things that really matter.

What I think: I personally disagree with school uniforms, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who read my last post. The caveat to that is always that it really comes down to the parent. If the parent wants their kid to wear a uniform, then they are going to wear it. When I have spoken to people who went to schools with uniforms, girls (now women) were fairly consistent in their approval. They felt much less the intense need to compete with all the other girls. One thing I find ironic is that, while some parents may want their daughters to attend a school with uniforms to help prevent them from wearing sexual clothing, they are putting them in one of the most sexualized uniforms in current pop culture ( the school girl). And yes, the term ironic was used properly in the last sentence.

How I relate: Again, never went to a school that requires uniforms. Had some friends that did. I definitely notice the students who do go to uniformed schools - because they look so different than students from other schools. I don't know how I would feel if I did have kids, but I would probably still be opposed to it. Now that I am an adult, I do have a dress code but not a uniform, although some jobs have had uniforms (like McDonald's). I think that if I had been forced to wear a uniform when I was in school, I would be wanted some freedom from that once I finished.

I'm not sure where I'm going to go from these posts, I don't have any specific ideas right now. I will reread some of my old posts as I have put some topics in there that I haven't touched on yet.