Balance of Food

Baking is a challenge if you are used to cooking, but well worth the try

Long-time readers know that I like to cook, but don't really bake. Cooking and baking require distinctly unique skills, and my mindset works better with cooking. Baking requires precision of ingredients and amounts; cooking involves on-the-fly experimentation.

For reasons that still aren't clear to me, I got the baking bug over the holidays. Well, let's be clear. This was not baking in the sense of baking powder, baking soda, and flour. This was a pumpkin pie, or at least in the beginning, pumpkin tarts.

My original plan was buying graham cracker tart shells, and taking a can of pumpkin puree and somehow adapting that to make a pseudo pumpkin pie filling. I had made a dessert of crustless pumpkin pie that involved a serving of pumpkin puree, as little as added sugar as possible to not make my face go sour, lots of cinnamon, all topped with whipped cream. My vision was to do that with a graham cracker crust.

When I realized that making a pumpkin pie made more sense, I had the tart crusts, but didn't have a 9-inch crust, like the directions called for having. So I made up the pumpkin pie filling, thinking I would fill the tarts up, and refrigerate the rest for when I bought the crust. I couldn't buy the crust since I had reached Christmas, and I wasn't going out to buy a crust.

I checked ingredients on the back of the pumpkin puree can, and figured out I had everything except sweetened condensed milk. I did have something to put the filling in, but without sweetened condensed milk, I had no pie filling.

Off to the Internet to find an alternative. While baking is precise, substitutes can be used. I figure out that I had milk and sugar, so I could make my own sweetened condensed milk. I found sites that said the method would take a couple of hours to get to the correct amount. They start with too much milk; I decided to start with close to the amount I needed and heat it for less time.

I only heated it for ½ hour to go from 16 oz. to 14 oz., and added slightly less than the required minimum of sugar. Since I was using skim milk instead of whole milk, I definitely remembered to add the 3 tablespoons of butter. My version of sweetened condensed milk needed some badly needed fat.

The version in the tarts worked out really well. Once I bought the shell, I put the refrigerated filling in the pie shell and baked it. Either I needed more time to bake it (seemed odd since I had less filling) or I messed up how long it was supposed to bake, or refrigerating the filling did something to its consistency. It was a bit runny, but not by too much.

The point of the story is that if you are a cooker, not a baker, you can sort of bake and have it turn out okay. My pumpkin pie wasn't obnoxiously sweet, like you find a lot of store-bought pies, and it was certainly edible, even if it didn't look pretty.

I won't imagine that I'll be buying multiple bags of flour anytime soon. I did buy another full graham cracker crust to try a key lime pie, so I will bake one more pie in my life.

Having an atypical sweet tooth and not being a baker: not a great combination. In 2012, I am trying to see if I can do it better myself. Getting a jump start in 2011 was helpful, but the pumpkin tarts and pie show I have a ways to go. The key is being better organized, something cookers don't have to factor in as much as bakers.

Holiday notebook: Rep. James Sensenbrenner latest to pile onto Michelle Obama

We could quote Biblical verses in letting Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) know that what he said about First Lady Michelle Obama and her "large posterior." Judge not lest ye be judged or let he who is without sin cast the first stone come to mind.

However, the appropriate response to Sensenbrenner's insensitive comments should be "takes one to know one." (Sensenbrenner later apologized.)

Michelle Obama's frame in relation to her advocacy for eating better has become a mean-spirited GOP talking point. We expect politicians to attack each other, and like it or not, First Ladies have fallen into this realm. To be fair, we haven't seen Republican First Ladies treated the same way as Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Michelle Obama has been attacked for what she has eaten and how she looks, since the correlation must be that if she looks like that, she isn't practicing what she preaches. Two problems with this approach: Republicans don't understand what she is "preaching," and they have no idea what a woman is supposed to look like.

We have gone on and on about the former, as for the latter, Michelle Obama is a soon-to-be 48-year-old woman, mother of two. She is not an airbrushed model nor a air-headed, size 2 secretary working for a GOP politician. Michelle Obama is a real woman in great shape, regardless of age.

James Sensenbrenner is a 68-year-old overweight (obese?) GOP representative from Wisconsin since 1979. Despite the fact that House members have incredible gym access, apparently Sensenbrenner still doesn't know the location of the House gym.

---

Speaking of fat people, having the Cooking Channel on the background during the holiday led to this great find. Clarissa Dickson Wright of the Two Fat Ladies was lining a tin with bacon. My interest was peaked. After lining the tin, Wright put a layer of pheasant in the tin. She followed that with pickled walnuts, and then more pheasant. Finally, the tin was topped with a layer of bacon.

The final dish didn't look as exciting as the preparation led us to believe. Bacon does make things taste better, but the pickled walnuts sounded more tempting than the pheasant. Maybe the taste was better than the looks.

---

The success of chains such as the Olive Garden comes in part from their bland tasting food. Since my tastebuds freak out over bland food, I don't frequent them. Now that tastes are improving, i.e., spicing up, these chains are struggling.

As much as I dislike this approach, trying to change with the times won't bring success to these places. No one will ever associate exciting, non-mainstream food with these mega-chains. McDonald's hasn't tried to make a better burger; it tries to get you to drink more coffee.

These mega-chains do reflect most Americans inability to wrap their heads around anything that might throw them off a bit. From The Wall Street Journal:

In several years of tests, Olive Garden diners often deemed pesto too oily, bitter or green. Capers, with their salty, pickled flavor, are too unexpected for many customers, says a spokeswoman.

Oooh, capers. I'm so scared. Marge Simpson years ago being puzzled by "o-re-GAH-no."

Sometimes, eating at home is the better option. This way, you get the spices your way, often for a much cheaper meal. And you get to keep the tip.

Catch up on previous 'Temptation of the Week' segments

"Temptation of the Week" will take a well-deserved holiday break. After all, temptations abound during the holiday season; why tempt you with even more temptations?

If you are feeling strong, or desire a challenge, or need tips on how to deal with temptations, you can go back and read our previous segments. Just click here to read them all.

You can keep that bookmarked throughout 2012 and beyond as we resume the TotW on January 6.

Happy Holidays!!

Potato chips through the 'eyes' of Canadians

Americans may have exported junk food around the world, but other countries put their own twist on junk food.

Canada's best-known quirk is ketchup chips, but as you can see below, you can find all kinds of different flavor of chips in Canada.

Crispy bacon (left) is a rather unusual flavor. Unfortunately, the chips don't actually have bacon, but you should get more of a smoked flavor in those chips.

Canada's sweet tooth is different than the U.S. sweet tooth, as you can see with honey mustard potato chips.

If you're pregnant, you can get pickle-flavored Doritos.

You wouldn't think of potato chips as being "naked" until you see the "all dressed" version. "All dressed" is defined as onions, peppers, and vinegar, flavors you wouldn't think to see in the United States.

And you can see bacon again in the sour cream and bacon flavored chips.

None of these chips actually have the items in question within the chips; they are all done through natural and artificial flavors. However, they are more fun than plain ol' chips.

Your mouth may salivate … you might need to make the trip to Canada to get some of these chips.

Worcestershire sauce with high-fructose corn syrup isn't true to its tradition

Even if you have Worcestershire sauce in the house, you don't spend too much time thinking about the sauce, even if your name is Lea or Perrins.

The sauce is considered old and English, traits that you don't associate with high-fructose corn syrup. Yet in 2011, you can very easily pick up a bottle of Worcestershire sauce with high-fructose corn syrup.

The bottle in my home is a generic version with no high-fructose corn syrup, but that is the exception.

I've seen sauces that call themselves old or old-fashioned that have high-fructose corn syrup. Coca-Cola claims an "Original Formula" yet has the new-fangled high-fructose corn syrup.

But given the old-school parameters of Worcestershire sauce, any version with high-fructose corn syrup isn't authentic.

Heinz did not invent ketchup, but Lea and Perrins literally invented the modern take on Worcestershire sauce in the 1830s, and if they were alive, they were shake their heads in disgust.

The sweetness in Worcestershire sauce comes traditionally from molasses, which automatically makes it old school. There is also tamarind concentrate, but molasses is the dominant sweet factor. My generic bottle has molasses as the third highest ingredient.

• In the Lea & Perrins Original Worcestershire Sauce, high-fructose corn syrup is the third highest ingredient behind vinegar and molasses. So in the "original" version, sweeteners are 2nd and 3rd on the ingredient list. Original? Uh, no.

• In the Lea & Perrins Thick Classic Worcestershire Sauce, high-fructose corn syrup is listed in the third highest ingredient — Lea & Perrins Worcestershire Sauce Concentrate. Molasses is also part of the sauce concentrate. The ingredient list on the company's Web site is faulty in that a beginning parenthesis doesn't have a closing parenthesis. High maltose corn syrup is listed twice on the ingredient list, and that doesn't sound good at all. Classic? Not a chance.

• In the Lea & Perrins Reduced Sodium Worcestershire Sauce, high-fructose corn syrup is the third highest ingredient behind distilled white vinegar and molasses. The original version has 65 mg of sodium per teaspoon, thick and classic weighs in at 33 mg. Amazingly, the reduced version has 45mg of sodium (more than the thick and classic version) and 25mg of potassium. Authentic? No. Reduced sodium? Not really.

My generic version doesn't have high-fructose corn syrup, but is missing vital ingredients found in the true original in the product category: anchovies, tamarind concentrate, cloves, chili pepper extract. This is a lot of missing flavor.

Your choice comes down to real Worcestershire sauce with an unnatural sweetener versus a non-authentic Worcestershire sauce with a natural sweetener. Neither choice is a good one.

The pennies that Lea & Perrins thinks it is saving by having high-fructose corn syrup instead of sugar is pound-foolish. The smart consumers, who avoid high-fructose corn syrup, aren't buying these products. But those consumers, who appreciate the nuances of the spice combination, would love the flavor minus the high-fructose corn syrup.

Picture credit from Lea & Perrins

Temptation of the Week: Dr. Pepper Ten

I make plenty of sacrifices for this blog: financially and taste buds wise. And I don't mind making those sacrifices as long as I get to chose which sacrifices I make. One sacrifice I had not planned to make was trying Dr. Pepper Ten.

The idea of a diet drink aimed at men was ludicrous, the advertising was something that brought us back to the days of the Angry White Male (circa 1995 for you youngsters out there), and the Dr. Pepper people had worked hard to convince us that Diet Dr. Pepper tasted like regular Dr. Pepper.

I was willing to never give this a try. But then on my lunch hour, two guys (you knew they would be guys) were handing out free samples of Dr. Pepper Ten. At first, I recoiled at the idea of even a free sample. Then I remembered that "free" was okay, so I might as well try it as long as the sacrifice was to my taste buds.

Full disclosure: I am a dude. I don't like diet drinks, and I don't drink them. Pretty much like most guys you will find.

The can is a horrible gray color with the traditional Dr. Pepper red on the can. Reading the ingredients were really tough to do with the bad color combination. The slogan "10 Bold Tasting Calories" was easy to see. "Same 23 Authentic Flavors" was not easy to read. This shade of gray is not a manly color.

What counts is the drink on the inside. Once you can read the ingredients, you see that high-fructose corn syrup is the sweetener, accounting for more than 9 calories. The entire 12 oz. can has 3 g of carbohydrates, 2 g of sugars. The artificial sweeteners are provided by the combination of aspartame and acesulfame potassium (ace-K). I was curious to see whether Dr. Pepper would go with sucralose, but since Diet Dr. Pepper is made with aspartame, going with aspartame would make more financial sense.

The drink only has 10 calories, yet high-fructose corn syrup is the 2nd highest level of ingredients within the drink. Not quite sure that adds up.

Regardless of how many or few calories you have, if the drink doesn't taste good, doesn't matter whether it's free. I experienced three tastes in my first sip. First, I tasted the high-fructose corn syrup, then some actual Dr. Pepper taste, and finally the after taste of aspartame. I had to eat something to get that taste out of my mouth. I didn't go back for more.

Previous coverage:
New variations on junk food: Are they worthwhile?
Pepsi to try halfway cola but consumers want all or nothing

Sexist advertising aside, diet drinks taste like artificial sweetener, even pseudo diet drinks. Guys don't drink diet soft drinks because we're guys. Go for it or don't go at all; this attitude isn't the healthiest, but we think it works for us.

As guys go, I'm pretty sensitive, so I would drink a diet drink IF I liked the taste. Dr. Pepper could have gone with a reduced calorie soft drink with sugar and truvia, such as Sprite Green. Sprite Green isn't easy to find, and though I tried it, the drink didn't make much of an impact. It was still better than Dr. Pepper Ten. Pepsi Next was a recent attempt, but its major mistake was having high-fructose corn syrup, aspartame, sucralose, and ace-K all in one drink. While I didn't get to try Pepsi Next, even Dr. Pepper Ten would be better.

As much as we admonish soft drinks, they serve a purpose at full strength. I used to be very addicted to soft drinks, and even though I'm not anymore, I do understand their appeal. The best hope would be a regular soft drink made with sugar with half the sugar and no other substitution, reducing the actual sweet content. American taste buds may not swallow that concept, but I know I'd be first in line to try it.

photo credit: Dr. Pepper

Make healthier choices in your donated food to food pantries

Under regular circumstances, we have a wall between those that can eat better and those who struggle to do so, mostly due to financial issues. When things get bad enough where people are compelled to go to a food pantry, being selective on what you get is definitely not part of the etiquette.

As badly as food pantries are struggling with not enough food and too many customers, is it too much to ask for that donations be healthier choices?

If you have seen the contents of a food pantry, you run across a lot of white flour products. After all, carbohydrates are cheap, white flour carbohydrates are even cheaper, and this way, you can donate more food for the same amount of money.

Unfortunately, this creates a divide where those who can afford to donate give food that they likely wouldn't eat themselves.

This call for healthier donations made me a little torn. After all, we extolled the virtues of spending little to make a big difference in someone else's life. Spending little doesn't mean you have to go cheap on what you buy.

So in this holiday season, here are some tips to still watch your budget, help those in need, and have them eat just a little bit healthier.

-- The easiest donations are food you've already bought. You are making a dish and you buy more than you need. You've already spent the money; make a good deed out of it. That way, you are giving away the kind of food you would actually eat.
-- If you have 1-2 people in your household, you hate sales designed to appeal to families of 5-6 people. "Buy 1, Get 1 free." Well, take the 2nd of the pair and donate it. You can buy 2, get 2 free, and donate 3.
-- In donating pasta, look for blends of whole wheat and white flour pasta if that appeals better to your pocketbook. Better to find sales on whole wheat pasta, but make your best choice.
-- Canned soups are a popular choice, but look to find something a bit more like food out of said can. If nothing else, try lower-sodium options.
-- Peanut butter is an overlooked choice. Peanut butter keeps well and offers a lot of nutrition. Okay, peanut butter prices are rising dramatically, but the protein vs. cost is still worthwhile. True, peanut butter does have fat, but if you use a healthier peanut butter, from a cost standpoint, peanut butter is one of the better shelf-stable options.
-- If you cook, foods that you find versatile (shelf-stable, of course) could inspire your recipient to do more cooking, a win-win all around.
-- If you live near a Trader Joe's or a Mexican supermercado, you can find quality products for lower prices than you might find otherwise.
-- Consider suggestions from the article, including low-sugar cereal such as Cheerios or Chex, canned vegetables, any variety, marked lite or low-sodium, pinto or black beans, and rice.
-- Treat the food donation like a secret Santa. Make two shopping lists: one for you, one for the recipient. Secret Santas usually cost $5-$10 and if you shop wisely, can go a long way toward helping someone who isn't getting enough food.
-- Unless you are concerned with mercury, canned tuna is cost-effective and supplies quality nutrition. You can often find canned tuna on sale.
-- Holidays are a time to splurge on ourselves and our fellow people. Make that an element in your holiday food buying. This doesn't mean buying caviar, but pick one item regardless of price to put in your food donation.

Giving white flour macaroni and cream of mushroom soup to a food pantry is better than giving nothing. But consider the receipients on the other end of the exchange. Look inside your grocery bag of donations and ask yourself if this is what you want in your time of need.

Save the sugary cereals for dessert instead of a 'part of a balanced breakfast'

Growing up with sugary cereals as "part of a balanced breakfast" is a cherished childhood memory, but given what we are hearing from a recent report in kids cereals, how much of what was in the bowl was "sugary" and how much was "cereal"?

True, these percentages may not have been as high when you were a child as they are now, and if you are of a certain age, your childhood wasn't spent absorbing high-fructose corn syrup. Still, the numbers from the Environmental Working Group speak to a more unbalanced breakfast.

The Top 10 worse cereals by sugar-related content exceed 40% sugar. While my tastes have refined, I would still go for a bowl of Cap'n Crunch Original (5th, 44.4%), Apple Jacks (8th, 42.9%), or Crunch Berries (9th, 42.3%). Then again, I've never had Honey Smacks (1st, 56%).

If you haven't had sugary cereal in awhile, you might be inclined to hang on to that nostalgia and say, "Aaaawww. A occasional bowl of sugary cereal isn't so bad." It's not. Just not as "part of a balanced breakfast."

The stories about this report compare the sugar content to Twinkies or processed cookies. With that in mind, the solution lies in having a bowl of sugary cereal … for dessert.

Cereal manufacturers have had this idea for awhile, breaking cereal out of its breakfast-only mold. You might recall earlier this year when I blasted Special K's attempt to cozy up to women's obsession with chocolate with Special K Chocolatey Delight. In the commercial, Special K was promoting the cereal as a post 9 pm snack for women to get a chocolate fix.

With its chocolatey chunks (sugar, partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil, cocoa processed with alkali, cocoa, soy lecithin, artificial flavor, milk), sugar, and high-fructose corn syrup, women (and men) are better off with a small piece of dark chocolate close to bedtime.

I have only seen Cap'n Crunch's Crunch Treasures in a drug store, but the cereal says it offers up half the sugar of the regular version. While I have not tried it, online reviews aren't kind to the taste. Often, you can find enough pleasure from either a healthier cereal, or the regular version of these high-sugar cereals.

Earlier in the evening, after dinner, isn't a bad time to have a little extra sugar. Theoretically, you can burn some of that off in the nighttime.

And while that sounds like a great argument for sugary cereals at breakfast time, kids need to concentrate in class and excess sugar isn't the best option for them. If you are 40-something and still eating a high-sugar cereal as part of your "balanced" breakfast, your concentration may not be as sharp for work.

Getting sugary cereals away from breakfast and more for dinner has a few advantages:

-- The cereals are fortified, so while it may have as much sugar as cookies, the cereal is healthier than the cookies. You are getting milk with your cereal, so the protein and vitamins adds to the mix. You might have milk with cookies, but cereal offers a stronger guarantee of milk.
-- Usually one bowl of cereal at a time satisfies you; with cookies, you might not stop at three.
-- If you're looking for that one cynical advantage that no one else though about: cereal per serving is pretty cheap, cereal is usually on sale, and if you already have cereal in the house for the kids, then you are saving money by not also buying the cookies.

photo credit

If Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are 'pro-family' they need to be pro food stamps

The first two, and perhaps the only two GOP presidential candidates, who will take part in Donald Trump's presidential debate have one trait that is a particular thorn to us here at Balance of Food: they aren't fans of food stamps.

Rick Santorum's comments last week were mindfully clueless, while Newt Gingrich's take was more deliberately mendacious.

From the Le Mars Daily Sentinel:

Santorum told the group he would cut the food stamp program, describing it as one of the fastest growing programs in Washington, D.C.

Forty-eight million people are on food stamps in a country with 300-million people, said Santorum.

"If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?" Santorum asked.

Being a part of government means you usually know what is going on, whether you like it or agree with it. Santorum served two terms in the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, and yet doesn't understand the government's financial support of cheap food. While he was in the Senate, he did serve with those in the House who have taken the food stamp challenge. Those in Congress tried to live on food stamps for a month. Santorum would take a lot longer than a month to absorb how difficult living on food stamps can be.

In a more compassionate country, we would actually increase the food stamp budget and/or work harder to get more people to be employed.

Santorum should give us his current family food budget; he has 7 children (one has passed on) and we'll tell him how much less he would need to survive if food stamps were his only option.

Santorum would only have to be asleep for the last five years to be that clueless. Gingrich's Rip Van Winkle impression took us back to a time when the Smashing Pumpkins first made it big and "NYPD Blue" was controversial television.

"Remember, this is the best food stamp president in history. So more Americans today get food stamps than before. And we now give it away as cash — you don't get food stamps. You get a credit card, and the credit card can be used for anything. We have people who take their food stamp money and use it to go to Hawaii. They give food stamps now to millionaires because, after all, don't you want to be compassionate? You know, the Obama model: isn't there somebody you'd like to give money to this week. That's why we're now going to help bailout Italy because we haven't bailed out enough people this week, the president thought let's write another check. After all, we have so much extra money."

Gingrich calling Obama the "food stamp president" is more about the policies that led to the economic collapse, ones Gingrich will make stronger if elected president. In fact, George W. Bush expanded eligibility for food stamps. When Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he wanted to turn food stamps into a block grant program.

Like Santorum, Gingrich should be aware that food stamps are means-tested, meaning you have to disclose income and assets to get food stamps. And the debit card (not a credit card) can't be used on just anything, especially a trip to Hawaii. The average caller on talk radio may not know that is true, but Gingrich does know this to be true.

Santorum and Gingrich should see the segment from NBC's "Rock Center" on food stamps. These families don't want to be on food stamps, they don't want to be grocery shopping at midnight or 4:12 am, as we see in the segment. They want to be making more to support their families. One of the families has the mother working as a supervisor for a call center, management, for $13.50/hour, likely without benefits.

This twisted image of food stamp recipients sitting at home doing nothing but watch "Maury" or "Jerry Springer" is more in the minds of conservative politicians than the streets of America. On a national scale, the USDA estimates the fraud rate at about 1¢ per $1 in 2008, and that number has been falling over the previous 15 years. Gingrich sneers at switching to the cards, even though that is likely a factor in reducing fraud.

Santorum plays himself us as a "family-focused" politician. Though Gingrich hasn't showed it in his own life, he preaches "family" in his rhetoric. Meanwhile, actual real families who are having to survive on a lot less than either politician makes are having to scrimp by and do the best they can.

Santorum and Gingrich both know (or should know) Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH). They took the food stamp challenge in 2007 to see what it would be like to live for a week on food stamps. These four Congressmen would have a lot to teach Santorum and Gingrich about the world of food stamps.

These Congressmen didn't know that much about life on food stamps before they did this experiment. But they were willing to learn more, a trait missing from Santorum and Gingrich.

Most people on food stamps would trade their income status with either Santorum or Gingrich's income in a heartbeat. Perhaps the two presidential candidates should move in with food stamps recipients for a week to see how they live. Then, when they don't speak, their words will come from understanding and compassion.

Even with food stamps, those who are down on their luck also supplement their need for food with food pantries. In this holiday season, we will explore ways to better help those in need with food pantries in a column on Wednesday.

Temptation of the Week: Balancing holiday temptation with reality

Did your Thanksgiving go well?

Perhaps you did really well: enjoyed your food, had a lot but not too much and spread it around several food groups. Or maybe you had a little too much a little too often. Or you could have been surrounded by enough family guilt that you overstuffed and then went into the bathroom to sneak more food.

Even if you did well over the long holiday weekend, you might still be wary of the holiday period to come, regardless of which holiday. After all, Thanksgiving lasts 4-5 days. Right now, you are looking at another 25 days.

Yikes!

The proposal presented two weeks ago in the Temptation of the Week was a bit radical and some could interpret in an anti-family, almost Scroogesque take on the holidays. If you took it literally and it worked for you so far, congratulations. The proposal was meant literally but also could be seen as metaphorical. You would still be surrounded by family, friends, and co-workers in candy cane sweaters, but you would be more in control of making good holiday eating decisions.

Or you could still eat what you want to eat, how much you want to eat, and still add 10% to your consumption just to spite the Balance of Food.

Holidays are a tricky time for a lot of reasons. Maybe you've been good for most of the fall in hopes of eating more in December. Maybe you don't get to see Grandma but this time of year and her homemade pecan pie is the best ever. Maybe you and your spouse are going through a rough patch, or maybe you are more alone than normal. Maybe an extra piece of or slice of will make a difference.

As much as we hope to have a sterile environment around this time of year to steer us away from holiday temptation, holidays involve real people doing real things with real holiday pressures. Sometimes as strong as we would like to think we are, we're only human. We strive to have well-behaved children, inferring that they may not be as well-rewarded if they don't behave. Sometimes children are children and we receive unprecedented joy from the experience. People being human.

This isn't to contradict what I wrote before Thanksgiving: I stand by every word. This week, we are presenting the other side: reality. Sometimes, success in the holiday season is a matter of doing the best you can while having some fun. Redefining what fun is can help you not go too far in the holiday season, but the holiday time is meant for fun, family, friends, and co-workers, though not always candy cane sweaters.