Summer Season puts Galveston Tourism Back on Track

Mink and Manure

By Lynn Ashby                                                30 August 2010

THE STORE – The first clue is the parking lot. Intermingled are Lexuses and MachoMaster pickups, bumper stickers reading “George W. Forever!” and “I’d Rather be Ropin,’” country club ID stickers and gun racks. No place but Texas. This is a store in Hunt (actually, its official name is The Store because it’s the only store in Hunt), one of many such places around Texas where east meets west or maybe town meets country.

On one work glove we have the locals who live here, work here and don’t want to leave. On the other glove we have the visitors from the big city who come out to toil the soil on weekends or maybe they have retired here. The locals call the city slickers the “mink and manure set.” I call them “strange.”

There are no doubt similar cross-pollinations in other states, but the situation is particularly pervasive in Texas because of three reasons. One: deer leases and bird hunting (see: Cheney, Dick). Every fall and winter, half of Texas is tromping the fields and woods of the other half. For many, those leases become purchases.

Two, while many American cities are contracting and losing population, our metropolitan areas are spreading into rural regions where the deer and the antelope, not to mention Billy Joe and Melba Sue, play. This brings sprawling new housing developments right up against traditional farm and ranch lands. When others think of the Lone Star State (if they ever do), they think of vast horizons, tumbleweeds and dust storms, but 80 percent of Texans live in a metropolitan area – one of the highest of the 50 states.

The third reason is any big-city Texan who can afford it likes to have a place in the country for weekends, vacations, retirement, etc. Sometimes we can best see ourselves through the eyes of others, so let’s read this from John Steinbeck, a Nobel Prize winner for literature. He wrote in “Travels With Charley:”

“The tradition of the land is deep fixed in the Texas psyche. Businessmen wear heeled boots that never feel a stirrup, and men of great wealth who have houses in Paris and regularly shoot grouse in Scotland refer to themselves as ‘little old country boys.’ It would be easy to make sport of their attitude if one did not know that in this way, they try to keep their association with the strength and simplicity of the land. Instinctively they feel that this is the source, not only of wealth, but of energy. And the energy of Texas is boundless and explosive.” (Two quick examples of this: George W. and LBJ.)

Texas is full of “little old country boys” who work M-F defending the guilty, fixing prices or stealing IRAs from widows. On Friday afternoons they trade their three-piece Brooks Bros. suits for boots and Levis, toss shovels and rolls of barbed wire in the back of their $65,000 Dodge Exterminator with the hand-wrought deer-guard and head for the Double Bar Triple X Rocking Umlaut.

I see my neighbors doing that, then returning home late on Sundays, covered in sweat and cow droppings. They smile that absentee landlord’s condescending smile as they head up their driveway. “Yep,” says my dentist on Monday morning, trying to find the right tooth. “Spent the weekend branding 45 cattle, painted the outhouse and poured concrete for a new silo. Man, that’s fun. What did you do?”

“Miffga wattoy un haff.”

“Sounds boring.”

I am trying to tell him I went to college so I wouldn’t have to brand cattle, paint outhouses and pour concrete, but these guys love it.

The hustlers and the rustlers have different backgrounds, employment and values, so how do you tell them apart? Here at The Store a hint as to the real origin of Ed Earl and Chauncey Charles is footwear. Nikes and two-toned monogrammed anchovy-skin Lucchese boots practically scream, “Highland Park” or “River Oaks.” Mud-caked work boots mean “West Screwworm.” On occasion I have heard the clink-clink of spurs as some cowboy walks in for lunch. Spurs don’t go with Nikes but do add a certain macho to the monogrammed Lucchese.

The presence of weekend warriors means the locals have sold the very worst piece of land, where they couldn’t grow cattle, cactus or old, to the orthopedic surgeon from Austin. “Doc, just look at this view of the sunset. Right over the power lines and the feed lot. Bet you don’t have that in Westlake Hills. You can truck in about 50 tons of good topsoil, irrigate it and grow crabgrass.”

In addition, the sly country bumpkins can cut their own property taxes because the visitors pay huge taxes on those million-dollar ranch houses with the pool and solarium. And notice the entrances to the different ranches. Working spreads have modest gates with a post box. The mink and manure set, or M&Ms, have gigantic entrances with waterfalls, bugles and stain-glass windows just below “Rich-O Ranch-O” or maybe “Hedge Fun.”

Here at the feed stores, coffee shops (Kountry Kookin’) and Bubba’s BBQ are where we see the greatest contrast with the males. Meanwhile, at the antique stores and flea markets the wives, who sullenly put up with such weekends, go shopping for authentic Texanna for their home away from home. In answer to this demand, the locals dump off stuff they found in the barn which the big city buyers wouldn’t have in their urban homes on a dare. “Oh, look. A rusty, cob-webbed-infested farm doohickey with bent splanges. It will look perfect in the solarium next to the John Deere calf mulcher.”

Finally, in case you are wondering about the parking lot, the locals are the ones who drive a Lexus. This reminds me of Dick Cavett’s observation, “I was born and brought up in the cornfields of Nebraska, then I attended Yale. They say I’m half hick and half sophisticate. Of course, if I’d stayed in Nebraska I’d be all sophisticate.”

Ashby weekends at home at ashby@comcast.net

Should I fear radiation exposure associated with medical scans such as CT scans, mammograms and the like?

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Should I fear radiation exposure associated with medical scans such as CT scans, mammograms and the like? — Shelly Johansen, Fairbanks, AK

The short answer is…maybe. Critics of the health care industry postulate that our society’s quickness to test for disease may in fact be causing more of it, especially in the case of medical scans. To wit, the radiation dose from a typical CT scan (short for computed tomography and commonly known as a “cat scan”) is 600 times more powerful than the average chest x-ray.

A 2007 study by Dr. Amy Berrington de González of the National Cancer Institute projected that the 72 million CT scans conducted yearly in the U.S. (not including scans conducted after a cancer diagnosis or performed at the end of life) will likely cause some 29,000 cancers resulting in 15,000 deaths two to three decades later. Scans of the abdomen, pelvis, chest and head were deemed most likely to cause cancer, and patients aged 35 to 54 were more likely to develop cancer as a result of CT scans than other age group.

Another study found that, among Americans who received CT scans, upwards of 20 percent had a false positive after one scan and 33 percent after two, meaning that such patients were getting huge doses of radiation without cause. And about seven percent of those patients underwent unnecessary invasive medical procedures following their misleading scans. CT scans are much more common today than in earlier decades, exacerbating the potential damage from false positives and excessive radiation exposure.

“Physicians and their patients cannot be complacent about the hazards of radiation or we risk creating a public-health time bomb,” says Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at University of California-San Francisco. “To avoid unnecessarily increasing cancer incidence in future years, every clinician must carefully assess the expected benefits of each CT scan and fully inform his or her patients of the known risks of radiation.”

CT scans are not the only concern. Mammograms are now routine for women over 40 years old. But some studies suggest that these types of screenings may cause more cancers than they prevent. Because of this, the federally funded U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that women not otherwise considered high risk for breast cancer wait until age 50 to begin getting mammograms—and then to get them every two years instead of annually. However, the American Cancer Society argues that such restraint would result in women dying unnecessarily from delaying screenings.

Women with a family history of breast cancer may be at greatest risk. Researchers from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands found that five or more x-rays—or any exposure to radiation—before the age of 20 for “high risk” women increased the likelihood of developing breast cancer later by a factor of two and a half.

Individuals should ask tough questions of their physicians to determine if and how much screening is absolutely necessary to look for suspected abnormalities. Our knowledge of the risks of radiation-based screenings will only help us to make more informed decisions about our health.

CONTACTS: National Cancer Institute, www.cancer.gov; American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org; University Medical Center Groningen, www.umcg.nl.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is happening with various programs initiated over the years in the U.S. to return to the wild certain animal species that had been endangered or threatened? And do environmentalists tend to be for or against such efforts? — Susan Adams, Owl’s Head, ME

From the standpoint of species and ecosystem health, limited attempts at predator reintroduction in the United States have for the most part proven very successful. The gray wolf, extirpated by hunters in the Yellowstone region some 90 years ago, is now thriving there in the wake of a controversial reintroduction program initiated in 1995, when the National Park Service released 31 gray wolves into the park’s expansive backcountry. Today as many as 170 gray wolves roam the park and environs, while the elk population—which was denuding many iconic park landscapes in the absence of its chief predator—has fallen by half, in what many environmentalists see as a win-win scenario.

Other reintroduction efforts across the U.S. have also been successful. From the lynx in Colorado to the condor in California to the Black-footed ferret on the Plains, scientists are pleased with how well reintroduced species have taken to their new surroundings. As a result, many conservationists now view the reintroduction of iconic wildlife species as key to restoring otherwise degraded natural landscapes.

“When we kill off big cats, wolves and other wild hunters, we lose not only prominent species, but also the key ecological and evolutionary process of top-down regulation,” says the non-profit Rewilding Institute, adding that the recovery of large native carnivores should be the heart of any conservation strategy in areas where such predators have disappeared. “Wolves, cougars, lynx, wolverines, grizzly and black bears, jaguars, sea otters and other top carnivores need to be restored throughout North America in ecologically effective densities in their natural ranges where suitable habitat remains or can be restored.”

Not everyone is so bullish on wildlife reintroduction programs, despite their success. As for the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction, ranchers operating on private land outside park boundaries still complain about the threat of free-roaming wolves poaching their livestock. In response, the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife has implemented its Wolf Conservation Trust whereby donated funds are channeled toward paying ranchers fair market value for any stock lost to wolf predation. The group hopes the fund will “eliminate a major factor in political opposition to wolf recovery” by shifting the economic burden of wolf recovery from livestock producers to those who support wolf reintroduction.

Some environmental advocates also oppose wildlife reintroductions. One argument is that people have “played God” enough and should stop tinkering even more with wildlife and ecosystems, especially given that the overall long-term impact is always uncertain. And some animal advocates dislike such strategies from a humanitarian perspective: “Reintroduction programs subject wild animals to capturing and handling, which is always stressful for them, and may eventually put them in the line of fire of farmers who are already angry about predator-reintroduction programs,” claims People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), adding that, when predators are reintroduced to an area where they have long been absent, prey species tend to scatter and “their lives and behavior patterns are turned upside-down.”

CONTACTS: The Rewilding Institute, www.rewilding.org; Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), www.peta.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Friday, Dec. 17 – FREE Shopping Day

Created to extend the online holiday shopping season for merchants and give procrastinating consumers one final chance to surf the Internet for gifts, the event expects to attract more than 1,000 retailers this year

Fort Collins, CO – Black Friday and Cyber Monday once again have company in the holiday shopping season. The third annual Free Shipping Day is set for Friday, December 17, 2010.

Free Shipping Day is a one day shopping event when participating merchants offer free shipping with delivery by Christmas Eve. Luke Knowles – who created the popular shopping web site FreeShipping.org with his wife, Maisie, in 2007 – hatched the idea for Free Shipping Day just two weeks before the event in December 2008. In an abrupt brainstorm, he thought that retailers would relish the opportunity to extend the online holiday shopping season, which typically peaks in early December because consumers are concerned about their gift orders arriving to their intended destination in time for Christmas.

Knowles expected a favorable response from retailers and consumers that first year, but he didn’t anticipate the overwhelming interest that the event actually received. Free Shipping Day attracted more than 250 merchants and the FreeShippingDay.com web site saw 250,000 hits in a 10-day period, including 100,000 on the actual day itself. Word spread among national media outlets and blogs, and last year more than 750 merchants that participated, drawing 450,000 visitors to the website, including 232,000 on Free Shipping Day itself. Knowles estimates that about 35,000 sales were registered on the site among participating retailers on Free Shipping Day last December.

“We have reached a point where consumers are expecting free shipping when they shop online, but in many cases it is offered when you purchase a certain amount, such as $50 or $100,” Knowles said. “To make Free Shipping Day even more unique, we are encouraging retailers to offer free shipping on all orders.”

Knowles projects that more than 1,000 retailers will participate in this year’s Free Shipping Day. Merchants that participated in last years event include Macy’s, Kohl’s, Dell, Toys R Us, JCPenney, Sears, Ralph Lauren and Eddie Bauer.

“We consulted with merchants who participated last year to choose the most ideal date for this year’s Free Shipping Day,” Knowles said. “Since the 18th will be a busy offline shopping day since it is the last Saturday before Christmas, we believe that Friday the 17th will be convenient because people can shop from their homes and their offices.”

Free Shipping Day is becoming part of our nation’s holiday shopping vocabulary, serving as the final event in the holiday shopping trifecta.

###

Free Shipping Day is a one day shopping event when participating merchants offer free shipping with delivery by Christmas Eve. The third annual event will be held this year on Friday, December 17. For more information, visit www.freeshippingday.com.

Third annual Free Shipping Day slated for December 17

Created to extend the online holiday shopping season for merchants and give procrastinating consumers one final chance to surf the Internet for gifts, the event expects to attract more than 1,000 retailers this year

Fort Collins, CO – Black Friday and Cyber Monday once again have company in the holiday shopping season. The third annual Free Shipping Day is set for Friday, December 17, 2010.

Free Shipping Day is a one day shopping event when participating merchants offer free shipping with delivery by Christmas Eve. Luke Knowles – who created the popular shopping web site FreeShipping.org with his wife, Maisie, in 2007 – hatched the idea for Free Shipping Day just two weeks before the event in December 2008. In an abrupt brainstorm, he thought that retailers would relish the opportunity to extend the online holiday shopping season, which typically peaks in early December because consumers are concerned about their gift orders arriving to their intended destination in time for Christmas.

Knowles expected a favorable response from retailers and consumers that first year, but he didn’t anticipate the overwhelming interest that the event actually received. Free Shipping Day attracted more than 250 merchants and the FreeShippingDay.com web site saw 250,000 hits in a 10-day period, including 100,000 on the actual day itself. Word spread among national media outlets and blogs, and last year more than 750 merchants that participated, drawing 450,000 visitors to the website, including 232,000 on Free Shipping Day itself. Knowles estimates that about 35,000 sales were registered on the site among participating retailers on Free Shipping Day last December.

“We have reached a point where consumers are expecting free shipping when they shop online, but in many cases it is offered when you purchase a certain amount, such as $50 or $100,” Knowles said. “To make Free Shipping Day even more unique, we are encouraging retailers to offer free shipping on all orders.”

Knowles projects that more than 1,000 retailers will participate in this year’s Free Shipping Day. Merchants that participated in last years event include Macy’s, Kohl’s, Dell, Toys R Us, Jcpenney, Sears, Ralph Lauren and Eddie Bauer.

“We consulted with merchants who participated last year to choose the most ideal date for this year’s Free Shipping Day,” Knowles said. “Since the 18th will be a busy offline shopping day since it is the last Saturday before Christmas, we believe that Friday the 17th will be convenient because people can shop from their homes and their offices.”

Free Shipping Day is becoming part of our nation’s holiday shopping vocabulary, serving as the final event in the holiday shopping trifecta.

###

Free Shipping Day is a one day shopping event when participating merchants offer free shipping with delivery by Christmas Eve. The third annual event will be held this year on Friday, December 17. For more information, visit www.freeshippingday.com.

Is Soy Milk Really Milk?

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Is the dairy industry really trying to stop soy milk makers from calling their products “milk?” They must feel very threatened by the preponderance of soy milks now available in supermarkets. — Gina Storzen, Weymouth, MA

Indeed, just this past April the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), a trade group representing dairy farms, petitioned the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to crack down on what it calls “the misappropriation of dairy terminology on imitation milk products.” NMPF has been asking for such a ruling for a decade, and argues that the soy industry’s “false and misleading” labeling is now more common than ever.

According to NMPF president and CEO, Jerry Kozak, the FDA has let the issue slide so that the meaning of ‘milk’ and even ‘cheese’ has been “watered down to the point where many products that use the term have never seen the inside of a barn.”

Furthermore, Kozak adds, the use of “dairy terminology” on non-dairy products can lead people to think they are eating healthier than they really are, especially because non-dairy products “can vary wildly in their composition and are inferior to the nutrient profile of those from dairy milk.”

The website FoodNavigator-USA.com reports that on the other side of the Atlantic, the European Dairy Association (EDA) has also called for the term ‘soy milk’ to be replaced with ‘soy drink’. EDA also suggests other options including ‘soy beverage’, ‘soy preparation’ and ‘soy-based liquid’. It’s no wonder the soy industry isn’t quick to give up the milk moniker, given how catchy the alternatives could be!

Jen Phillips of Mother Jones magazine takes issue with the dairy industry’s sense of ownership when it comes to terms like ‘milk’, ‘cheese’ and ‘dairy’. “The word ‘milk’ has lots of uses and has been used for non-dairy milks like coconut for a long time,” she reports, adding that consumers already know that soy milk isn’t dairy milk. “Instead,” she writes, “the move to ban ‘milk’ from non-dairy products is a transparent ploy by the NMPF to hurt the soybean industry that, thanks to increasingly health-conscious consumers and ethanol production quotas, is growing stronger every year.”

She also disagrees with Kozak’s claim that dairy milk is healthier than soy: “Actually, soy milk and dairy aren’t that different nutritionally, except for that milk is fattier,” she says, explaining that a cup of vanilla soy milk has 30 fewer calories than a cup of two percent cow’s milk. And while dairy does have twice the protein, soy milk has 10 percent more calcium. “It’s a bit of a toss-up nutritionally, but I’m lactose-intolerant so I’ll choose the ‘milk’ that doesn’t make me gassy and crampy.”

Phillips adds that, since 90-100 percent of Asians and 50 percent of Hispanics—two of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the U.S.—are lactose intolerant, “NMPF might want to think less about fighting soy and more about how they’re going to deal with people who can’t drink milk to begin with.”

CONTACTS: NMPF, www.nmpf.org; FDA, www.fda.gov; FoodNavigator-USA.com, www.foodnavigator-usa.com; EDA, www.euromilk.org; Mother Jones, www.motherjones.com.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Many people oppose dams because they change the flow of rivers and affect the migrating patterns of fish and other species, but aren’t they also a great renewable energy source? — Ryan Clark, Milton, WA

Hydroelectric dams are among the greenest and most affordable electricity sources in the world—and by far the most widely used renewable energy sources—but they also take a heavy environmental toll in the form of compromised landscapes, ecosystems and fisheries. Hydroelectric dams have been an important component of America’s energy mix since the powerful flow of rivers was first harnessed for industrial use in the 1880s. Today hydroelectric power accounts for seven percent of U.S. electricity generation—and some two-thirds of the country’s renewable power—according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Globally, about 19 percent of electricity comes from hydroelectric sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that China is the world’s largest producer of hydroelectricity, followed by Canada, Brazil and the U.S. Some two-thirds of the economically feasible potential for hydro power remains to be developed around the world, with untapped resources most abundant in Latin America, India and China.

Of course, despite the inexpensive and emissions-free power, many environmentalists consider hydroelectric dams to be man-made abominations that prevent salmon and other fish from swimming upstream, divert otherwise natural riparian settings, and fundamentally change the character of surrounding ecosystems. Green groups including American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the Endangered Species Coalition, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club are pushing the federal government to mandate the removal of four dams along the Snake River in Washington State that help the region have the lowest power-related carbon footprint in the country. The dams have decimated once teeming salmon runs, and upstream forest ecosystems have suffered accordingly.

But the Bonneville Power Administration, the quasi-federal utility that runs the dams and distributes the electricity they produce, says that keeping them going is crucial even as wind plays an increasingly larger role in the region’s electricity mix. Since hydro power can be generated and released when most needed, it is an important resource for backup power when intermittent sources like wind (and solar) aren’t available.

The scheduled removal of two century-old dams on the Elwha River in Washington State’s Olympic National Park beginning in 2011 may well serve as test cases for larger dam removal projects in the Pacific Northwest and beyond. Planners hope wild salmon numbers will rebound as a result, and that other wildlife—such as bald eagles and black bears—will follow suit.

President Obama has committed $32 million to modernize existing hydropower dams, increase efficiency and reduce environmental impacts. “There’s no one solution to the energy crisis, but hydropower is clearly part of the solution and represents a major opportunity to create more clean energy jobs,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told reporters last year. “Investing in our existing hydropower infrastructure will strengthen our economy, reduce pollution and help us toward energy independence.”

CONTACTS: U.S. Geological Survey, www.usgs.gov; U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.doe.gov; Bonneville Power Administration, www.bpa.gov.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Separate Checks

By Lynn Ashby 9 August 2010

THE RESTAURANT – Now is the awkward moment of truth, or agony. The waiter is coming across the restaurant with our check. This is the same waiter who ignored us for most of the evening as we smiled, waved napkins, stood on the table yelling. No attention from him. But when the time comes to present the check, he quickly weaves and bobs through the tables and patrons toward us like a Heisman halfback through the Little Sisters of the Poor.
My wife and I are with another couple, so when ordering our meal I had asked the waiter for separate checks for each couple. Our dining companions gave me the usual frown, grimace, even a slight shake of the head. Sometimes the husband and wife glance at each other, exchanging that “what’s this deadbeat trying to pull?” look. Little do they know I’m doing them a huge favor.
Separate checks for couples, individuals or lynch mobs make sense. Under this operation, each person is free and uninhibited to order as little or as much, as cheap or as expensive, various items without the guilt of influencing the others’ tabs. Tonight, for example, I shall order the 3-pound lobster, two sides, a shrimp salad and dessert (chocolate soufflé a la mode). But first, I’d like two vodka martinis, wine with my meal and a brandy or so afterwards. My wife, a light eater, will watch me. Across the table, the other couple will split a small bowl of beef bouillon along with one cup of ice tea with two straws. It really isn’t fair that we split the bill – beef bouillon is expensive — and I’m certainly not going to follow their lead.
The worst situation is when I am not very hungry or maybe suffering a relapse of dengue fever, so I’ll settle for the house salad and Ozarka. Across from me sits my 300-pound dinner companion who glances at the menu, hands it back to the waiter and says, “Yes.” He also prefers a $120 bottle of. Moët & Chandon. When his seven-course meal is over, he burps and says, “Let’s just split the check.”
If my fellow eaters are hedge fund CEOs or drug lords, I have no guilt with ordering the most expensive items on the menu and splitting the bill. Better yet, I’ll be their guest. Or let’s say it’s someone’s birthday – his or mine, makes no difference. In celebrating surviving another year, I shall graciously let him pay. Same with anniversaries, weddings, or perhaps it’s a Wednesday. My thoughtfulness and sensitivity are no doubt appreciated.
Business lunches have clear guidelines. Whoever is clever enough to go to the restroom just before the bill arrives proves that there is, indeed, such a thing as a free lunch. Or, maybe both diners are on expense accounts. They both put down the full amount and get reimbursed by their company. Sometimes, to determine who pays, diners will play scissors-rock-paper. (Some call it rock-paper-scissors while others call it stupid.)
Another solution to the unbalanced check is to say, “OK, we’ll go 50-50 on the tab, but let me get the tip.” That way, I feel better when I leave the quarter. Then there is the wallet or purse fumbler. When the check arrives, start patting your coat pockets, vest, digging into the top of your boots, looking for you wallet and/or purse. Your companion finally gives up, mumbling, “I’ll get it. You fed the parking meter.”
There are a few more points to be made. Restaurants today serve single portions large enough to satiate the Cowboys’ offensive line. I mean, do you really want a 45- ounce Porterhouse? So I often split the order with my wife, the kid at the next table or the bus boy. Also, it has been said that many an invention has sprung from drawings on a restaurant cocktail napkin. I have scribbled down some wonderful ideas, too, with my Flair, but the maître d’ always charges me for the table cloth.
The split-check routine can be difficult in large parties, especially at Chuck E. Cheese’s or the McDonald’s drive-thru. There are some Houston eateries that even charge extra for a split entrée, so they certainly don’t like to write up several different checks. But that doesn’t prevent them from putting in small type at the bottom of the menu, “A 20 percent gratuity will be added for parties of three or more.” What you do when dining with a large party is to order the most expensive items on the menu, along with the best wine. Why not? Every one is going to pay the same, so you might as well eat the best.
There is one gaff that is apparent to all at the table. Someone orders the extra large turkey breast with gravy, potatoes, dozen hot rolls and pie. Then, when the meal is over, the diner puts about half of that in his doggy bag. Tomorrow’s lunch is being paid for by everyone else. Incidentally, once I was dining with about 12 others (all of whom ordered the top items). Afterwards, we all tossed our credit cards into the little black folder that contains the check. Later, everyone got their slice of the price, and their credit card. Except me. I never did get mine back, but someone in Akron sure lived well for a while.
Yes, it is awkward getting separate checks rather than trying to figure out who had what for how much and balancing it out. It is at times such as these that I recall President John F. Kennedy’s remarks at a dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners of the Western Hemisphere on April 29, 1962: “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” That’s when Jefferson came up with the constitutional concept of checks and balances.

Ashby bills separately at ashby5@comcast.net

Taylor Lanning

Miss Houston Taylor Lanning hosted a fundraiser at Satori Heights Salon on August 5th, 2010.

Family Summer Getaway — The Woodlands Resort

Already thinking about your family’s summer getaway?  You’re probably looking for a destination that offers something for everyone — golf, spa, tennis, an amazing pool experience and plenty of activities to keep the kids entertained. Look no further than The Woodlands Resort. 

In less than an hour, you can be lounging in a tropical paradise with flowing waterfalls and frozen umbrella drinks while the kids zoom down winding waterslides.  The resort’s signature Forest Oasis Waterscape™ is the complete experience with underwater music and marine murals, plus, live-bands, dive-in movies and gooey s’mores at dusk. 

Land lovers can relax at The Spa with nature-inspired spa treatments, whirlpools and a eucalyptus steam room.  Or, hit the links on 36-holes of championship golf at The Oaks and Panther Trail™ courses.  For tennis, there are 21 indoor and outdoor courts with hard and clay court surfaces.   

Want more?  The Woodlands Town Center is the hub of activity featuring one-of-a-kind shopping, dining and entertainment.  Visit Jaded, a boutique owned by WWE diva Torrie Wilson or sip on a glass of wine at Crush Wine Lounge overlooking The Fountains at Waterway Square with its choreographed water show. You can also rent a kayak at Riva Row Boat House for a leisurely afternoon on Lake Woodlands.

The Woodlands Resort
2301 North Millbend Dr
The Woodlands, TX 77380
http://www.woodlandsresort.com