It doesn't matter if the work is priced right or overpriced, it's not the child's possession, the child isn't at home, they should know they aren't to treat it as if it's their possession and act like that in public. It shouldn't make any difference to the child or the parent if it's a 10 million buck sculpture or a cheap plant pot, it's not a chair, it's not theirs, it's not for touching.

If a kid is old/mature enough to visit the art museum, they're old/mature enough to be expected to behave and not touch or climb on the art. If they're still so little that being little should be an excuse, they're still too little for the art museum. Try taking them to the park or the zoo instead. They'll have more fun and not likely harm anything.

It wouldn't help. First off, being forced into a job for a little while wouldn't create the immersion into the lifestyle of the people who aren't just in it temporarily. The most important things that could be learned from seeing how the other half really lives aren't necessarily stuff you'd get from working some shifts at the same place they work. It would be exactly like how being a tourist is nothing like being a local. If you've vacationed somewhere, yeah, you might know a wee bit more about that place than someone who's never been there. But it's nothing like the experience of having lived there full-time long-term as a real local.

Secondly, just having "been there" for a brief while isn't what makes a real difference in people's behavior and treatment of others. You don't treat waitresses nicer because you know what it's like to wait tables. You don't treat store cashiers nicer because you've run a register. You treat waitresses and cashiers nice because you are a decent human being who has empathy and common courtesy and respect for other human beings. Treating others well isn't shaped by having done their jobs or been around people like them for a few hours a day for a few months. It's about the bigger picture. If the basic "We're all people. These are humans that I'm interacting with. We should be good to them." is not instilled well enough in someone for whether they've personally done their job for a little while or not to matter, doing that job for a little while isn't going to amount to much at all.

I thought that's what bars and counters were for. I hate dining alone at a table. But it's not so bad at all at a countertop style seat. It not only feels less weird, but occasionally also encourages a little social interaction to actually be less lonely. If the person next to you is friendly and interesting, you're no longer dining alone, but meeting someone new.

I see the wedding gift as being more of a symbolic thing than anything. When it comes down to it, few people these days really NEED any of the things they get as wedding gifts. I've picked items off of several registries the last few years and I can assure you that not a single couple I was buying for was in need of any of the things on the list. And the kind of couple that could shell out enough for a wedding reception that would cost 100 dollars a plate most certainly isn't the kind of struggling young newlyweds that still could genuinely use the help of their family and friends to have what they need to set up a proper house together. If they can throw a hundred dollar per guest shindig, they probably shouldn't be soliciting gifts in the first place, of neither the wrapped box variety nor the envelope variety,and even if they thought it was okay to encourage folks to give gifts (really, people are probably going to bring even if you ask them not to, it's just such a tradition that no one wants to show up empty handed no matter how well-off the bride and groom are), they're certainly too well-off to complain that gifts were inadequate.

Especially with a food gift like that, there was no reason for the giver to ever know that the couple wasn't crazy about it. It's a consumable good. They can go on forever thinking you ate the treats and enjoyed them. It's not even like something that's going to be durable and you're going to feel obligated to keep around even if you don't need or like it so that they won't know you don't like. The proper thing to have done would have been to give the food they didn't want to some neighborhood kids and send a thank you note (they wouldn't even necessarily have to mention the gift if they were just so bothered by it, just a "thanks for being a part of our special day" kind of deal would work) and move on with their lives.

If anything, the reception is to offset the expense and inconvenience to the guests who shared your special day with you. They give up at least a day off to attend and many spend money on the trip to the wedding, things to wear for it, etc. A nice party is nice if it's something you can give back to them to enjoy with you. If you can't afford a fancy party, that's okay,too. People are happy to celebrate with their loved ones regardless. But just because you could afford to and opted to have a nice reception doesn't make anyone you invited obligated to pay for it. Your wedding guests are your GUESTS, you're supposed to be treating them.

I'm an Arkansan,too. But in my area, we talk to our neighbors. No one wants to live next door to someone who hates them, so you work it out like civilized adults. We don't make silly signs or sign our own individual rights away to be part of an association. We buy in neighborhoods that seem to be a good fit for the sort of life we want to lead, and then work out the kinks with our neighbors neighbor to neighbor when we have differences. It's not that tough. A plate of brownies or couple cold beers on the porch or passed over the fence and everyone practices a little give and take and is happy with it.

The Ed, Edd, and Eddie one from this Cracked article about wild fan theories about kids' shows is interesting...
http://www.cracked.com/article_19882_6-insane-but-convincing-fan-theories-about-kids-cartoons.html

It leaves me out,too. The non-to-go plain hot black coffee drinker. :(

Moscow dogs use the subway...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/Technology/stray-dogs-master-complex-moscow-subway-system/story?id=10145833

If they were to embrace it as an experience and something for entertainment worthy of charging admission for, they would need to bump up the entertainment factor, like with performers, speakers, exhibits, food, drinks, social stuff, that kind of thing. I've been to things like holiday markets where you paid admission to shop, but they added a lot to the event besides just the shopping part.

And they should waive the fee if you buy something of a decent value. Like if it cost you a two buck cover to get in, you could get your two bucks back at the register if you spent at least 10 bucks.

Or it could be done like a club type thing, too. You could pay so much to become a member of the club, and then you could browse and partake of the whole rest of the experience for free (or a lot of the things free, some premium with a discount for members, some members only). And the rest of the public could pay the cover to partake as guests. If it were more club-like it would help encourage folks to really feel more a part of it, and to make sure and buy there more loyally,too. It would be more of a community, a scene, than just a retail environment.

For a luxury pizza, assuming it's ordinary pizza sized, that doesn't sound too over-the-top pricewise. A pizza's not intended to be single serving. So if you gave everyone a slice, it'd $5.50 a slice. Not quite as cheap as typical by the slice pizza, but not just crazy. And if you ate it as a meal split between two people, both would get six slices (and even by American standards, that's a decent amount of pizza), that's 33 bucks a person. Not cheap like most pizza is, but still in the range you'd expect for a something like a steak in a nice restaurant. In the scheme of restaurant dinner prices, not a bargain, but not a one-percenters only kind of evening out. I'd give it a go.