This is for Jennette who is dreaming in faux French :
Monday, April 28, 2008
Birthday Picnic
Yesterday was cousin Ollie's birthday celebration and we picnicked at Bridal Veil Fall's. The weather was sooo nice and the kids had a blast playing tag, eating cake, and throwing rocks at the base of the falls.
This video depicts Clara waterboarding herself:This is Rob teaching Clara to have no fear of rushing rivers full of spring runoff. She had fun:
Thursday, April 24, 2008
I Believe In Miracles...
If you haven't witnessed a modern day miracle or think there is no such thing, I want you all to know that I cleaned the bathroom. That truly is a modern day miracle, trust me.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
For Bill, In Response To Your Last Post
Just a few interesting facts taken from Frontlines Hot Politics in response to your recent post:
1. After Jim Hasnen testified in front of Congress about his conclusion that manmade greenhouse gases were causing global warming, the coal, mining, and oil industries quickly spent millions of dollars to hire scientists to refute his findings. They did what they were paid for, resulting in a global warming debate. Since that time many of those scientists admit their data and conclusions were flawed. Not all do, but many do. These are the studies that have fueled Republican resistance to carbon caps and carbon taxes. Meanwhile the body of science has hardened and now, even the White House, can't be deniers that the science is strong (although not 100%, more like 98% ) suggesting that global warming is manmade.
2. The Clinton administration sent Al Gore to sign a treaty saying the US would require mandatory caps on carbon emissions. This was knowing full well that the Republican Congress would never in a million years ratify such a treaty. The Republican and Democratic members of Congress had way too much to lose by ratifying such a treaty. The Democrats relied heavily on union support, and unions were adamantly opposed to carbon caps. The Republicans relied heavily on funding from the mining, coal, and oil lobby and so were also adamantly opposed to carbon caps. Al Gores signing of the treaty now seems a cheap political trick because the administration didn't even present the treaty to Congress for ratification, knowing it didn't have a chance, but it was an election year and Al Gore was running for president against Texas governor George W. Bush.
3. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, oddly enough, Bush was the "Greener" candidate. He was able to run saying that he had done something to help combat global warming because as Governor of Texas, he had mandated carbon caps. With Gores bogus treaty signing, Bush actually had an advantage on this one. He promised as a candidate that if elected he would make sure that caps on carbon became Federally mandated. This was a promise he repeated often. He talked about global warming as the serious problem that it is, while on the campaign trail.
4. In the first year of Bush's presidency Energy Policy was top priority. A few weeks into her new job as EPA chief, Christie Todd Whitman, a forward thinking "environmentalist" was sent on the talk show circuit, toutiing carbon caps and the administrations serious attitude about climate change. Then she was off to Trieste to continue global climate talks. Before she left her understanding was that the US was for mandatory carbon caps. This was based on Bush's platform and on instructions recieved from Andy Card and Condoleeza Rice before her departure.
5. While she was away, Cheney convened his private energy policy decision making which involved him, and the top industry leaders from coal, oil, and mining. What went on we can easily guess, because of the way the Bush policy changed.
6. At this point Republican strategist Frank Lutz was asked to come up with a memo directing the Republican party on how to change the debate on what should be done to combat global warming into a debate about the science of global warming. He says it was a brilliant memo. Whenever global warming was discussed, it was to be discussed in terms of inconclusive and biased science. "The science just doesn't prove that global warming is man-made" was to be the debate. It worked. It worked very well. He now, although, still claiming the words he came up with were utterly brilliant, feels it was a bad thing he did, because we have dragged our feet and the body of science shows almost inconclusively that global warming is man caused. He feels it was a mistake.
7. After this, in a total reversal from his campaign promises, Bush announced that the US was withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty. Their arguments were two-fold:
A) It wasn't fair for the US to have mandatory carbon caps if India and China, potentially the two largest polluters weren't required. (As a mom this argument holds no sway...Wahhh, why do I have to clean my room? Cindy doesn't have to clean her room. Mom: I don't care what the Jones do, we are the Smiths and not the Jones') Why do I think this is a bogus argument? Because up until that time we had been the number one emitters of carbon and we should have taken responsiblity for our role as massive polluters and said, yup we've been bad, and we aren't going to be the leaders in pollution anymore. It seems like fairness was a whiny excuse. I think leading by example would have been a much nobler and wiser position to take.
B) If we start capping emissions or taxing carbon on our biggest industrial polluters they will pack up and move to India or China where they won't have to bother with regulations that hinder profit. This argument is useless because the largest polluters are coal plants, oil refineries, and cattle and hog feedlots (all of which have massively wealthy and powerful and overly-influential lobbies). These are industries that can't move overseas. A mine in West Virginia can't pack up and move. You can't light up Salt Lake City from Beijing. You can't supply meat to the largest buyer of meat, USA McDonalds, as cheaply and profitably from India as you can from Nebraska. It was a hollow argument.
8. Bush's withdrawl drew massive anti-American, and mostly anti-Bush crowds around the world to demonstrate. The Bush administration was surprised by this. Christy Todd Whitman says, in her view, America's sudden withdrawl from the Kyoto accord was the equivilant of flipping the world the bird. It was a policy that says, America does whatever it wants and you, world, will have to deal with it. At this point Congress was confused about the administrations energy policy. As far as they knew, Bush was for Carbon Caps. Hegel and Craig wrote a letter to Bush asking him to define his energy policy. He wrote back basically saying Global Warming was not an issue and therefore it was business as usual for the powerful energy companies. There would be no voluntary or mandatory carbon caps.
9. In 2002 according to government whistleblower Rick Piltz and emails obtained by Greenpeace through the Freedom of Information Act, Phil Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited government scientific reports. His revisions downplayed concerns about global warming.
10. In 2001 the Bush administration suppressed the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, a government report described by one researcher as the "most comprehensive" analysis of the possible effects of global warming on this nation (not just scientifically but how it would affect farming and the economy and what would become beachfront property, etc.). The findings of the assessment would have done what "An Inconvenient Truth" did instead: awakened people to the way that global warming could affect them.
11. In 2005 Rick Piltz resigned from federal Climate Change Science Program, protesting the intrusion of politics into the scientific arena, notably the editing by Phil Cooney. Piltz testified before Congress at a hearing on the alleged politicization of science by Bush administration officials. Cooney resigned once his actions were exposed by the media. Shortly after he took a job at ExxonMobil.
12. Meanwhile, scientific evidence continues to harden, that yes indeed, we are causing global warming.
13. States have taken the lead and have been doing amazing things in the march towards renewable and clean energy. In Texas, the Republican Governor, fast-tracked the building of eleven new coal-fired power plants. Ranchers in Texas felt very concerned about this. The last five winters have not been cold enough to kill off grasshopper larvae and they have had a plague of grasshoppers which is bad when you are trying to feed your cattle. Mayors didn't like it either. They banded together as "Cowboys against Coal". The governor wouldn't really listen. Instead big business, the Wall Street variety, realizing there are HUGE amounts of money to be made from the new energy economy, stepped in and got the job done. The utility company was bought out, the plans for 9 of the eleven coal plants scrapped, and wind has been heavily invested in. The money guy that orchestrated the buyout isn't sure if they've got a winning solution, but he is in big demand to orchestrate similar buyouts and it appears to be a winning strategy.
14. Massachussettes in 2003 sued the EPA, trying to force them to enforce emission caps they had mandated. Many states supported their bid. Republican states did not, leading me to believe that politics wins out over common sense.
15. Scientists working under the Bush administration have repeatedly reported that they have been gagged or censored or found their funding cut. They claim that this administration has an aversion to science. Jim Hansen, the leading climate scientist says that the administration wanted to know when and where he was going to lecture and what he was going to say. He claims they wanted to gag him.
16. Recently (in 2007) a bunch of company executives calling themselves the U.S. Climate Action Partnership made up of executives from companies that Congress will actually listen to (Ford motor company, BP, Conoco, GE, Duke Energy, and a long list of other major companies) and leading environmental organizations (quite an unusual pairing), in Senate hearings called on the Federal Government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
17. The Heartland Institute, who sponsored the paper you linked, is a very conservative think tank, obviously very adamantly opposed to carbon tax and carbon caps. I'm not sure who funds them, but I would bet that they get some of their money from industry that wants the status quo. You once told me you didn't trust factcheck.org because they were run by a think tank that had liberal monetary support. So, I would argue the same logic applies here. Perhaps if the paper came from a scientific journal it would have more clout.
So, ultimately I see more to be skeptical of in the politics of global warming than in the science. I think the science at this point is pretty strong.
WITH ALL THIS SAID,( which is a lot, I know) I believe that doomesday approaches are always a bad idea, except Americans tend to be totally apathetic in general and so you have to move the people somehow. Will had a great post stating just this, and I have to agree with all he said. I think that the challenge of global warming is one that can be met, can revitalize our economy, and potentially will transform our country for the better. I think that it will be marvelous when we don't remove the tops of mountains to get coal for our electrical power. I think we should stay out of ANWAR, because soon, oil will be irrelevant. I listen to Science Friday every Friday on NPR and am BLOWN AWAY and competely excited by all the incredible innovations that are already being made. We have the technology, the innovations, the means. We just need the will, which is where the government will come in handy. I think that if I had some spare cash I would love to invest it in tidal power, and wind power and solar power, because I think that there are some serious fortunes that are going to be made there. Leading the revolution would be a great place to be as a country. If we don't lead on this issue someone else will, and they will be in a pretty good position. They will have China and India and other developing countries as their markets. That is a pretty huge market. The big industries are ready and willing to adapt, because they see the tremendous opportunities. I think Bush has missed a HUGE opportunity. Let's hope then next time around the opportunities won't be wasted.
1. After Jim Hasnen testified in front of Congress about his conclusion that manmade greenhouse gases were causing global warming, the coal, mining, and oil industries quickly spent millions of dollars to hire scientists to refute his findings. They did what they were paid for, resulting in a global warming debate. Since that time many of those scientists admit their data and conclusions were flawed. Not all do, but many do. These are the studies that have fueled Republican resistance to carbon caps and carbon taxes. Meanwhile the body of science has hardened and now, even the White House, can't be deniers that the science is strong (although not 100%, more like 98% ) suggesting that global warming is manmade.
2. The Clinton administration sent Al Gore to sign a treaty saying the US would require mandatory caps on carbon emissions. This was knowing full well that the Republican Congress would never in a million years ratify such a treaty. The Republican and Democratic members of Congress had way too much to lose by ratifying such a treaty. The Democrats relied heavily on union support, and unions were adamantly opposed to carbon caps. The Republicans relied heavily on funding from the mining, coal, and oil lobby and so were also adamantly opposed to carbon caps. Al Gores signing of the treaty now seems a cheap political trick because the administration didn't even present the treaty to Congress for ratification, knowing it didn't have a chance, but it was an election year and Al Gore was running for president against Texas governor George W. Bush.
3. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, oddly enough, Bush was the "Greener" candidate. He was able to run saying that he had done something to help combat global warming because as Governor of Texas, he had mandated carbon caps. With Gores bogus treaty signing, Bush actually had an advantage on this one. He promised as a candidate that if elected he would make sure that caps on carbon became Federally mandated. This was a promise he repeated often. He talked about global warming as the serious problem that it is, while on the campaign trail.
4. In the first year of Bush's presidency Energy Policy was top priority. A few weeks into her new job as EPA chief, Christie Todd Whitman, a forward thinking "environmentalist" was sent on the talk show circuit, toutiing carbon caps and the administrations serious attitude about climate change. Then she was off to Trieste to continue global climate talks. Before she left her understanding was that the US was for mandatory carbon caps. This was based on Bush's platform and on instructions recieved from Andy Card and Condoleeza Rice before her departure.
5. While she was away, Cheney convened his private energy policy decision making which involved him, and the top industry leaders from coal, oil, and mining. What went on we can easily guess, because of the way the Bush policy changed.
6. At this point Republican strategist Frank Lutz was asked to come up with a memo directing the Republican party on how to change the debate on what should be done to combat global warming into a debate about the science of global warming. He says it was a brilliant memo. Whenever global warming was discussed, it was to be discussed in terms of inconclusive and biased science. "The science just doesn't prove that global warming is man-made" was to be the debate. It worked. It worked very well. He now, although, still claiming the words he came up with were utterly brilliant, feels it was a bad thing he did, because we have dragged our feet and the body of science shows almost inconclusively that global warming is man caused. He feels it was a mistake.
7. After this, in a total reversal from his campaign promises, Bush announced that the US was withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty. Their arguments were two-fold:
A) It wasn't fair for the US to have mandatory carbon caps if India and China, potentially the two largest polluters weren't required. (As a mom this argument holds no sway...Wahhh, why do I have to clean my room? Cindy doesn't have to clean her room. Mom: I don't care what the Jones do, we are the Smiths and not the Jones') Why do I think this is a bogus argument? Because up until that time we had been the number one emitters of carbon and we should have taken responsiblity for our role as massive polluters and said, yup we've been bad, and we aren't going to be the leaders in pollution anymore. It seems like fairness was a whiny excuse. I think leading by example would have been a much nobler and wiser position to take.
B) If we start capping emissions or taxing carbon on our biggest industrial polluters they will pack up and move to India or China where they won't have to bother with regulations that hinder profit. This argument is useless because the largest polluters are coal plants, oil refineries, and cattle and hog feedlots (all of which have massively wealthy and powerful and overly-influential lobbies). These are industries that can't move overseas. A mine in West Virginia can't pack up and move. You can't light up Salt Lake City from Beijing. You can't supply meat to the largest buyer of meat, USA McDonalds, as cheaply and profitably from India as you can from Nebraska. It was a hollow argument.
8. Bush's withdrawl drew massive anti-American, and mostly anti-Bush crowds around the world to demonstrate. The Bush administration was surprised by this. Christy Todd Whitman says, in her view, America's sudden withdrawl from the Kyoto accord was the equivilant of flipping the world the bird. It was a policy that says, America does whatever it wants and you, world, will have to deal with it. At this point Congress was confused about the administrations energy policy. As far as they knew, Bush was for Carbon Caps. Hegel and Craig wrote a letter to Bush asking him to define his energy policy. He wrote back basically saying Global Warming was not an issue and therefore it was business as usual for the powerful energy companies. There would be no voluntary or mandatory carbon caps.
9. In 2002 according to government whistleblower Rick Piltz and emails obtained by Greenpeace through the Freedom of Information Act, Phil Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited government scientific reports. His revisions downplayed concerns about global warming.
10. In 2001 the Bush administration suppressed the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, a government report described by one researcher as the "most comprehensive" analysis of the possible effects of global warming on this nation (not just scientifically but how it would affect farming and the economy and what would become beachfront property, etc.). The findings of the assessment would have done what "An Inconvenient Truth" did instead: awakened people to the way that global warming could affect them.
11. In 2005 Rick Piltz resigned from federal Climate Change Science Program, protesting the intrusion of politics into the scientific arena, notably the editing by Phil Cooney. Piltz testified before Congress at a hearing on the alleged politicization of science by Bush administration officials. Cooney resigned once his actions were exposed by the media. Shortly after he took a job at ExxonMobil.
12. Meanwhile, scientific evidence continues to harden, that yes indeed, we are causing global warming.
13. States have taken the lead and have been doing amazing things in the march towards renewable and clean energy. In Texas, the Republican Governor, fast-tracked the building of eleven new coal-fired power plants. Ranchers in Texas felt very concerned about this. The last five winters have not been cold enough to kill off grasshopper larvae and they have had a plague of grasshoppers which is bad when you are trying to feed your cattle. Mayors didn't like it either. They banded together as "Cowboys against Coal". The governor wouldn't really listen. Instead big business, the Wall Street variety, realizing there are HUGE amounts of money to be made from the new energy economy, stepped in and got the job done. The utility company was bought out, the plans for 9 of the eleven coal plants scrapped, and wind has been heavily invested in. The money guy that orchestrated the buyout isn't sure if they've got a winning solution, but he is in big demand to orchestrate similar buyouts and it appears to be a winning strategy.
14. Massachussettes in 2003 sued the EPA, trying to force them to enforce emission caps they had mandated. Many states supported their bid. Republican states did not, leading me to believe that politics wins out over common sense.
15. Scientists working under the Bush administration have repeatedly reported that they have been gagged or censored or found their funding cut. They claim that this administration has an aversion to science. Jim Hansen, the leading climate scientist says that the administration wanted to know when and where he was going to lecture and what he was going to say. He claims they wanted to gag him.
16. Recently (in 2007) a bunch of company executives calling themselves the U.S. Climate Action Partnership made up of executives from companies that Congress will actually listen to (Ford motor company, BP, Conoco, GE, Duke Energy, and a long list of other major companies) and leading environmental organizations (quite an unusual pairing), in Senate hearings called on the Federal Government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
17. The Heartland Institute, who sponsored the paper you linked, is a very conservative think tank, obviously very adamantly opposed to carbon tax and carbon caps. I'm not sure who funds them, but I would bet that they get some of their money from industry that wants the status quo. You once told me you didn't trust factcheck.org because they were run by a think tank that had liberal monetary support. So, I would argue the same logic applies here. Perhaps if the paper came from a scientific journal it would have more clout.
So, ultimately I see more to be skeptical of in the politics of global warming than in the science. I think the science at this point is pretty strong.
WITH ALL THIS SAID,( which is a lot, I know) I believe that doomesday approaches are always a bad idea, except Americans tend to be totally apathetic in general and so you have to move the people somehow. Will had a great post stating just this, and I have to agree with all he said. I think that the challenge of global warming is one that can be met, can revitalize our economy, and potentially will transform our country for the better. I think that it will be marvelous when we don't remove the tops of mountains to get coal for our electrical power. I think we should stay out of ANWAR, because soon, oil will be irrelevant. I listen to Science Friday every Friday on NPR and am BLOWN AWAY and competely excited by all the incredible innovations that are already being made. We have the technology, the innovations, the means. We just need the will, which is where the government will come in handy. I think that if I had some spare cash I would love to invest it in tidal power, and wind power and solar power, because I think that there are some serious fortunes that are going to be made there. Leading the revolution would be a great place to be as a country. If we don't lead on this issue someone else will, and they will be in a pretty good position. They will have China and India and other developing countries as their markets. That is a pretty huge market. The big industries are ready and willing to adapt, because they see the tremendous opportunities. I think Bush has missed a HUGE opportunity. Let's hope then next time around the opportunities won't be wasted.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Why The Way We Live Matters
This is a GREAT article:
The Way We Live Now: Why Bother? by Michael Pollan
Here is an excerpt for those that don't want to read the whole thing (which is a pleasant reading experience so I think you should):
"Going personally green is a bet, nothing more or less, though it’s one we probably all should make, even if the odds of it paying off aren’t great. Sometimes you have to act as if acting will make a difference, even when you can’t prove that it will. That, after all, was precisely what happened in Communist Czechoslovakia and Poland, when a handful of individuals like Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik resolved that they would simply conduct their lives “as if” they lived in a free society. That improbable bet created a tiny space of liberty that, in time, expanded to take in, and then help take down, the whole of the Eastern bloc."
And another:
"For us to wait for legislation or technology to solve the problem of how we’re living our lives suggests we’re not really serious about changing — something our politicians cannot fail to notice. They will not move until we do. Indeed, to look to leaders and experts, to laws and money and grand schemes, to save us from our predicament represents precisely the sort of thinking — passive, delegated, dependent for solutions on specialists — that helped get us into this mess in the first place. It’s hard to believe that the same sort of thinking could now get us out of it."
Still more, this time answering the question "Why bother?":
"If you do bother, you will set an example for other people. If enough other people bother, each one influencing yet another in a chain reaction of behavioral change, markets for all manner of green products and alternative technologies will prosper and expand. (Just look at the market for hybrid cars.) Consciousness will be raised, perhaps even changed: new moral imperatives and new taboos might take root in the culture. Driving an S.U.V. or eating a 24-ounce steak or illuminating your McMansion like an airport runway at night might come to be regarded as outrages to human conscience. Not having things might become cooler than having them. And those who did change the way they live would acquire the moral standing to demand changes in behavior from others — from other people, other corporations, even other countries."
All I can say is AMEN BROTHER!!!
The Way We Live Now: Why Bother? by Michael Pollan
Here is an excerpt for those that don't want to read the whole thing (which is a pleasant reading experience so I think you should):
"Going personally green is a bet, nothing more or less, though it’s one we probably all should make, even if the odds of it paying off aren’t great. Sometimes you have to act as if acting will make a difference, even when you can’t prove that it will. That, after all, was precisely what happened in Communist Czechoslovakia and Poland, when a handful of individuals like Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik resolved that they would simply conduct their lives “as if” they lived in a free society. That improbable bet created a tiny space of liberty that, in time, expanded to take in, and then help take down, the whole of the Eastern bloc."
And another:
"For us to wait for legislation or technology to solve the problem of how we’re living our lives suggests we’re not really serious about changing — something our politicians cannot fail to notice. They will not move until we do. Indeed, to look to leaders and experts, to laws and money and grand schemes, to save us from our predicament represents precisely the sort of thinking — passive, delegated, dependent for solutions on specialists — that helped get us into this mess in the first place. It’s hard to believe that the same sort of thinking could now get us out of it."
Still more, this time answering the question "Why bother?":
"If you do bother, you will set an example for other people. If enough other people bother, each one influencing yet another in a chain reaction of behavioral change, markets for all manner of green products and alternative technologies will prosper and expand. (Just look at the market for hybrid cars.) Consciousness will be raised, perhaps even changed: new moral imperatives and new taboos might take root in the culture. Driving an S.U.V. or eating a 24-ounce steak or illuminating your McMansion like an airport runway at night might come to be regarded as outrages to human conscience. Not having things might become cooler than having them. And those who did change the way they live would acquire the moral standing to demand changes in behavior from others — from other people, other corporations, even other countries."
All I can say is AMEN BROTHER!!!
He With The Most Dirt Wins
This weekend was dirty! The wind was out of control and there was so much dirt and dust in the air that you couldn't see the mountains. But even though it was blustery, Saturday was warm enough to spend the entire day outside. So we did. Rob and I worked on the yard (there are so many projects we feel a little overwhelmed). While we worked the kids played and played and played and played. On Saturday evening we went down to our friends for a BBQ. The kids added several more layers of dirt playing in their very fun backyard. After a busy day full of play, dust, and dirt we packed our kids up and headed home. They were all exhausted and were dying to go to bed, but had to bathe first. You should have seen the muddy tub. Ick. Wish I had taken some pictures to prove that my kids were the dirtiest kids ever. I love it. The dirtier the kid the better the day they had!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
It Was The Best of Times It Was The Worst of Times...
Anyone that has had a one year old knows they are so adorable and so fun as they start to turn into little people. It is great. And really, I love my baby dearly, but I think I am going to pull my hair out. She is making me CRAZY! It's been awhile since we've had a little one year old under foot, so maybe all my kids have been naughty and I've just forgotten, but this girl takes the cake. Here is a typical fifteen minutes in her life (picature me frantically following behind trying to do damage control): empty the recyclying, empty her drawers, pull her shoes out of her shoe cupboard and scatter them across the house, tear a page out of a library book, climb up on the brick fireplace and knock over the fire screen, empty out the bathroom drawers (the top drawer is now broken due to the hanging weight of a curious baby constantly peering into it on her tiptoes), empty the shelves of my bedside stand (my journals, books, important papers), knock over the lamp (which is officially broken, thank you very much). Why not baby proof you ask? We have to an extent. I've always been a firm believer in setting boundaries and not rearranging our house. I see too many kids who rule the roost, and it bugs, so our parenting theory is to set boundaries. All my other kids learned very quickly to stay out of the things they weren't supposed to get into. It made it very easy to take them to places, like Grandma Hastings, where there were loads of little breakable doo-dads. All we had to do was say no, and give them a stern look and they stopped. Not Clara!!! She shakes her head and carries on. Naptime and bedtime are like heaven, but she doesn't nap for long enough to do all the damage reapair that needs doing. Maybe I've forgotten how we trained the others, or I've simply blocked out the extremely frustrating age where they were destructive tornados! I can't keep up. I want to give up! Good thing she is cute and we love her. But grrrrrrrrr.
Off to make trouble, no doubt!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
King Corn
Tonight on PBS this documentary is being shown. I've been going on and on about going green and eating healthy. This film is a good summary of what is going on in the food industry (and why people are rioting about the impossibly high cost of food in poor countries). It should be entertaining (like Super Size me was). It is on KUED at 11:00 tonight. Set your TIVO (or VCR if, like me, you are old school). Don't miss it! Thanks for the heads up Will!
Monday, April 14, 2008
A Room With A View with a Baedeker
Last night on Masterpiece Theatre they showed the new version of A Room With A View. And it felt very ordinary and somewhat dull. It felt like A Room With a View: the Baedeker version. I liked Lucy and Charlotte, but who can top Maggie Smith or Helena Bonham Carter? I also hated the liberties Andrew Davies took with the plot...ick! And, well George just didn't do it for me. I wished Andrew Davies would have let him use E.M. Forresters lines, they were much better than his own. Oh well, like I thought anything could ever take the place of my own beloved Merchant Ivory production.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Happy Birthday Kalathrien
Katy, happy birthday. I hope you get a delicious cake and that you get lots of new clothes so you can toss your old ones to me. Thank you for being the provider of clothes for me! Oxo!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Lifestyle Change
I am trying to cut the meat intake of my family down and really making the shift from eating "food like substances" (author Michael Pollan's word for processed food) to real food. We haven't been eating much processed food so in some ways it isn't a huge shift, but if you read the ingredients on your bread you may find many ingredients you don't have on hand if you were baking at home. Breakfast is the biggest struggle but I made some yummy whole wheat banana bread, stocked up on oatmeal, and weetabix, and think I may have been able to find some good alternatives to regular old Malt o' Meal bags of cereal. Anyway, the hardest habit to kick is the eating of meat. It seems that for years most of my recipes revolve around meat being the main dish. Anyway last week I way upped the veggie intake and I only made one meal with meat. What I am lacking is a repetoire of easy standby vegetarian dishes. To that end I would like to start a blog where anyone who is interested can go for good vegetarian recipes. The standards for the recipes I propose would be they don't use meat (beef, chicken, pork), and they don't involve any processed foods (sorry no cream of mushroom soup casseroles or boxes of rice o'roni, or anything containing unpronounceable ingredients). I came up with some good recipes but would love access to some of your tried and true recipes. I would also love recipes that call for whole wheat flour. Also I would love to know if any of you have a good alternate for refined sugar? Millie claims to have made a killer birthday cake for Holden with honey. Lets share recipes. It could also be a place to share good finds. Like yesterday I found some Arborio rice, good for rissoto dishes, at Costco for a good price that I couldn't find at my other store. Stuff like that. Also, this is not a low-fat place. My food philosophy is, if it was around and people were eating it 200 years ago, it can't be bad for you. I have little faith in "nutritionism" (another M. Pollan term) and all the nutrition crap we have been told in the last 30 years. So, butter, cream, eggs, and real food is all good in my world. It is the fake stuff, like artificial egg substitutes, "low-fat" butter substitutes, artificial sweeteners, and stuff like that, which are off limits. If you are interested in being a part of this, leave a comment, and hopefully sometime today I will get around to setting it up and emailing invites. Are you in?
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Escape
Sometimes it is just so nice to go away from my house and escape my life. On Friday the kids didn't have school, the weather was nice, and we escaped to Provo. We went and visited Pop-pop at his office on BYU campus, and then we went to the MOA where they have a dandy Victorian Art exhibit right now, which was fun for me. There was a nice John William Waterhouse (of Lady of Shallot fame), who was one of my favs when I really got into art at age 12. (I still love his stuff) Then we went to the Dead Animal Museum (or the Monte L. Bean museum) which the kids loved. Then we met up with Millie and her very sweet Holden and went to the park. Then it was dinner with Grammy and Pop-pop, and Stephen and Ann and Millie and Holden at the delicious Chinese place on the road to Springville. It was very fun to hang out with Millie and hear her plans for square foot gardening and to just have a day away from the bathrooms that need to be scrubbed, the carpet that needs to be vacuumed, the clothes that need to be washed, the garden beds that need to be weeded, etc. It was so nice to escape Friday, that on Saturday we headed back down for dinner while the boys went to the Priesthood session. Ahhhh, escape.
I do want to say that I know I am very lucky, or rather blessed, to be so near family. It is funny because about a half hour before Rob had to turn in his final ranking list of residency programs during his last year of med school, he bumped Utah up on his list, sort of spur of the moment style. We kept thinking it would be fun to go somewhere else in the country to have another adventure, like we did in Omaha. But then he bumped Utah up on the list at the last minute. And long story short we didn't end up in Tennessee or Albuquerque, but in Salt Lake, and it is weeks like this, when Rob has a ROTTEN schedule, and I am on my own, that I am grateful that he had the sudden inspiration to change his list around at the last possible moment.
(And Sarah, I know you are really getting a rotten deal right now, but hang in there, you are closer and closer to getting to be by family. If it doesn't kill you it will make you the strongest person on the planet! And Maren, it made me sad that you were so lonely tonight...we miss you).
(for any Bayou alum, they tore down the SFLC, and built this bad boy, and renamed it, perhaps to get rid of the undesirable name, but I think I want to call it the "new syphilis")
I do want to say that I know I am very lucky, or rather blessed, to be so near family. It is funny because about a half hour before Rob had to turn in his final ranking list of residency programs during his last year of med school, he bumped Utah up on his list, sort of spur of the moment style. We kept thinking it would be fun to go somewhere else in the country to have another adventure, like we did in Omaha. But then he bumped Utah up on the list at the last minute. And long story short we didn't end up in Tennessee or Albuquerque, but in Salt Lake, and it is weeks like this, when Rob has a ROTTEN schedule, and I am on my own, that I am grateful that he had the sudden inspiration to change his list around at the last possible moment.
(And Sarah, I know you are really getting a rotten deal right now, but hang in there, you are closer and closer to getting to be by family. If it doesn't kill you it will make you the strongest person on the planet! And Maren, it made me sad that you were so lonely tonight...we miss you).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)