you leave the bar on St. Patrick's Day at the same time the 24 year olds are going out.
In my defense, I did have to work today. Jack is probably still sleeping.
Still, having a much younger housemate can really make a person feel old sometimes.
Showing posts with label Misc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misc. Show all posts
Even the President Gets it Wrong!
I have noticed Obama's misuse of I vs. me (as I notice when others do this, which happens more often than not).
I'm glad to see the New York Times take up this grammar issue and am reposting the entire article here for anyone who might be interested.
For the non-grammar obsessed out there (everyone but me?), everything you need to know is in the last paragraph.
I'm glad to see the New York Times take up this grammar issue and am reposting the entire article here for anyone who might be interested.
For the non-grammar obsessed out there (everyone but me?), everything you need to know is in the last paragraph.
When President Obama speaks before Congress and the nation tonight, he will be facing some of his toughest critics.
Grammar junkies.
Since his election, the president has been roundly criticized by bloggers for using “I” instead of “me” in phrases like “a very personal decision for Michelle and I” or “the main disagreement with John and I” or “graciously invited Michelle and I.”
The rule here, according to conventional wisdom, is that we use “I” as a subject and “me” as an object, whether the pronoun appears by itself or in a twosome. Thus every “I” in those quotes ought to be a “me.”
So should the president go stand in a corner of the Oval Office (if he can find one) and contemplate the error of his ways? Not so fast.
For centuries, it was perfectly acceptable to use either “I” or “me” as the object of a verb or preposition, especially after “and.” Literature is full of examples. Here’s Shakespeare, in “The Merchant of Venice”: “All debts are cleared between you and I.” And here’s Lord Byron, complaining to his half-sister about the English town of Southwell, “which, between you and I, I wish was swallowed up by an earthquake, provided my eloquent mother was not in it.”
It wasn’t until the mid-1800s that language mavens began kvetching about “I” and “me.” The first kvetch cited in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage came from a commencement address in 1846. In 1869, Richard Meade Bache included it in his book “Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech.”
Why did these 19th-century wordies insist “I” is “I” and “me” is “me”? They were probably influenced by Latin, with its rigid treatment of subject and object pronouns. For whatever reason, their approach stuck — at least in the rule books.
Then, why do so many scofflaws keep using “I” instead of “me”? Perhaps it’s because they were scolded as children for saying things like “Me want candy” instead of “I want candy,” so they began to think “I” was somehow more socially acceptable. Or maybe it’s because they were admonished against “it’s me.” Anybody who’s had “it is I” drummed into his head is likely to avoid “me” on principle, even when it’s right. The term for this linguistic phenomenon is “hypercorrection.”
A related crime that Mr. Obama stands accused of is using “myself” to dodge the “I”-versus-“me” issue, as when he spoke last November of “a substantive conversation between myself and the president.” The standard practice here is to use “myself” for emphasis or to refer to the speaker (“I’ll do it myself”), not merely as a substitute for “me.” But some language authorities accept a looser usage, and point out that “myself” has been regularly used in place of “me” since Anglo-Saxon days.
Our 44th president isn’t the first occupant of the White House to suffer from pronounitis. Nos. 43 and 42 were similarly afflicted. The symptoms: “for Laura and I,” “invited Hillary and I,” and so on. (For the record, Nos. 41 and 40 had no problem with the objective case, regularly using “Barbara and me” or “Nancy and me” when appropriate.)
But an educated speaker is expected to keep his pronouns in line. Here, then, is a tip, Mr. President. Nobody chooses the wrong pronoun when it’s standing on its own. If you’re tempted to say “for Michelle and I” in tonight’s speech, just mentally omit Michelle (sorry, Mrs. Obama), and you’ll get it right. And no one will get on your case.
Disconnect
I am frequently amazed at how often I hear or read something with which I completely disagree. I am not talking about Fox News or conservative blogs. These disconnects happen with my preferred media outlets.
Today, MSN's Lifestyle newsletter is enticing me to "Eat like Oprah." I don't mind Oprah and actually enjoy her show when I see it a couple of times a year. I've even read many of her book club recommendations and loved a couple of them. But there is no way I want to eat like she does!
Oprah has a well-documented weight problem and claims to have a food addiction. I realize she has a cultural influence so vast that she may have even swayed voters this election season. I also realize that the headline writers were referring to recipes from her magazine, not her actual diet. But when I read "Eat like Oprah" I think "Look like Oprah." Sorry to be rude, but who wants that?
The other disconnect I've experienced this week is regarding media descriptions of Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Numerous publications, from the New York Times to the Economist have described him as "handsome." My television news experience taught me that people tend to look more attractive in person than they do on television. I've scoured the web for a photo of Blagojevich that I consider even remotely handsome and this is the best one I found:
Is this a handsome man? I'm really, truly not someone who sits around criticizing how people look. Is it that Blago has so little going for him (his approval rating is 13% - that's even lower than Bush's!) that in order to create the "fallen from grace" image they have to label him as "young and handsome"? I don't think 52 is necessarily young, either, which further supports my theory that the media are simply crafting a positive persona where none exists.
I suppose this all sounds snarky and superficial. It is not that I want to be critical of these people (although Blago deserves it for his actions), I just find it so interesting that my perceptions are the polar opposite of what I am reading!
Today, MSN's Lifestyle newsletter is enticing me to "Eat like Oprah." I don't mind Oprah and actually enjoy her show when I see it a couple of times a year. I've even read many of her book club recommendations and loved a couple of them. But there is no way I want to eat like she does!
Oprah has a well-documented weight problem and claims to have a food addiction. I realize she has a cultural influence so vast that she may have even swayed voters this election season. I also realize that the headline writers were referring to recipes from her magazine, not her actual diet. But when I read "Eat like Oprah" I think "Look like Oprah." Sorry to be rude, but who wants that?
The other disconnect I've experienced this week is regarding media descriptions of Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Numerous publications, from the New York Times to the Economist have described him as "handsome." My television news experience taught me that people tend to look more attractive in person than they do on television. I've scoured the web for a photo of Blagojevich that I consider even remotely handsome and this is the best one I found:
Is this a handsome man? I'm really, truly not someone who sits around criticizing how people look. Is it that Blago has so little going for him (his approval rating is 13% - that's even lower than Bush's!) that in order to create the "fallen from grace" image they have to label him as "young and handsome"? I don't think 52 is necessarily young, either, which further supports my theory that the media are simply crafting a positive persona where none exists.
I suppose this all sounds snarky and superficial. It is not that I want to be critical of these people (although Blago deserves it for his actions), I just find it so interesting that my perceptions are the polar opposite of what I am reading!
Observations and Activities
I was in Chicago (well, way out in the suburbs) for work last Friday. Nothing exciting that day, but my evening at O'Hare was interesting. I arrived at 7:30 to find that my 8:09 flight was delayed until 10:45. Ugh!
I'll spare you the United Airlines details...but after a flight change I made it out at about 11:45. The worst part is that there is only one sit-down restaurant in the entire B terminal. And it was a Chili's with a limited and extremely mediocre menu!
I did make one interesting observation, though. I'm pretty sure the terminal had converted a restroom into a Starbucks. I didn't have a camera and it's too hard to describe but it was odd - trust me!
I slept in on Saturday and after some quality tv watching Chris and I went to the gym and then when we came home we cleaned up the yard. That's a lot of activity for us!
Despite some serious clean-up, the landscaping and grass still look rough, but are good enough for now. The good news about the anemic-looking grass is that it won't have to be mowed often. Chris is thinking about getting a manual mower, which I think is a great idea. Especially if mowing is not on my chores list!
Sunday included more bonding with the television, a walk (finally!) to a great restaurant for lunch, Chris went to the gym again and I ran some errands. I also rotated my summer wardrobe upstairs. Hooray!
We've got some busy weekends coming up, so it was nice to relax but still get a few things done.
I'll spare you the United Airlines details...but after a flight change I made it out at about 11:45. The worst part is that there is only one sit-down restaurant in the entire B terminal. And it was a Chili's with a limited and extremely mediocre menu!
I did make one interesting observation, though. I'm pretty sure the terminal had converted a restroom into a Starbucks. I didn't have a camera and it's too hard to describe but it was odd - trust me!
I slept in on Saturday and after some quality tv watching Chris and I went to the gym and then when we came home we cleaned up the yard. That's a lot of activity for us!
Despite some serious clean-up, the landscaping and grass still look rough, but are good enough for now. The good news about the anemic-looking grass is that it won't have to be mowed often. Chris is thinking about getting a manual mower, which I think is a great idea. Especially if mowing is not on my chores list!
Sunday included more bonding with the television, a walk (finally!) to a great restaurant for lunch, Chris went to the gym again and I ran some errands. I also rotated my summer wardrobe upstairs. Hooray!
We've got some busy weekends coming up, so it was nice to relax but still get a few things done.
Ditch the #7
I've written about plastic before. Ways to use less of it and why you should. I've also written about the dangers, but that point may have been too buried to come across clearly.
I'm writing again with one simple request: flip over the bottom of your plastic - probably rigid cups, most likely the cute ones your kids drink from. Check the baby bottles too.
If it's got this symbol on the bottom, take it immediately to the recycle bin (if they recycle #7 where you live - many places do not) or put it in the trash. If it doesn't have any symbol on the bottom but is rigid and usually clear, it may be #7.
This type of plastic contains bisphenol A (BPA), a toxic substance believed to cause neural and developmental problems, including early puberty.
You may think this is all hype and that I'm on my pedestal again. The latter is most certainly true, but judge the former for yourself by reading this report about BPA from the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Do you own research, but if you are saying to yourself "how could this be dangerous? Wouldn't it be banned if it were harmful?" recall Thalidomide, Vioxx and numerous other drugs once prescribed but later banned because of their negative effects. Also consider the Tuskegee experiments and socio-economic profiling in military recruiting. There is perhaps no other area in which the government is more effective than in not protecting its citizens from itself.
There are many great BPA-free alternatives, stainless steel bottles from SIGG being my favorite. Although personally I try to avoid plastic altogether, there are safer plastics available for those who like the convenience. More and more items are labeled "BPA-free" and I predict it won't be long until it is banned in food containers altogether, as it recently was in Canada.
I'm writing again with one simple request: flip over the bottom of your plastic - probably rigid cups, most likely the cute ones your kids drink from. Check the baby bottles too.
If it's got this symbol on the bottom, take it immediately to the recycle bin (if they recycle #7 where you live - many places do not) or put it in the trash. If it doesn't have any symbol on the bottom but is rigid and usually clear, it may be #7.This type of plastic contains bisphenol A (BPA), a toxic substance believed to cause neural and developmental problems, including early puberty.
You may think this is all hype and that I'm on my pedestal again. The latter is most certainly true, but judge the former for yourself by reading this report about BPA from the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Do you own research, but if you are saying to yourself "how could this be dangerous? Wouldn't it be banned if it were harmful?" recall Thalidomide, Vioxx and numerous other drugs once prescribed but later banned because of their negative effects. Also consider the Tuskegee experiments and socio-economic profiling in military recruiting. There is perhaps no other area in which the government is more effective than in not protecting its citizens from itself.
There are many great BPA-free alternatives, stainless steel bottles from SIGG being my favorite. Although personally I try to avoid plastic altogether, there are safer plastics available for those who like the convenience. More and more items are labeled "BPA-free" and I predict it won't be long until it is banned in food containers altogether, as it recently was in Canada.
Worst mom? I think not.
A woman in New York let her 9-year old take the subway alone. He begged her to let him try, so she did. Of course he was fine and also very proud of himself. The mom discussed it in a New York Sun article and was met with an unfortunate barrage of criticism from individuals and the media.
I find this attitude irrational and completely agree with her assertion that a "child who thinks he can't do anything on his own eventually can't."
She's started a blog: freerangekids.wordpress.com that is a fun read for parents and non-parents alike!
When Jack visited me in New York years ago I didn't hesitate to send him on the subway by himself. Granted, he was 15, but he was far less familiar with the city than a 9-year old who lives there. I always felt like navigating NYC on his own was a great learning experience for Jack. And he was completely safe.
Call me crazy (or just not a parent), but I don't want to live in a world like the people who wrote wrote to tell the author that:
- a dad "lets" his 11-year-old walk one block to her best friend's house — but she has to call the minute she arrives
- a mom proudly said that she doesn't let her daughter walk down the block to the mailbox
Naturally, there were some sensible people who wrote to tell her they thought she did a good thing.
Of course I can relate to the reasons why parents become over-protective. All week I've been noticing all the non-child friendly things in my house and worrying about potential harm they may bring to Trevor. But there's a difference between vigilance and outright nonsense.
Over-protected children become helpless, hapless adults. Isn't the purpose of parenting to raise children to become capable, self-sufficient adults rather than perennial children, scared of everything and unable to think or do for themselves?
I find this attitude irrational and completely agree with her assertion that a "child who thinks he can't do anything on his own eventually can't."
She's started a blog: freerangekids.wordpress.com that is a fun read for parents and non-parents alike!
When Jack visited me in New York years ago I didn't hesitate to send him on the subway by himself. Granted, he was 15, but he was far less familiar with the city than a 9-year old who lives there. I always felt like navigating NYC on his own was a great learning experience for Jack. And he was completely safe.
Call me crazy (or just not a parent), but I don't want to live in a world like the people who wrote wrote to tell the author that:
- a dad "lets" his 11-year-old walk one block to her best friend's house — but she has to call the minute she arrives
- a mom proudly said that she doesn't let her daughter walk down the block to the mailbox
Naturally, there were some sensible people who wrote to tell her they thought she did a good thing.
Of course I can relate to the reasons why parents become over-protective. All week I've been noticing all the non-child friendly things in my house and worrying about potential harm they may bring to Trevor. But there's a difference between vigilance and outright nonsense.
Over-protected children become helpless, hapless adults. Isn't the purpose of parenting to raise children to become capable, self-sufficient adults rather than perennial children, scared of everything and unable to think or do for themselves?
Lars and the Real Girl
We watched Lars and the Real Girl last night and really, really enjoyed it. It is a bit odd, though, and I don't think everyone will like it. Those with a disdain for metaphor and who prefer to remain grounded in reality will likely think it's stupid.The premise that an entire town would go along with the delusions of a mentally ill young man is a bit hard to believe. Yet, having grown up in a small town not unlike the one in the movie, I find it somewhat plausible. Small towns tend to create their own reality, within which people must abide to survive; this movie illustrates one manifestation of that phenomenon.
I was particularly drawn in by the supposition that reality is individual, a product of our own minds. If someone believes something is real, how can another claim that it is not?
The foremost example of this individual reality - and a prominent metaphor in the file - is the existence of God. Who among us actually know that God is real? Yet God's existence is something millions build their lives around and to which they devote countless hours and dollars (at varying degrees; I'm admittedly on the low end of the time and money scale).
Lars and the Real Girl made me think beyond the obvious, yet is a terrific "feel good" film. It's out on DVD; see it if you have a chance.
Not a big deal
Who watched yesterday's Oprah (or GMA, where, as Mom mentioned, they also featured this story)?
Despite the fact that Oprah seemed extremely perplexed by someone born a woman having a baby, I don't really see why this is a big deal. Sure, I see why someone living as a man and whose neighbors thought he was a man being pregnant is impossible to comprehend. But when you learn that he is biologically a woman, it's really not hard to figure out, is it?
The only thing that surprised me about this was how the pregnancy happened. I won't go into the gory details - if you saw the show you know - but I guess I didn't realize the at-home 'turkey baster' method was really possible!
I was bothered by some of Oprah's comments. At one point she seemed to question why someone who "feels" like a man would want to bear a child, as if this is only a something a woman should want. Considering that typically a man cannot have a child, I suppose this is the case. But I found it incredibly hypocritical coming from Oprah, who has publicly stated that she doesn't want children, that somehow one's gender identity is tied to the desire to reproduce.
Certainly, there are going to be people who have a problem with couple having a child, but I hope they allow this family to live in peace!
Despite the fact that Oprah seemed extremely perplexed by someone born a woman having a baby, I don't really see why this is a big deal. Sure, I see why someone living as a man and whose neighbors thought he was a man being pregnant is impossible to comprehend. But when you learn that he is biologically a woman, it's really not hard to figure out, is it?
The only thing that surprised me about this was how the pregnancy happened. I won't go into the gory details - if you saw the show you know - but I guess I didn't realize the at-home 'turkey baster' method was really possible!
I was bothered by some of Oprah's comments. At one point she seemed to question why someone who "feels" like a man would want to bear a child, as if this is only a something a woman should want. Considering that typically a man cannot have a child, I suppose this is the case. But I found it incredibly hypocritical coming from Oprah, who has publicly stated that she doesn't want children, that somehow one's gender identity is tied to the desire to reproduce.
Certainly, there are going to be people who have a problem with couple having a child, but I hope they allow this family to live in peace!
On Thursday's Oprah...
You may have noticed that my postings have been both light on content and infrequent of late. I just haven't had any interesting ideas. Suggestions are always welcome and thanks to my friend Elaine for this one!
On Thursday, Oprah returns to her tabloid roots by interviewing a pregnant man and his wife! No, this is not straight out of Weekly World News or whatever that crazy tabloid is called. And this isn't some kind of immaculate conception along the lines of the second coming of Christ. (Although wouldn't that be a convincing miracle? More believable than a young engaged woman...)
The 'man' is a transsexual who was born a woman. So it's actually not as unbelievable as it is when you initially hear 'pregnant man.' But it's still incredibly fascinating and you know I'll be watching and commenting about it right here on Friday.
On Thursday, Oprah returns to her tabloid roots by interviewing a pregnant man and his wife! No, this is not straight out of Weekly World News or whatever that crazy tabloid is called. And this isn't some kind of immaculate conception along the lines of the second coming of Christ. (Although wouldn't that be a convincing miracle? More believable than a young engaged woman...)
The 'man' is a transsexual who was born a woman. So it's actually not as unbelievable as it is when you initially hear 'pregnant man.' But it's still incredibly fascinating and you know I'll be watching and commenting about it right here on Friday.
Funny Because It's True
Last week I came across a blog called "Stuff White People Like." It's absolutely hilarious and frankly, there are only a few characteristics that don't describe me to a "T." If the postings themselves aren't funny enough, the comments by people offended by them are a special treat. If you can't laugh at yourself, at whom can you laugh?
As of today, the blogger has made 81 posts. I'd list those that apply to me, but there are about 75 of them. While I do think it's incredibly amusing that someone (rumor has it the blogger is white) has me pegged so well, I'm kind of bummed because I really thought I was more original.
Turns out, I'm just a stereotypical white person, except I love my parents, hate marijuana and have no interest in Michel Gondry or Mos Def (or know who they are, for that matter).
As of today, the blogger has made 81 posts. I'd list those that apply to me, but there are about 75 of them. While I do think it's incredibly amusing that someone (rumor has it the blogger is white) has me pegged so well, I'm kind of bummed because I really thought I was more original.
Turns out, I'm just a stereotypical white person, except I love my parents, hate marijuana and have no interest in Michel Gondry or Mos Def (or know who they are, for that matter).
Happy Grammar Day!
Yes, fellow grammarphiles (and phobes, too!), today is National Grammar Day! As a card-carrying member of SPOGG, the Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar, I'm spreading the word. Well, SPOGG doesn't actually issue cards, but if they did I would carry one.
How can we participate? It's rather simple, according to SPOGG:
"Speak well! Write well! And on March 4, march forth and spread the word. If you see a sign with a catastrophic apostrophe, send a kind note to the storekeeper. If your local newscaster says "Between you and I," set him straight with a friendly e-mail."
Hmmm....I saw an unfortunate sign in a restaurant I visited on Sunday. Apparently, they are open until 1 am on "Friday's" and "Saturday's." I'm not sure what those days possess, but the sign is just one example of a "catastrophic apostrophe." Maybe I should send them a note! However, there are so many examples of poor grammar that I could spend my entire life sending letters.
I used to have a rule that I wouldn't eat/buy/participate in anything fraught with grammar and spelling mistakes. My options became so limited that I had to give it up!
In celebration of Grammar Day, here are a few fun grammar websites:
Grammar Girl
A Way with Words
GrammarBlog
Cheryl Norman, Grammar Cop
Also, my top five grammar pet peeves:
1. The aforementioned "catastrophic apostrophe"
2. Misplaced and too-frequent commas
3. "I" when it should be "me"
4. "Myself" when it should be "me"
5. "First come, first serve" (It should be served, unless the first one there will be doing the serving or playing tennis.)
**I'd like to note that my grammar is never flawless. I've written this post in appreciation of good grammar, not a criticism of those who make mistakes or don't care about grammar.**
Random Rant
I don't know if it's because I can still remember my 21st birthday or because I'm not litigious or because I'm logical, but I find it ridiculous that the parents of the young woman who died of alcohol poisoning in Mankato on her 21st birthday are suing the bar, its owners and five of her friends.
This isn't the first case of a frivolous lawsuit over the death of a loved one. But this is the first one I recall in which the death was essentially self-inflicted. She made the choice to drink and had the option to stop, but instead drank so much that her blood alcohol level was over .45!
It's a tragedy, without a doubt, but as with most legal actions it may make the parents feel better but it won't change their circumstances. On the other hand, it may have dire consequences for their daughter's friends, when in fact the parents themselves may be the ones to blame for her desire to drink well past the point of being able to control herself.
Depressing topic, but there are just some things about which I can't resist commenting!
(Mom, don't worry, this isn't the exciting post I was telling you about...watch for pictures tomorrow...)
This isn't the first case of a frivolous lawsuit over the death of a loved one. But this is the first one I recall in which the death was essentially self-inflicted. She made the choice to drink and had the option to stop, but instead drank so much that her blood alcohol level was over .45!
It's a tragedy, without a doubt, but as with most legal actions it may make the parents feel better but it won't change their circumstances. On the other hand, it may have dire consequences for their daughter's friends, when in fact the parents themselves may be the ones to blame for her desire to drink well past the point of being able to control herself.
Depressing topic, but there are just some things about which I can't resist commenting!
(Mom, don't worry, this isn't the exciting post I was telling you about...watch for pictures tomorrow...)
22 Votes
An additional $1 million referendum for a second gym didn't pass, but to me this seemed excessive. It must have to whomever decided to put it on a separate referendum, too.
Why, you might ask, do I care about what happens in a small town in which I'll never live and a fancy school building in which no one I'm related to will probably ever attend school? Of course there's the obvious nostalgia of seeing my former school become a better place that will be there for future generations. Let's not forget the positive impact a stable (maybe growing?) school will have on the town.
But I think the most encouraging aspect of this outcome is the support for the referendum shown by people without kids in school and who may not even live in Ivanhoe long enough to reap any benefits of their increased tax burden. That's a shout out to you, Mom and Dad!!
EDIT: I have to give Jack credit as well. This was his first time voting!
Interesting Research
While I don't generally comment about weight-related issues, a new study posits a link between artificial sweeteners and weight gain. Certainly, it seems like every week there are reports about a newly-discovered contributing factor.
Why is this one so interesting?
Well, have you ever noticed that the people drinking diet pop and eating "light" snacks are rarely the thinnest in the room? This study reverses the assumed cause and effect. Rather than consuming diet products because one wants/needs to lose weight, what if one wants/needs to lose weight because of the diet products? Or at the very least the products are not helping.
Beyond the possibility that these products actually have the reverse effect that one intends, there is the issue of ingesting chemicals rather than a natural product (e.g., Equal vs. sugar). Have you ever compared the ingredients of a "light" product with the regular version? Diet foods typically have more ingredients and, thus, more chemicals than their higher fat/calorie/sugar predecessors.
And then there's my personal beef with artificial sweeteners: they taste horrible. All of them. Even Splenda. Blech. I know some of you like the taste. So well, even, that you might have 3,000 packets in your cupboard. :)
So if not for reasons of taste or chemicals, perhaps the fact (still up for debate, I suppose) that artificial sweeteners may have the opposite of their intended weight control effect will encourage use of sugar and honey and stevia if proven safe.
As with all of my posts, but I think especially important to emphasize, this information is shared with love!
Why is this one so interesting?
Well, have you ever noticed that the people drinking diet pop and eating "light" snacks are rarely the thinnest in the room? This study reverses the assumed cause and effect. Rather than consuming diet products because one wants/needs to lose weight, what if one wants/needs to lose weight because of the diet products? Or at the very least the products are not helping.
Beyond the possibility that these products actually have the reverse effect that one intends, there is the issue of ingesting chemicals rather than a natural product (e.g., Equal vs. sugar). Have you ever compared the ingredients of a "light" product with the regular version? Diet foods typically have more ingredients and, thus, more chemicals than their higher fat/calorie/sugar predecessors.
And then there's my personal beef with artificial sweeteners: they taste horrible. All of them. Even Splenda. Blech. I know some of you like the taste. So well, even, that you might have 3,000 packets in your cupboard. :)
So if not for reasons of taste or chemicals, perhaps the fact (still up for debate, I suppose) that artificial sweeteners may have the opposite of their intended weight control effect will encourage use of sugar and honey and stevia if proven safe.
As with all of my posts, but I think especially important to emphasize, this information is shared with love!
Other Peoples' Mail
As happens to most of us from time to time, we received a letter in the mail that was sent to the wrong address. I opened it by mistake, but when I realized my error I read it anyway. Oops! Don't tell me you've never done that...
This mistake turned out to be well worth it. It's from a Catholic K-8 school in South Minneapolis.
"Dear 5th & 6th Students and Parents,
A recent in-depth and exhaustive study by a team of [school name] psychologists has determined that 3 out of 4 [school students] are spending too much time engaging the left side of the brain while under utilizing the right side. Harmful effects of this behavior have recently been linked to Global Warming, subprime mortgages, and confusion about the Electoral College."
Thinking this must be a joke, I continued reading the second paragraph:
"We don't know how reliable the findings are, but we would rather not take our chances. To help combat this disturbing trend, fifth and sixth grade students will migrate to the right side of their brain and spend a whole day devoted to creativity and ingenuity over on the right side."
The letter is accompanied by a two page list of "right brain" activities such as Cake Decorating, Law - What does a courtroom lawyer do? (that's right brain?) and Pilates.
Chris assures me that the letter was an attempt at facetiousness, merely a clever way of introducing a "fun" day at school (at a cost of $10).
I admire an attempt at humor, but since when is the Catholic church known for being funny? Laughable at times, but I don't think that's intentional. They are located in South Minneapolis, bastion of liberalism, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt and checked out the school's website to see if humor is their normal communication standard. Nope, about as uptight as you might imagine.
Maybe Chris is right and the more I think about it, this has to be a joke. School psychologists really conducted a study about brain usage and correlation to ignorance in the general population??
Serious or not, it certainly made me laugh...
This mistake turned out to be well worth it. It's from a Catholic K-8 school in South Minneapolis.
"Dear 5th & 6th Students and Parents,
A recent in-depth and exhaustive study by a team of [school name] psychologists has determined that 3 out of 4 [school students] are spending too much time engaging the left side of the brain while under utilizing the right side. Harmful effects of this behavior have recently been linked to Global Warming, subprime mortgages, and confusion about the Electoral College."
Thinking this must be a joke, I continued reading the second paragraph:
"We don't know how reliable the findings are, but we would rather not take our chances. To help combat this disturbing trend, fifth and sixth grade students will migrate to the right side of their brain and spend a whole day devoted to creativity and ingenuity over on the right side."
The letter is accompanied by a two page list of "right brain" activities such as Cake Decorating, Law - What does a courtroom lawyer do? (that's right brain?) and Pilates.
Chris assures me that the letter was an attempt at facetiousness, merely a clever way of introducing a "fun" day at school (at a cost of $10).
I admire an attempt at humor, but since when is the Catholic church known for being funny? Laughable at times, but I don't think that's intentional. They are located in South Minneapolis, bastion of liberalism, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt and checked out the school's website to see if humor is their normal communication standard. Nope, about as uptight as you might imagine.
Maybe Chris is right and the more I think about it, this has to be a joke. School psychologists really conducted a study about brain usage and correlation to ignorance in the general population??
Serious or not, it certainly made me laugh...
In case you missed it...
Dad finally commented on my blog! Here's what he had to say about using hot water from the tap:
"Public water supplies add chemicals to the water to coat water pipes so leaching of lead is minimized. Hot water can decrease protection, but lead concerns are minimal except perhaps in old plumbing installations or places with lead service lines. It's not something to be overly concerned about."
Thanks for the info! Amber it looks like you can continue using hot water for cooking! I think I will still try to use cold when possible, but I won't worry about it.
"Public water supplies add chemicals to the water to coat water pipes so leaching of lead is minimized. Hot water can decrease protection, but lead concerns are minimal except perhaps in old plumbing installations or places with lead service lines. It's not something to be overly concerned about."
Thanks for the info! Amber it looks like you can continue using hot water for cooking! I think I will still try to use cold when possible, but I won't worry about it.
Gas Prices: Cause and Effect
Is anyone else throughly disturbed by today's news that Exxon Mobil reported the highest profit ever for a US company? Maybe not if you own stock in the company, which most of us with mutual funds probably do.
I paid over $3 a gallon to fill my car with gas yesterday. We constantly hear that it's the price of oil (currently over $90 a barrel) that causes high gas prices and figure we can't do anything about that. So we cut back on other things just so we can afford to drive to and from work. And higher gas prices affect many other things we don't even think about, including groceries, while most of us have probably not seen our wages go up more than the rate of inflation in years.
Exxon made $1,300 a second last year. The median household income in this country is $48,200. So in the time it takes to fill one car with gas - let's estimate five minutes - Exxon made as much money as eight households did in one year.
Something isn't right here - the oil monopoly is restricting supply and making record profits at the expense, literally, of consumers. There's not much we can do, but lets use the tools we do have - drive less often, buy fuel-efficient vehicles, purchase locally-made products and, perhaps most importantly, VOTE for the people and the legislation that care about the needs of average Americans, not stuffing the pockets of corporate titans.
I paid over $3 a gallon to fill my car with gas yesterday. We constantly hear that it's the price of oil (currently over $90 a barrel) that causes high gas prices and figure we can't do anything about that. So we cut back on other things just so we can afford to drive to and from work. And higher gas prices affect many other things we don't even think about, including groceries, while most of us have probably not seen our wages go up more than the rate of inflation in years.
Exxon made $1,300 a second last year. The median household income in this country is $48,200. So in the time it takes to fill one car with gas - let's estimate five minutes - Exxon made as much money as eight households did in one year.
Something isn't right here - the oil monopoly is restricting supply and making record profits at the expense, literally, of consumers. There's not much we can do, but lets use the tools we do have - drive less often, buy fuel-efficient vehicles, purchase locally-made products and, perhaps most importantly, VOTE for the people and the legislation that care about the needs of average Americans, not stuffing the pockets of corporate titans.
Do you consume hot water from the tap?
Ok, Dad, resident water expert, this one's for you. I just read in the New York Times that one should never use hot water from the tap for cooking or drinking.
Sound like a myth?
Environmental scientists say reason is that hot water dissolves contaminants more quickly than cold water and many pipes in homes contain lead that can leach into water. And lead can damage the brain and nervous system, especially in young children.
Lead is rarely found in source water, but can enter it through corroded plumbing. The Environmental Protection Agency says that older homes are more likely to have lead pipes and fixtures, but that even newer plumbing advertised as “lead-free” can still contain as much as 8 percent lead. A study published in The Journal of Environmental Health in 2002 found that tap water represented 14 to 20 percent of total lead exposure.
Scientists emphasize that the risk is small. But to minimize it, the E.P.A. says cold tap water should always be used for preparing baby formula, cooking and drinking. It also warns that boiling water does not remove lead but can actually increase its concentration. More information is at www.epa.gov/lead or (800) 424-5323 (LEAD).
Dad, what do you think?
The Future of the Midwest
I just read something in a report by a well-regarded housing economist this morning. Believe it or not, he has a prediction that I think you will all find interesting. Regarding the effect global warming will have on migration trends, he posits that:
"Many Midwest cities that had been losing population to the South will begin to grow again. Residents around the Midwest will look north for second homes and even retirement, reversing their present orientation. Emphasis will be on escaping the heat; less on fleeing the cold."
Granted, he's an economist not an environmental scientist. But I think he has a valid point - probably because I said the same thing months ago. It may not happen for decades, but chances are it will happen.
This is an appropriate topic to welcome Mom, Dad and Grandma Dottie back to the freezing cold from their trip to Arizona. I hope you had a wonderful time and can't wait to hear the details!
"Many Midwest cities that had been losing population to the South will begin to grow again. Residents around the Midwest will look north for second homes and even retirement, reversing their present orientation. Emphasis will be on escaping the heat; less on fleeing the cold."
Granted, he's an economist not an environmental scientist. But I think he has a valid point - probably because I said the same thing months ago. It may not happen for decades, but chances are it will happen.
This is an appropriate topic to welcome Mom, Dad and Grandma Dottie back to the freezing cold from their trip to Arizona. I hope you had a wonderful time and can't wait to hear the details!
Posts
