 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Call for suggestions:
I'm a 29yo grad student, and a pescetarian (i.e. I eat dairy and eggs, as well as fish, although mostly my diet is vegetarian; I am not vegan at all).
I've got to get out of the habit of eating lunch out, which means I need to pack lunches I can bring to school that travel well (compact, don't leak, don't get mushy, do not necessarily require heating up). I also need to carry some healthy snacks so I don't eat junk all day.
But I'm getting bored with the standard fare. This includes: hummus & veggie trays, uninspired salads, sandwiches of the egg salad, hummus, tuna or peanut butter variety, canned soups, endless amounts of granola, etc.
Any suggestions for inexpensive (sorry have to throw that in too) and highly portable lunches or snacks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | You preferred Obama's statements 67% of the time You preferred McCain's statements 33% of the time Voting purely on the issues you should vote ObamaWho would you vote for if you voted on the issues? Find out now! |
* This was a little tricky. I knew I was picking the McCain choice on Roe v Wade, but it was slightly closer to my beliefs on that matter. If Roe were better written & structured, I might not feel that way. Then again, I might. I have some pretty strong feelings on which rights are actually guaranteed by the US Constitution and which are better left to the states. I probably still identify overall as a liberal, but I have some intellectual disagreement with the blunter policies espoused by the Democrats. In general, I think both candidates could use to think a little more, include nuance in their public speaking and not just go for the platform slogan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your result for Are You a Jackie or a Marilyn? Or Someone Else? Mad Men-era Female Icon Quiz... You Are a Marilyn!
You are a Marilyn -- "I am affectionate and skeptical."
Marilyns are responsible, trustworthy, and value loyalty to family, friends, groups, and causes. Their personalities range broadly from reserved and timid to outspoken and confrontative. How to Get Along with Me
- * Be direct and clear
- * Listen to me carefully
- * Don't judge me for my anxiety
- * Work things through with me
- * Reassure me that everything is OK between us
- * Laugh and make jokes with me
- * Gently push me toward new experiences
- * Try not to overreact to my overreacting.
What I Like About Being a Marilyn
- * being committed and faithful to family and friends
- * being responsible and hardworking
- * being compassionate toward others
- * having intellect and wit
- * being a nonconformist
- * confronting danger bravely
- * being direct and assertive
What's Hard About Being a Marilyn
- * the constant push and pull involved in trying to make up my mind
- * procrastinating because of fear of failure; having little confidence in myself
- * fearing being abandoned or taken advantage of
- * exhausting myself by worrying and scanning for danger
- * wishing I had a rule book at work so I could do everything right
- * being too critical of myself when I haven't lived up to my expectations
Marilyns as Children Often
- * are friendly, likable, and dependable, and/or sarcastic, bossy, and stubborn
- * are anxious and hypervigilant; anticipate danger
- * form a team of "us against them" with a best friend or parent
- * look to groups or authorities to protect them and/or question authority and rebel
- * are neglected or abused, come from unpredictable or alcoholic families, and/or take on the fearfulness of an overly anxious parent
Marilyns as Parents
- * are often loving, nurturing, and have a strong sense of duty
- * are sometimes reluctant to give their children independence
- * worry more than most that their children will get hurt
- * sometimes have trouble saying no and setting boundaries
Take Are You a Jackie or a Marilyn? Or Someone Else? Mad Men-era Female Icon Quiz at HelloQuizzy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll be the first to admit my brain is a little muddled lately. Trying to process information from current events to the physics of rivers to the distribution of data on a normal curve to the relationship between demand and consumer preferences to the daily changes in my relationships... maybe the themes that seem to evolve result from nothing more than being overwhelmed and desperately seeking order. Or maybe not. Maybe its important to relate our individual values to greater system dynamics. Maybe there are themes in the patterns of life. Anyway, one of the marbles rolling around up there is this election and the national OBSESSION with the economy. Oh me, oh my who will save us now??? The answer, I think, is no one. Or rather, no one person. There will be no presidential savior. And our search for one comes at the cost of other issues and values that may actually have a greater direct impact on our quality of life over the long term...
Why It's Not The Economy__ By Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post
Wednesday, February 6, 2008; A19
As the economy weakens and the campaign intensifies, we'll hear more of James Carville's familiar refrain: It's the economy, stupid. Well, it ain't or, at least, shouldn't be. I'm not claiming that Carville is wrong about voting. People vote their pocketbooks. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, the economy overshadows Iraq as the most important issue by 39 percent to 19. What I'm saying is that this sort of voting is shortsighted. It rewards or punishes candidates for something beyond their power. We have a $14 trillion economy. The idea that presidents can control it lies between an exaggeration and an illusion. Our presidential preferences ought to reflect judgments about candidates' character, values, competence and their views on issues where what they think counts: foreign policy; long-term economic and social policy -- how they would tax and spend; health care; immigration. Forget the business cycle. ( Read more... ) Sensible voters should look beyond the cheery or dreary economy of the moment. They should recognize that if presidents could control the business cycle, recessions would never occur, there would always be "full employment" and inflation would remain forever tame. Instead of judging prospective presidents on what they can't do, voters ought to concentrate on what they can do. There are plenty of real differences among the remaining candidates. But Carville is probably right. For many, it will be the economy, and it will be stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Decision of the Day: "No, Louisiana, you may not execute child rapists no matter how morally repugnant they may be. Capital punishment is reserved, amazingly enough, for capital crimes." KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA (No. 07-343) Web-accessible at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZS.html Argued: April 16, 2008 -- Decided: June 25, 2008; modified October 1, 2008 Opinion author: Kennedy ============================== ============================== === Louisiana charged petitioner with the aggravated rape of his then-8-year-old stepdaughter. He was convicted and sentenced to death under a state statute authorizing capital punishment for the rape of a child under 12. The State Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting petitioner's reliance on Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 , which barred the use of the death penalty as punishment for the rape of an adult woman but left open the question which, if any, other nonhomicide crimes can be punished by death consistent with the Eighth Amendment. Reasoning that children are a class in need
of special protection, the state court held child rape
to be unique in terms of the harm it inflicts upon the
victim and society and concluded that, short of first-degree
murder, there is no crime more deserving of death. The court acknowledged that petitioner would be the first person executed since the state law was amended to authorize the death penalty for child rape in 1995, and that Louisiana is in the minority of jurisdictions authorizing death for that crime. However, emphasizing that four more States had capitalized child rape since 1995 and at least eight others had authorized death for other nonhomicide crimes, as well as that, under Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551 , and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 , it is the direction of change rather than the numerical count that is significant, the court held petitioner's death sentence to be constitutional. Held: The Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing
the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime
did not result, and was not intended to result, in the
victim's death. Pp. 8-36. ( Reasoning... ) I think its critical for everyone to note how the Court divided on this case: Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. That would be pretty much right down the idealogical divide created by the Bush appointments. We are one vote away from regressing to a more expanded death penalty in this country.
Food for thought this election season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an older article I came across in my thesis research, but I thought it was thought provoking enough in this election cycle to share: Does Environmentalism Have a Future?
By John M. Meyer
There is a paradox at the heart of contemporary American environmentalism. On the one hand, its organizations are generally larger, stronger, better funded, and more knowledgeable than ever before. Membership has grown in recent years; there are now more than eight million dues-paying members of the major national organizations-and many more in local and statewide organizations-compared to about two million in 1980. Moreover, polls consistently show very high levels of public support for environmental protection, levels that would be the envy of many progressive movements.
And yet: environmentalists find themselves playing defense far more than offense, devoting time and resources to fighting proposals such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, rather than forging new responses to crises such as climate change. Indeed, nothing that these large and expert organizations accomplished during the Clinton-Gore years-to say nothing of the present Bush years-compares to such landmark victories as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, which a much more inchoate movement won a generation ago. The same polls that regularly show high levels of public support also reveal this support to be quite shallow. The environment rarely rises to the upper levels of concern. This may help explain why, despite the gulf between George W. Bush's and John Kerry's policy proposals, environmental issues generated almost no attention during the presidential campaign.
Toward the end of that campaign season, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus attended the annual national gathering of environmental grant makers-the people who allocate the foundation money that keeps most nongovernmental organizations afloat-and fired a broadside against the movement. In a thirteen-thousand-word white paper with the provocative title "The Death of Environmentalism," [1] www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf
they contend that modern environmentalism rests upon "unexamined assumptions, outdated concepts, and exhausted strategies." Environmentalists have accrued their share of enemies over the years, but these two are not among them. They have serious résumés in the movement. With expertise in campaign strategy and public opinion polling, both have served as consultants to and directors of environmental organizations. In early December of last year, at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Adam Werbach-one-time environmental wunderkind who at age twenty-three was president of the Sierra Club-echoed Shellenberger and Nordhaus by proclaiming, "I am here to perform an autopsy." [2] The speech was delivered with the title "The Death of Environmentalism and the Birth of the Commons Movement," although the print version is titled "Is Environmentalism Dead?" http://www.3nov.com/images/awerbach_ied_final.pdf
Outrage and accolades have followed. Clearly, these three have struck a nerve, and the left's post-election malaise provides an opportune climate for heterodox voices.
At the most general level, they argue that environmentalists must persuasively connect their concerns with a narrative about "our core values as Americans and . . . our vision for the future." Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that this has been done effectively by the right, but largely ignored on the left. True enough. Yet to understand their critique, we must first distinguish its two parts. The first is an attack on the myopia of technocratic policy wonkism, while the second is a critique of the narrow construction of "the environment." The first could be advanced against an array of groups or movements in contemporary American politics, but the second is distinctive only to environmentalism.
( Read more... )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From tediousandbrief... The Omnivore's Hundred is a list of foods the gastronomic Andrew Wheeler thinks everyone should try at least once in their lives. The rules of the meme: bold those you have tried, strikethrough those you wouldn't eat on a bet (I decided not to strike all the meat because you know I might someday try it): 1. Venison 2. Nettle tea 3. Huevos rancheros4. Steak tartare 5. Crocodile6. Black pudding 7. Cheese fondue8. Carp (I assume he means catfish here) 9. Borscht 10. Baba ghanoush
11. Calamari
12. Pho 13. PB&J sandwich 14. Aloo gobi 15. Hot dog from a street cart 16. Epoisses 17. Black truffle (I have had truffle on other things but never tasted just a truffle, so not sure how to answer that one.) 18. Fruit wine made from something other than grapes 19. Steamed pork buns 20. Pistachio ice cream
21. Heirloom tomatoes22. Fresh wild berries23. Foie gras (Never. This is one of the few foods I have a strong moral objection to due to its production method.) 24. Rice and beans25. Brawn, or head cheese (ew) 26. Raw Scotch Bonnet pepper27. Dulce de leche (this is more or less just caramel sauce) 28. Oysters29. Baklava30. Bagna cauda 31. Wasabi peas 32. Clam chowder in a sourdough bowl33. Salted lassi 34. Sauerkraut35. Root beer float36. Cognac with a fat cigar (I just can't smoke - allergic) 37. Clotted cream tea 38. Vodka jelly 39. Gumbo40. Oxtail 41. Curried goat 42. Whole insects43. Phaal 44. Goat’s milk45. Malt whisky from a bottle worth £60/$120 or more 46. Fugu 47. Chicken tikka masala 48. Eel (unagi!)49. Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut (overrated) 50. Sea urchin 51. Prickly pear 52. Umeboshi 53. Abalone 54. Paneer55. McDonald’s Big Mac Meal (never ever again)56. Spaetzle 57. Dirty gin martini58. Beer above 8% ABV 59. Poutine 60. Carob chips
61. S’mores62. Sweetbreads (I don't do brains) 63. Kaolin 64. Currywurst 65. Durian 66. Frogs’ legs 67. Beignets, churros, elephant ears or funnel cake (all of the above)68. Haggis 69. Fried plantain70. Chitterlings, or andouillette 71. Gazpacho
72. Caviar and blini73. Louche absinthe 74. Gjetost, or brunost 75. Roadkill 76. Baijiu 77. Hostess Fruit Pie78. Snail 79. Lapsang souchong (its a tea)80. Bellini81. Tom yum 82. Eggs Benedict83. Pocky 84. Tasting menu at a three-Michelin-star restaurant 85. Kobe beef 86. Hare 87. Goulash
88. Flowers89. Horse90. Criollo chocolate 91. Spam 92. Soft shell crab93. Rose harissa 94. Catfish95. Mole poblano96. Bagel and lox97. Lobster Thermidor 98. Polenta99. Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee 100. Snake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jensnewpage's journal
Previous
5 (50.0%)