This blog was part of a great tweet this morning.  How could I not like any writing book list that started with Elements of Style?  A fabulous read that I keep on hand whenever I'm at my computer. 

Here are the top 10. If you want the full 25, go to Meryl's blog post.  It's a great site.

1. The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B.White
2. On Writing by Stephen King:
3. On Writing Well by William Zinsser 
4. Bird By Bird by Anne Mott
5. Chicago Manual of Style
6. Writing Down the Bones by Natalie Goldberg
7. The Artist’s Way by Julia Cameron
8. Reading like a Writerby Francine Prose
9. If You Want to Write: A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit by Brenda Ueland
10. Writing Tools: 50 Essential Strategies for Every Writer by Roy Peter Clark

We have a restaurant nearby that I adore.  It's all whole foods - with some vegan and gluten-free options.  The chefs go to their garden each morning to create dishes based on the ripest bounty.  It's whole, it's real and it tastes marvelous.  The one drawback: it's a little pricey.

I was having this discussion with another mom the other morning (while we were at said restaurant).  Our take was that true food, nourishing food, is worth the extra cost.  That means at home and while eating out.  The biggest issue is adjusting everyone's expectation away from heavily processed, sugary, high-fat junk.  It's easy and its quick, but it is neither good for you (over the long term) nor is it going to help you realize your weight goals.

As a society, we have some decisions to make.  Fruits and vegetables do not get the same R_E_S_P_E_C_T as, say a Big Mac, but they can be more filling and definitely more nourishing.  I'm not saying you can't ever eat at a fast food joint again. I love Chick-Fil-A and will continue to crave their nuggets, but it does mean that I will try to do better each day to at healthily for my body. I only get one, and I'd really like for it to work for a few more decades.

So let me ask you: What do you want to know about quality, nourishing whole foods?  How to cook them?  What qualifies as whole foods?  How to substitute real foods for the processed, already-packaged stuff that's so prevalent in the super markets?  Together, we can make a change.  And your body will be thrilled with the results.

The display said Wine Spectator rated this bottle a 90.  The wine guy at Trader Joe's gushed about it.  For $8.99, I figured it was worth trying.  The wine was nice; the berries were very forward and round - robust even - but the finish seemed a little flat.  Both my husband and I agreed it was nice with the roasted vegetable lasagna, but I'm not sure I'd say it was stellar. 

Maybe it was aforementioned hype. 

I'd rate it good.  Quite drinkable.  In fact, we killed the bottle in one sitting - something we rarely (if ever) do.  But that might have more to do with the fact that we were eating alone.  There is something so pleasant about sipping wine and eating a meal without the constant recitation of "use your fork... wipe your mouth with your napkin, not your sleeve...yes, you have to eat your peas..."

So, yes, I'll be thinking fondly of you, Alamos Malbec. 

My husband is forever teasing me about my desire to create a healthy cookie.  He says it can't be done - and taste good. I've tried to prove him wrong for years.  Most of the time I fail.  But I made these today and they taste, well, like a chocolate chip cookie should. So it'll never be truly healthy. Sugar is still bad for you (but it, like fat, makes things taste soooo good!!!).

A note to remember: The final product is only as good as the ingredients you put into it.  I try hard to use quality organic ingredients as much as possible.
So for all you non-dairy, no wheat, health fanatics, here's a cookie you can actually eat!


1 c. brown sugar
1 c. Demora sugar
1 c. Earth balance buttery spread (get the soy-free kind, if possible)
3/4 c. almond butter
1/4  c. tahini
2 eggs
1 t vanilla
2 c. oats
2 1/2 c. whole spelt flour
1 t. salt
2 t. baking soda
8 - 12 oz. dark chocolate chunks (Whole Foods sells their 365 brand with 70% cacao)

Preheat oven to 350 Fahrenheit. Cream butters, sugars, eggs and vanilla.  Add baking soda, salt, oats and flour.  Mix until just blended.  Add chocolate chunks.  Drop cookies onto parchment-lined trays and cook for about 8 minutes. Cool slightly on trays then transfer to wire cooling racks.  

I get a lot of cooking magazines and emails.  I have a request of recipe writers: use less dairy! 

Why does everything from granola bars to six consecutive pasta dishes have to be full of cow's milk?  I know the dairy industry is a big one - sitting at about 187.6 billion pounds of milk each year.  That makes a lot of cheese, yogurt, whey and various percentages of cream and milk. But here's the deal: Some a 2005 Cornell University study suggests between 30 and 50 million Americans is lactose intolerant (and as we age as a nation, the percentage will go up). That doesn't include the people with a true milk allergy. 

It's very difficult to read the ingredients in everything one eats.  It's also not fun to miss out on birthday cake and ice cream.  While low-fat dairy is and will continue to be a good source of calcium for millions - especially people of Northern European descent - it sure would be nice for companies to take notice of the millions of people who cannot process the white stuff. 

My daughter told me the other day that the reason I can't remember specific details any more is because I'm loosing brain cells.  My unspoken response was that I'd done a good job killing off quite a few during college at are weekly parties.  Apparently, I didn't know the half of it.

NPR did a story this morning on how binge drinking negatively impacts white matter in the adolescent brain.  The hippocampus - the memory nodule -  is also damaged.  Binge drinking tends to make it more difficult for girls to do well in math- and engineering- related activities and tests whereas alcohol hurts boys' ability to concentrate. 

Back in May of 2009, NPR had another story stating that while overall binge drinking might be declining, the number of kids seen in the ER for alcohol-related problems was on the rise.  And the Century Council suggests that nearly 40% of eighth graders have tried alcohol.  The site has a lot of great information, which I highly recommend reading if you have a child in middle school or older because 10 million kids between 12 to 20 say they've drunk alcohol in the past month. Not surprisingly, a Center for Health Communication and Marketing at the University of Connecticut study of 2,000 15- to 26-year-olds found  that youth who saw more ads drank more. (There's a reason why advertisers pay for the TV, Internet and magazine ads, folks.)

Because the adolescent brain is still developing, abuse of alcohol can have long and detrimental impacts - perhaps permanent ones - on the mind. One of the keys to preventing drinking is being a parent.  By supervising a gathering of kids, you cut way down on their ability to access alcohol. And many kids who do drink say being grounded, having their social networking access curtailed or losing driving privileges impacts their decision to drink again. Parents also have the greatest impact on whether their kids will drink or not: That's why it's so important to talk to kids about alcohol (and drug) abuse.  Not sure where to turn or how to start the conversation?  Check out Stop Underage Drinking or Century Council. 

 

For the past ten years, I've been waiting for politicians and politicalpundits to stop acting like three-year-old protecting a toy in the sandbox.

It hasn't happened.

Yes, I know we're not supposed to talk about politics. Nor are we supposed to talk aboutreligion, but I'm noticing we're talking about both - slyly, for our own agendas - quite a bit

What happened to offering someone the dignity of listening to their opinion without talking over them? WhileI may like my ideas better, they are mine, not yours. And it's relatively rare that I will be able to change anyone's views, whetherit be on something as trivial as cereal brands or as major as the environmental legislation that has stalled in D.C. That's OK as long aswe can recognize a common goal: leaving our country better, stronger and fiscally responsible. I'm not saying we're going to always agree on how to get there.  Hell, my husband and I can't agree to drive on how to a new location (thank you, TomTom, for solving one major marriage hurtle!), but we eventually get there.  Together.  In one piece. 

I am quickly moving from frustration to fear. Our country is polarizing on two opposite ends of the political spectrum; each feels its camp has all the right answers. This is the exact fiasco Abraham Lincoln warned against: "Nearly all men can withstand adversity; If you want to test a man's character, give him power."

But perhaps the most apropos quote is the one by Gore Vidal: "Politics is made up of two words.'Poli' which is Greek for 'many,' and 'tics,' which are bloodsucking insects."

I have a super woman complex.  No, I mean I really tend to pressure myself to be better than anyone else. When I finally sat down to unravel the root cause of this issue, I realized that it was all my mom's (generation who were at) fault.

I am a woman of the post-feminism movement.  That means I have the right to do as I damn well please.  But that doesn't mean I can do anything I please without complaints, sidelong glances and suggestions on what it means to be a woman in today's society.  You know what?  I think there are a multitude of activities and dreams that I have the right to pursue.  So do you.  Here's a brief list of what I can do.  I'd love to see you add to it.

As a woman, I can:

* run a business as well as any man - and make more money doing so
* stay at home to raise my kids (and maybe never again use that expensive college degree) while being a supportive wife
* wait for someone to open my car door only if I feel like it
* fix a broken electrical socket or transmission
* take a night off and let my spouse deal with the kids
* be frustrated and grumpy without it being labeled PMS
* dress as professionally, sloppy or as sexy as I want
* dream of simpler times when I didn't have to make as many financial decisions
* re-balance my stock portfolio
* buy my own car
* refuse to mow the lawn, enter the attic or deal with dead animals
* squash my own bugs
* expect to be loved and respected and never degraded for wanting to do what is best for my family and myself

Someone said to me the other day that the US has the best health care system in the world.  Those kinds of blanket statements make me cringe. I immediately looked up our health care rating.  I anticipated it wouldn't be good; I was shocked at how poorly our nation's system ranked. 

The Commonwealth Fund studied preventable deaths in most modern nations.  The US ranked 14th out of 14.  Here's a further excerpt:

"In 1997–98 the U.S. ranked 15th out of 19 countries on the "mortality amenable to health care" measure. However, by 2002–03 the U.S. fell to last place, with 109 deaths amenable to health care for every 100,000 people. In contrast, mortality rates per 100,000 people in the leading countries were: France (64), Japan (71), and Australia (71). The other countries included in the study were Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom."

OK, so we didn't do well in preventable deaths, but our system as a whole is sound.  Right? Not according to the 1997 estimates conducted by the World Health Organization.  The US ranked 37th on overall health system performance.  We were behind Chile, Columbia and Morocco! 

But guess what?  We spend more of our GDP - 15.2 percent - on health care than any other western nation.  In case you were wondering, Switzerland was the highest-spender in Europe, coming in at 11.4 percent.

I do firmly believe that at places like the Mayo Clinic and Houston's Med Center, Americans have access to the most advanced care. Unfortunately, those centers of first-class medicine do not reach the population as a whole. 

I really worry about what will happen if we don't fix our medical system.  We're already spending more money than we have - and borrowing heavily from China to do so.  How will we pay down our debts and increase those Americans who need coverage at the same time?  I don't think the current bill is necessarily the answer, but I am terrified Congress will end up doing nothing. 

And more preventable deaths and out-of-control spending will ensure. 

My post yesterday did not go over well with the libertarian and conservative crowd. My facebook page is much longer today with posts on just how wrong I am to consider that car insurance model when I want to discuss a new health care model.  Shocking. 

One asked why we didn't simply open up insurance across state lines.  I don't disagree with that if we are going to keep the same system that we already have (which it looks like we will).  But there have to be more mandates in place than being able to buy with pre-tax dollars and open enrollment with any carrier.  Insurance companies (who, may I point out are middle men already standing between a patient and his or her doctor) don't want to insure people that will cost them more than they make in premiums.  From a business standpoint, that makes absolute sense.  But one's health is not a business.  It's quality of life.  It's being able to live our American dream of wealth, health and happiness (and happiness, it turns out, is derived in large part from the state of one's health). 

At a minimum, insurance companies must insure anyone who wants insurance.  That means people with pre-existing conditions.  Yes, these people are more expensive to insure, but they also need the coverage the most.  Someone else said what about the young, healthy people who don't want part of their paycheck to go toward health insurance?  I understand that people want to keep their money, but without young healthy people paying into the system, expenses go up for everyone else on a plan.  Why?  Because those that are in the plan use its services.  Young, healthy people don't typically use many health care services until they need them.  When will that be?  When they get sick, break an arm, get in a car accident, get food poisoning, cut their foot on a piece of glass...you get the idea.  There's no telling when that will happen.  It may. But it may not. 

My brother needed an emergency appendectomy at 25.  He has been very healthy since - and he was very healthy until his appendix became inflamed.  Just like car insurance, you cannot get retro-active coverage.  You must have the coverage before the accident or illness. 

It there a way to please everyone in this debate? Absolutely not.  Has the current push through Congress been a fair one? No, it has not.  Will the eventual bill that comes to Obama's desk actually help Americans?  I fear it won't. 

Because I worry it doesn't go far enough. Atul Gawande wrote a fascinating article about health care reform for The New Yorker on January 26, 2009.  Here's an excerpt:

"In the United States, our stories are like the one that appeared in the Times before Christmas. Starla Darling, pregnant and due for delivery, had just taken maternity leave from her factory job at Archway & Mother’s Cookie Company, in Ashland, Ohio, when she received a letter informing her that the company was going out of business. In three days, the letter said, she and almost three hundred co-workers would be laid off, and would lose their health-insurance coverage. The company was self-insured, so the employees didn’t have the option of paying for the insurance themselves—their insurance plan was being terminated.

“When I heard that I was losing my insurance, I was scared,” Darling told the Times. Her husband had been laid off from his job, too. “I remember that the bill for my son’s delivery in 2005 was about $9,000, and I knew I would never be able to pay that by myself.” So she prevailed on her midwife to induce labor while she still had insurance coverage. During labor, Darling began bleeding profusely, and needed a Cesarean section. Mother and baby pulled through. But the insurer denied Darling’s claim for coverage. The couple ended up owing more than seventeen thousand dollars.

The stories become unconscionable in any society that purports to serve the needs of ordinary people, and, at some alchemical point, they combine with opportunity and leadership to produce change. Britain reached this point and enacted universal health-care coverage in 1945, Canada in 1966, Australia in 1974. The United States may finally be there now. In 2007, fifty-seven million Americans had difficulty paying their medical bills, up fourteen million from 2003. On average, they had two thousand dollars in medical debt and had been contacted by a collection agency at least once. Because, in part, of underpayment, half of American hospitals operated at a loss in 2007. Today, large numbers of employers are limiting or dropping insurance coverage in order to stay afloat, or simply going under—even hospitals themselves.

Yet wherever the prospect of universal health insurance has been considered, it has been widely attacked as a Bolshevik fantasy—a coercive system to be imposed upon people by benighted socialist master planners. People fear the unintended consequences of drastic change, the blunt force of government. However terrible the system may seem, we all know that it could be worse—especially for those who already have dependable coverage and access to good doctors and hospitals.

Many would-be reformers hold that “true” reform must simply override those fears. They believe that a new system will be far better for most people, and that those who would hang on to the old do so out of either lack of imagination or narrow self-interest. On the left, then, single-payer enthusiasts argue that the only coherent solution is to end private health insurance and replace it with a national insurance program. And, on the right, the free marketeers argue that the only coherent solution is to end public insurance and employer-controlled health benefits so that we can all buy our own coverage and put market forces to work.

Neither side can stand the other. But both reserve special contempt for the pragmatists, who would build around the mess we have. The country has this one chance, the idealist maintains, to sweep away our inhumane, wasteful patchwork system and replace it with something new and more rational. So we should prepare for a bold overhaul, just as every other Western democracy has. True reform requires transformation at a stroke. But is this really the way it has occurred in other countries? The answer is no. And the reality of how health reform has come about elsewhere is both surprising and instructive.