Thankful Thursday

Happy Thursday!

In my absence from here these past few weeks, I've been focusing my energy on researching family history - both my own and MJ's. It fascinates me and it's like a giant mystery. I really enjoy connecting possible dots and seeing how events overlap, both local, familial things and also those happening on a more global or national scale.

Which leads me to what I'm thankful for today - the availability and easy access of information.


Of course, this has both a positive and a negative aspect to it. Like many tools, it's how we use it (and how we let it use us) that really gives it its value. Specifically, I'm appreciating just how easy it is for me to gather some of this information. So many public records are now available online, indexed, and searchable. Volunteers have spent countless hours transcribing old records so that they might be available to others. It's amazing how much data I've been able to add in a week that would have taken others doing this "work" months of library visits and travel.

That's not to say that I won't have to do legwork. The onus now is to cite sources, to evaluate the quality and accuracy of the information at hand. But it's amazing to have these "soft" starting points. The ability to pull up census records (many now scanned so you can check for transcription errors to the databases yourself), to connect with strangers doing similar research - it is just astounding.

Today I'm thankful to have these tools at hand. I hope that I'll be able to combine them, add to them, and create something that others can build on.

Thankful Thursday on Friday

I'm a bit late this week, but I'm taking a mini-vacation, so I hope you'll forgive me.

I saved my family for Thanksgiving Thursday - I'm very blessed to have my parents, MJ, and MJ's family, who have been so welcoming to me. Five years ago, I was in a family of 3, with 2 of them being half-way across the country. Now, I have my own household of 2, my parents closer, and MJ's other 6. Holiday and life celebrations abound!

I think one way to show thanksgiving to those we love is to spend time together. share experiences, really listen and participate in conversations (instead of splitting your attention with your phone), and just be together. People are in our lives for only a limited time - embrace those moments while you can!

What relationships are you thankful for today? How can you show your appreciation to your loved ones?

Thankful Thursday

This Thursday, I am thankful for independence. Not the nationalistic sort, but the many gifts I've been given to allow me to live independently. I can travel freely, care for myself, and make my own decisions. Truly, a blessing!

Independence should not be confused with a freedom from responsibility. Indeed, I'll argue the opposite in the case. Being truly independent, that is, not reliant on others, also means having responsibility for your actions.

How can this blessing be used to help others? Perhaps by sharing it with others. Helping others - offering a ride, teachingor tutoring, and even just listening. After all, with today's thanksgiving, you're celebrating the ability to decide to help!

Talking to the White House

You may have heard by now about the White House's "We the People" project.

Petitions is a page on the White House's official site that allows people to create or sign a petition about an issue that is important to them.
Explains the site:

The right to petition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.

It's easy to get involved.  You create a WhiteHouse.gov account, thereby agreeing to the terms of service, and off you go.  You can sign an existing petition or create a new one.  Even without an account, you can view the existing petitions and responses.  The Administration says that it will issue an official response to petition that gets 25,000 or more signatures; past responses have been issued to petitions with fewer.  (The site notes that this threshold may change as appropriate to site usage.)

"We the People" has been in national headlines across the media for the past few weeks because of a number of petitions asking for peaceful secession of various states.  There's a number or counter-proposals to those as well.

But, in between those sensational petitions are some for other issues, such as GMO-labeling, adoption credits, and other items that appeared on state ballots this year.

Past responses are also available for review, including the recipe for some White House beer brews, approaches to controlling online piracy on an open internet, and interstate raw milk commerce.

Overall, I give it a thumbs up for adding some transparency and easier interaction with the Administration.  Certainly worth a visit.

Thankful Thursday

This Thursday, I'm thankful for mass transit.

I consider myself fortunate both that I don't need to drive to work and also that my transportation is reasonably reliable.  Even better, my employer provides mass transit passes as a corporate benefit.  No, it's not the New York subway, but I'd guess the light rail runs on time better than 90% of the time, (and that's better than many of my flights.)  I take the rail to the office, the arts district, and the fairgrounds.  I debate using it for some shopping, but I haven't yet.
Although most days I either drive to the park and ride or get dropped off at the station by MJ, I also have the option of taking multiple bus lines within half a mile of my house to rail stations.  Or, riding my bike - which I keep thinking I'll do and then making excuses.  In any case,  I am thankful that I can get to work without needing to drive.

According to the American Public Transportation Association, "Americans took 10.4 billion trips on public transportation" last year.  Do you have mass transit options where you live?  How often do you use them?  How can using alternative transit help you make a difference in the world?

A California Proposal

An organic cereal label

The election is (thankfully) over, but there's one ballot measure that I keep wondering about - California Proposition 37.

Now, I'm not a California voter, so I'll confess I hadn't paid too much attention to the measure until this week.  A friend was prepping her ballot and asked me what the deal was with the proposal.  Prop 37 mandates labeling (some) GMOs in food.

Now, let me be clear.  I know little about the law-making process in California, so my reaction was only to the available text - and the debate for and against.  But, I have advocated for GMO-labeling in the past, and I'm familiar with the Organic Consumer's Association.  There's currently no requirement to label GMOs in the United States, although mandated labeling (or an outright ban) of GMOs does exist in over 50 other countries, including much of the EU and Japan.


According to the California Secretary of State's office:

Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.

PRO
Proposition 37 gives us the right to know what is in the food we eat and feed to our families. It simply requires labeling of food produced using genetic engineering, so we can choose whether to buy those products or not. We have a right to know.

CON
Prop. 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme, full of special-interest exemptions and loopholes. Prop. 37 would: create new government bureaucracy costing taxpayers millions, authorize expensive shakedown lawsuits against farmers and small businesses, and increase family grocery bills by hundreds of dollars per year.www.NoProp37.com

You can find the full text here: California Prop 37.
On the surface, I'm pro.  I absolutely agree with "right to know".  But, the "Con" catches my attention, "deceptive, deeply flawed...", as does the fiscal impact.  Although, my initial reaction is also to be a bit annoyed the official listing has the "No" website as part of the "Con" description, but the "Pro" website is under the more information section: http://www.carighttoknow.org/.

Without reading the text, it's easy to get confused.  What is meant by "genetic engineering" and aren't all crops genetically engineered?  However, the question says "genetic material cahnged in specific ways", and the full text defines it:

(c) Genetically engineered. (1) “Genetically engineered” means any food that is produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of:

(A) In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or

(B) Fusion of cells, including protoplast fusion, or hybridization techniques that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers, where the donor cells/protoplasts do not fall within the same taxonomic family, in a way that does not occur by natural multiplication or natural recombination.

In terms of what the proposed law requires:

(a) Commencing July 1, 2014, any food offered for retail sale in California is misbranded if it is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not disclosed:
(1) In the case of a raw agricultural commodity on the package offered for retail sale, with the clear and conspicuous words “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package of such commodity or, in the case of any such commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled, on a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which such commodity is displayed for sale;
(2) In the case of any processed food, in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back of the package of such food, with the words “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”

Reading through the actual legislative language, I can't find any of the "deceptive" "deeply-flawed" or "special interest exemptions" cited by the Con.  Perhaps I'm missing something.

The analysis indicates "Retailers (such as grocery stores) would be primarily responsible for complying with the measure by ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled."  I feel that's problematic, but I couldn't find such a requirement in the law.  Perhaps this is for the case of goods that are sold loose and not in manufacturer's packaging, such as produce.  Or, perhaps this is evidence that I don't read legalese well.  I'm not sure which is the case.  But, the analysis gives me some pause with this and the exemptions.  So, with all that intro, here were my thoughts:

If I had to vote on it, my question would be, "If I vote this down, will they refine this law and make it better, or will they take that as a statement that the public is not interested in labeling GMOs (for whatever reason?)"  Not being a California voter, I don't know how that plays out. 
I do not think that if it fails on the California ballot it will be taken up by Washington. They've had a few chances at it, and there's big money opposed to any measure that labels GMOs. (It was in committee as recently as this past March.)*

The basic question is whether there's any reason to label GMO food. If you say that it's no different, or even "better" than "normal" food, your answer will be no. Or you could take the viewpoint, that all food is genetically modified. Well, at the basic dictionary meaning of the term, yes. But that's not what proponents of this type of regulation are talking about. It's not about cross-breeding and grafting and other century-old practices. It's a question of whether altering the DNA-sequence of one plant, and introducing a completely foreign gene sequence into it, is harmful in the food supply. 

Back to the Proposition...If you look at the big funders "for", they're part of the Organic Consumer market. Some big lobby groups in there too, like the OCA. If you look at who's funding against, it's largely the big food companies and the biotech companies. That split is pretty straightforward. The big food industries don't want this because it complicates what they do and this is the important bit - *they worry that if a food has a GMO label, people will stop buying it.* They are worried (rightly or wrongly) that consumers will associate a GMO label with a poison sticker. (California's good at those poison stickers, by the way. They have a bit of a history of marking things like that.) And, if there's nothing wrong with GMOs, if we're just labeling them to help people with food sensitivities just like I keep buying all those things with "may contain peanuts" on them, well, perhaps the concern about the over-reaction of the public is reasonable. Or, perhaps there's a real risk. The problem is that there's not good science that's been made public about this. And there's no long-term study.

Why do the big food companies care? The top US genetically engineered crops include: soy, corn, and cotton. Soy and corn and their derivatives are in most processed foods.**

The burden on the the retailer to verify whether each food is GE or not is odd to me. I think that will certainly add confusion and cost to the consumer. This link makes some reasonable points against the proposition, although I don't agree with it fully and it is definitely slanted:http://www.science20.com/science_20/mercenary_intent_behind_proposition_37s_gm_food_labeling-92928**
"All of science" does not disagree. Not only crackpots are in favor.  And, several of the arguments seem mis-represented.

Regarding organic foods and GMOs - they're different things. Being organic does not necessarily mean non-GMO, * especially* since there are multiple "certifying" organizations. The USDA organic certification does not allow GMOs, apparently. Still, I'm skeptical about the exemption for organic foods. Why exempt them from the law? If they don't use GMOs, they'd have nothing to worry about, right? http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Which_Foods_Have_GMOs 
http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Foods

Ultimately, I might side no on this one. I want to know what's in my food. Specifically, I want to know what foods I'm eating that have been specifically designed to be resistant to herbicide and to emit their own pesticide. Because then I'm eating that garbage. But, as written, it looks like it's designed to bolster the organic food industry. Better, neutral safety testing is needed for sure. Where's the support for science in this? 

Oh, and let me re-state one more time to be completely clear - I'm totally for knowing what's in my food. But, looking into the current proposed legislation, that's not what this is about. As those links suggest, if you want to avoid GMOs, don't buy commercial products containing corn or soy. They bigger question is really what GE-process and whether the result is safe.
Europe's decided to err on the cautionary side, preferring to just avoid the use. That's pretty standard for their approval process. It's not what we do, and maybe we should. But, this law doesn't involve safety testing.

*I'm actually pleased to see that the "food movement" seems to be rather resilient today.  If just getting this on a ballot helps to get more conversation going about our food supply and safety, then that's progress  even if this particular measure didn't pass.
**This site bugs me more today than it did initially.  I feel misled.  But, the comment discussion is better than most internet discussion, I've seen of late.

Today, I'm reconsidering.  Perhaps I would have voted yes.  Maybe it's a good thing I'm not a California voter.
What would you have done?  Is labeling everything better than labeling nothing?  Is a possible flawed law better than none at all?

Michael Pollan wrote a piece for the NYTimes about the proposition
Mother Jones on the failure of Prop 37
The Non-GMO Project

Thankful Thursday

Happy November!  Thanksgiving's just around the corner now, which means people are thinking more about being thankful.  We all know that thanksgiving and gratitude shouldn't be limited to one day a year, but it's so easy to slip into "take it for granted" mode.

Meghan Telpner's blog, Making Love in the Kitchen (it's about healthy eating!), today featured an entry on the health benefits of gratitude.  If you look around the internet, you'll find a number of articles, books, and blogs talking about new research in this area over the past few years.  (Here's one summary from the Harvard Medical School.)  Lower stress and a happier life are certainly good reasons to be thankful!

This isn't surprising news to those out there who follow some faith or religion; most teach the spiritual practice of gratitude.  From 1 Thessalonians 5:18a, "In every thing, give thanks." (KJV)

Said Henry Van Dyke:

Gratitude is the inward feeling of kindness received. Thankfulness is the natural impulse to express that feeling. Thanksgiving is the following of that impulse. 

I thought I might do this as a regular entry, and I decided that November was a nice time to start.  I realize that I am so fortunate and blessed.  I have so much that others don't have - some on the other side of the world, some in my own neighborhood.  I hope that I can be thankful and use what I have to help others!

_______________________________________________________________________________

This Thursday, I am thankful for clean water.

It's funny, how bottled water has become such a commodity in the United States, where we have some of the cleanest drinking water right out of the tap.  Some blind taste studies found people pick New York City tap water over Evion for taste!
Now, let me confess.  We filter our drinking water.  I prefer the taste (avoids algae blooms) and I like getting some of the added chemicals from the municipal system out.  But I am so very fortunate that I can choose to do that or not.  And, I can get it from the tap in multiple rooms within my home and at my workplace!

What do you do to conserve water?  What are your top 3 water uses?

Follow-up to a Storm

Being originally from the northeast, a lot of my attention has been on the goings-on back that way during and following Hurricane Sandy.  It's been a bit of a distraction, really, and the continuation of my home lighting discussion is thus delayed.  But with Sandy and storm clean-up on my mind, what can I write about?  The media (both official and social media channels) have pretty well inundated us with information about the goings on up there, and photos (both real and less genuine) from the scene.    

I am glad that it appears the majority of people I know seem to be taking it in stride - some don't have reliable power, but most seem to have fared well (and luckily) with minimal impact so far.  Excepting, of course, the disruptions for all - limited ability to travel, closed schools and workplaces, falling trees and power lines, and the like.  I'm pleased to see so many people offering to help others who may be having greater hardships.  I'm reminded of the community in that region that's there but less apparent in day-to-day comings and goings.  There's a lot of waiting, and perhaps frustration from not being in control.  And, there are people in real need, without electricity or heat or running water, who are worried about what will happen next.

I would like to spend some time to talking about traumatic stress.  There's a weight that some feel, whether directly impacted and present, or watching from afar, whenever a disaster such as this strikes.  It's a feeling of loss, shock, or amazement.  Perhaps it's empathy for others who have lost so much or "survivor's guilt".  And these tend to be things that people don't talk about as much.  Whether it's because they want to appear strong, don't want to acknowledge,, don't want to make it real, don't feel that they're entitled to feel it... there can be a tendency to deny such feelings or keep them internal.

As the American Psychological Association notes, it is normal to feel shock or denial following a disaster or traumatic event.  The stress of such events can manifest itself in physical symptoms, like headaches, nausea, and chest pain, as well.  Dr. Edward T. Creagan notes common symptoms of stress after a disaster include confusion, disordered thinking, unusual eating and sleeping patterns, fatigue, and anger and frustration.  Time does help heal these "pains", but how long that takes varies for everyone.  So, here are the recommendations from the APA for dealing with traumatic stress.  (These tips aren't unique to the northeast and Sandy, of course.  Please consider these if ever you find yourself trying to heal from a disaster or similar trauma.) 

"Give yourself time to adjust. Anticipate that this will be a difficult time in your life. Allow yourself to mourn the losses you have experienced. Try to be patient with changes in your emotional state.

Ask for support from people who care about you and who will listen and empathize with your situation. But keep in mind that your typical support system may be weakened if those who are close to you also have experienced or witnessed the trauma.

 Communicate your experience. In whatever ways feel comfortable to you — such as by talking with family or close friends, or keeping a diary.

 Find out about local support groups that often are available. Such as for those who have suffered from natural disasters or other traumatic events. These can be especially helpful for people with limited personal support systems.

Try to find groups led by appropriately trained and experienced professionals. Group discussion can help people realize that other individuals in the same circumstances often have similar reactions and emotions.

Engage in healthy behaviors to enhance your ability to cope with excessive stress. Eat well-balanced meals and get plenty of rest. If you experience ongoing difficulties with sleep, you may be able to find some relief through relaxation techniques. Avoid alcohol and drugs.

Establish or reestablish routines such as eating meals at regular times and following an exercise program. Take some time off from the demands of daily life by pursuing hobbies or other enjoyable activities.

Avoid major life decisions such as switching careers or jobs if possible. These activities tend to be highly stressful."

Also, take a break from the news.  Check in periodically to stay updated, but allow yourself to think about other things.  Read a book, play a game, talk with friends.

If you have a child who seems to be having a hard time processing and adjusting to life after the disaster, consider these tips from the National Association of School Psychologists.

If you're feeling distressed from afar, know that you're not alone in that, either.  Here are some tips from the APA just for that situation.

Remember that it's not a sign of weakness or some personal deficiency to feel deeply affected by such destruction and disruption to routine.  It's okay, and you're not alone.  If post-traumatic stress starts to interfere with your daily life, reach out to a mental health professional.  You don't need to handle everything on your own.

And, if you'd like to help with Sandy relief in particular, Yahoo has put together a list of organizations that are mobilizing relief efforts.

So, my thoughts and prayers are with those who've been adversely affected by the storm.  I'm thankful for the relatively low human cost, and hopeful for quick restoration.  My wish is for a speedy return to normalcy.

Right, Privilege, or Duty? Go Vote!

I'm working on the next part (what I thought would be the first part, even) to my light bulb discussion, but I want to interrupt that to talk about voting.  It's probably no surprise, especially if you've been near a radio, tv, or internet, that American Election Day is around the corner.  As always, it's the first Tuesday of November, which this year makes it 6 November.  I'm sure no one needs to be reminded that it's a Presidential year. Actually, I suspect some of you wish the election were over so that the ads and constant discussion about the Presidential election would stop.

Don't worry.  That's about all I'm going to say about presidents.  What I really want to remind y'all about is all of the other races going on.  Many people seem to feel disenfranchised from their government, and it's not just at the highest levels in Washington.  The laws and regulations (or absence thereof) that affect you each day start with those passed by your local government, as well as state and national levels.  The Presidental candidates get lots of press, but consider those other races as well.  And don't forget about the various referendums and special questions - things that, if you're a registered voter, give you some opportunity to shape policy.

So, what's the deal about Election Day?


Learn who (and what) is on your ballot before you get to the polls.  When I was growing up in New Jersey, I remember a sample ballot being sent to each voter in the house.  It showed you just what you'd see when you went into the voting booth.  I don't know if my hometown still does that, but it appears they do.  When I moved to Texas and went to vote for the first time, I was completely thrown by how many positions for which I was being asked to pick a candidate.  Railroad commissioners, judges, the electronic ballot was five screens!  I had no idea that half of those positions were even elected.

Just knowing what you can vote for may not feel like sufficient preparation to many of you.  But fear not, you can also find out about the candidates before you head to polls.  A primary function of the League of Women Voters is gathering this information.  The LWV is a non-partisan group that tries to educate voters on how to register, how to vote, and who the candidates are.  www.vote411.org will show you what is on your ballot.  Many local LWV sections interview the candidates, as well, with short questions for reply that are sent to each candidate running for a particular office.  Yes, it goes to everyone on the ballot, whether Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or other.  Some do not respond, but it's a nice side-by-side comparison.  You can pick up a hard copy in many local libraries, and you are generally allowed to bring the paper of candidates into voting with you.  (MJ and I did, and it was quite helpful to keep the names straight.)

Other websites and organizations also try to get out information on the various candidates, but all, like the LWV, are restricted by how much cooperation they get from the candidates, or how much information they can assemble.  For example:
www.ontheissues.org  Generally limited to House, Senate, and gubernatorial races, with a focus on the two major political parties.
http://www.opensecrets.org/elections/index.php Information on candidate funding for those aspiring to head to Washington.
Of course, also check out your local papers, which often will run information on candidates side-by-side.


Find how when and where you can vote.  Check with your state election office for this one.  They'll be able to tell you whether you're registered and where you're supposed to vote.  Some states allow early voting, while some do not.  The early voting location is often different from where you would go on election day.  (This year was my first year voting early.  It was nice to do it un-rushed on a Saturday!) The rules of absentee ballots vary by state, with some requiring pre-registration, some allowing absentee ballots only under certain circumstances, etc.  And, with recent redistricting in many states, where you voted last time may not be where you need to head this year.

To find your state's information, try googling "state election office" or checking with your secretary of state's office.  The LWV can also give you local polling information, or try searching "where to vote 'my state' ".
In any case, if you haven't yet voted, check this now.  From these resources, you should also be able to find out the hours that the polling place is open and what sort of identification you need to bring with you.


So that's what I wanted to share with you in these last few days before Election Day.  I hope that you'll get out there to vote if you're eligible.  Oh, and also, when things get into heated discussions in the next few days, remember to stay friends.

You don't have to dislike people you disagree with and it doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to have bipartisan friendships in this place. Life's too short to have it any other way. 

Dave Obey Source

Some light on the subject, please?

If you've ever talked to me about sustainability or energy use in person, you'd probably be surprised to not find much (anything) on the topic here. Green light bulbs and lighting are two popular "green" topics that I can get pretty vocal about. It's one example of a field where I think we have a fair bit of greenwashing, political lobbying, and misinformation. And frankly, I think we've beat up the poor incandescent bulb more than it ever deserved.

As soon as you delve into this area, you'll realize the controversy is about energy use. Since the advent of electricity, we've eagerly gobbled up amps chasing the dark out of our homes and workplaces. Of course there are many other ways we use electricity daily, but lighting is one the obvious. And, it's true that the incandescent light bulb - specifically the tungsten A-lamp is an old technology that puts out more energy in heat than in light. You remember your physics classes right? Energy in = energy out. But energy out often features energy lost to side effects. In the case of that light bulb, most of the energy is lost to heat. So,the argument goes, if we got everyone to use a more efficient light source, one that has less undesirable loss to heat, we'd save energy. A good goal.

At the center of this initiative in the lighting world came the incandescent light bulb. Note that this is not a local, American, initiative, but rather one that's global. According to wikipedia, nations around the world either have, or are in the process of having, banned or phased out the tungsten incandescent light bulb as we know it. In the United States, this movement really took off in 2007, with motions in California and on the Senate floor. Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007:

To move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

You've probably heard of this Act, and the debate over the light bulb may be one of the primary reasons you have. But, as is made clear in the description, there's actually a lot more going on in this Act. Title III, Subtitle B addresses lamps. Or rather, "Lighting Energy Efficiency." And, it's not limited to the incandescent light bulb, but that's the one we hear about most. Why? Because the Act, as written, would phase out the A-lamp  that's most common in residential use.

The Act doesn't actually ban the A-lamp, per se. Rather, it sets efficiency standards for "General Illumination Lamps". Note that there are exceptions for three-way lamps and appliance (oven and refrigerator) lamps.

GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS

Rated Lumen Ranges	Maximum Rated Wattage	Minimum Rated Lifetime	Effective Date
1490–2600	72	1,000 hrs	1/1/2012
1050–1489	53	1,000 hrs	1/1/2013
750–1049	43	1,000 hrs	1/1/2014
310–749	29	1,000 hrs	1/1/2014

What's a lumen?  It's a measure of lamp intensity - the amount of light a source gives off.
A table from Energy Star gives minimum lumen output for our standard tungsten incandescent light bulbs:

INCANDESCENT BULBS (WATTS)	MINIMUM LIGHT OUTPUT (LUMENS)
5	250
40	450
60	800
75	1,110
100	1,600
125	2,000
150	2,600

So, as of January of this year, the 100W and 125W incandescent lamps are phased out.  A new incandescent lamp could be introduced to replace them, but the new lamp would need to give off as much light as a 100W light bulb, while using only 72 Watts.


Lighting is important - it gives us the ability to perform tasks, discern objects and colors, and enhances security. It also affects our health - not just our eyesight, but our sleep patterns, mood, and cellular production.
I'll cover more about the differences between incandescent, fluorescent, and LED sources in a separate entry.  In the meantime, my favorite way to save energy?  Turn off the devices you're not using!


Edit: New HTML

Defining an Audience

I haven't posted in a while.  The truth is, the longer I don't post, the easier it is to not post.  And, the longer I don't post the less likely anyone's reading this, because people don't generally stick around for dead blogs.

Back in August, I had all sorts of ideas for things to share, relating to sustainable travel, what it means to be president, and wedding planning.  And then, I let myself (again) get distracted by life.  None of it got written.

All guides to blogging agree.  To get an audience, to have a purpose, you need to post regularly.  So that's my mid-October resolution.  Not just the nebulous "post regularly", but "post twice a week."  We'll see where we go from there.  I think bi-weekly posts are just frequent enough to challenge me without holding me back.  It takes three weeks to form a habit, so the goal is to keep that posting cycle up through Christmas.  Yes, more than three weeks, but today is about goal-setting!

Well, now that's settled, we're back to the matter at hand - Random Musings and Observations.  What do I have?  I originally thought I'd start out writing about things here and there, in a bit of a stream of consciousness.  there's some of that, but it's not become what I thought it'd be.  I suppose I could even argue that I've changed and don't relate quite the same way to the original blog lead. So, I think the blog needs a bit of a face-lift.  The question I have in mind is whether that face lift is in fact starting a new blog.  And if so, is that here on blogger or elsewhere?  I'm deciding to stay here for now, thanks to advice from Pugly Pixel.  There's not really something Blogger is missing that I need, although I do wish it was easier to organize the blog feed.

What is it that I want to write about?  What would a new blog be called?  In my mind, there's hiking/trail reviews (we need to get back to doing more of this), family homelife, sustainability, food resources, and things related to my hobbies and work.  Okay, and sometimes politics, but I really try to keep that balanced and un-ranty - not always successfully.  I want to write more about charity and giving.  These aren't random things.    They're my life and things that go through my mind.  It's a way I find focus and explore ideas.

What do I want readers to get out of this?  In truth, there is a bit of a self-serving aspect to the posts I put together.  I try to research many of the topic and look for opinions from multiple angles.  While it doesn't tend to lead to a totally new world perspective, it does make me consider other points and generally leads me away from a hard-line perspective.  And those are my two primary goals: to educate and create awareness, and to offer, at least, resources to other perspectives.  To break black-and-white thinking on some issues, and to bring attention to others that people may not know.  To share my own experience in hopes that they will interest, or at least entertain, others.  Growth.  I am not just writing for myself.  I hope to generate, and even participate in, new dialogues.

What do I want to get from my readers?  Audience.  Interest.  Challenge.  Dialogue.  Direction.  If I want you to stick around, I want to make sure I'm giving you a reason to come back.  And your feedback helps me to do that!

Where does that leave me?  I'm not really embarrassed of my past - just my inconsistency.  If I can hold to making regular posts, perhaps I could find an audience and they would forgive my early aloofness.  But I'm not happy with the title or blog description.  So, let's take some ownership.  These are Kacy's Musings and Observations.  Perhaps they have some randomness, but not really.  they're related (at least in my mind).


So, here I start on my challenge.  I hope that you'll enjoy it.  I hope you might even find it worth sharing.  Let me know if you're around for any of the ride!

Keeping all angles in mind

I continue to find myself contemplating pesticide spraying for mitigation of the spread of West Nile virus. My post yesterday mentioned some of the criticism against the idea, but generally leaned in favor, I think. I'll confess, that's where I find myself. Most of the information I found from the health departments, CDC, and other government agencies seem generally in favor of a spraying program, particularly when the spread of disease has reached the extent that it has in north Texas. But, I think it's important to hear from both sides. 

So, today, I have focused on discenting views. This paper, regarding pesticide spraying in Maine, raises serious concerns about the risk-benefit of chemical control measures. It is important to note that this is dated 2001, over a decade ago. It is specific to Maine and the New England economy, but many of those items can be adapted to Southern environments. Perhaps the paper's greatest strength is its discussion of non-chemical control measures and the FAQ.

 The dated-ness does raise some concern for me. The paper describes the threat the virus poses uses the "epidemic" information available at the time - the 1999 NYC outbreak. Comparing the number of cases there to the population of the area, 10 million, leads to the conclusion that only a few will face real exposure. The 2011 census for the DFW metroplex is about 6.5 million, but already the number of reported cases exceed that of the NYC outbreak. (Per the paper NYC had 68 reported cases and 7 deaths, both of which have been exceeded in Dallas County alone, to date.). So the incidence rate of this outbreak is much greater than that of 1999. The 1996 Romanian outbreak, also referenced, may be a better model. Another important distinction is the proportion of West Nile fever versus encephalitis.

(Look for edits here!)

As for myself, my neighborhood is getting aerial spray this evening. We brought in uor clothesline, orange tree, and potted herbs, and covered sensitive, producing plants in our garden. We left the tomato plants alone, since there's a month before they'll produce again, and the watermelon, since pesticides don't penetrate the rind. And yep, we put on bug spray before we headed out there.

To spray or not to spray?

I've talked about pesticides before, mostly in regard to gardening.  The question of how to minimize loss to pests (bugs, disease, animals) is one that those interested in growing food struggle with regularly.  What constitutes "safe" or "organic" practice?  Am I at the mercy of the caterpillars, aphids, and grasshoppers?  As Jeff Gillman points out in The Truth About Organic Gardening, the answer isn't so black-and-white.  The question isn't really, "Is this okay?" But really, "Do the benefits outweigh the risks?"  Unfortunately, the risks may not always be so clear, on either side.

We had a fairly mild winter, with only one or two very short freezes.  Long enough to kill some of my veggies, but not enough to kill off the weeds...or the bugs.  That, coupled with a relatively wet spring, as resulted in a local boon in the mosquito population.  Mosquitoes a la wiki

Mosquitoes have long been trouble (literally, tens of millions of years!) - besides being a nuisance, they are one of the "best" spreaders of some dangerous pathogens.  They have been responsible for the spread of all sorts of diseases: malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and West Nile virus, among others.  It's the last that brings me to write.

According to the CDC, and as of 14 Aug, 2012 has seen more cases of West Nile in the US to date than any other year since it was first reported in 1999.  About 50% of those have been in Texas, and most of those have been in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.  By the CDC numbers, Dallas County alone has had 114 of the 693 reported cases this year.  In Texas, 17 have died from the disease this year.  Texas Department of Health statistics

What those numbers suggest is that there's a bit of a public health crisis in DFW.  We're in the middle of August - almost to the height of mosquito activity.  In other words, the culprits will be hanging around for a while.  So, the local governments, Offices of Public Health, and CDC have gotten involved.

Some communities (including my own) have started local pesticide spraying programs.  Trucks drive around with foggers in the late evening, when most people and animals should be inside.  It's targeted - focused on areas with positive mosquito pools and confirmed human cases.  The local governments have declared an emergency and several, most notably Dallas County, are moving to approve aerial spraying which can start as early as tomorrow night.  It's a huge decision; mass spraying has not been used in the metroplex for over a decade.

Critics, though, point to "natural" or "safer" methods of controlling the mosquito population.  They raise concern about the safety of the sprayed pesticides.  (And, I'll had that asking these questions is good.  But here is where we must get past the black & white "chemicals are bad" mindset and look at the whole issue.)  Some neighboring cities, like Fort Worth, had not moved toward pesticide spraying as quickly as other municipalities, and critics pointed toward them as an example of a more conservative approach that focused on public outreach and education.  (In the past day or two, Fort Worth has announced the commencement of limited spraying, though.)

The CDC's protocol for mosquito outbreaks is clear and available online.  And spraying is, if you will, the next step, when larvacide and area control don't seem to be enough.  The CDC recognizes that there will likely be public resistance:

"Wide-area pesticide use is controversial in some communities. As the Environmental Protection Agency indicates, “no pesticide is 100% safe and care must be exercised in the use of any pesticide.”...Studies by the EPA, Karpati, et al.; Currier, M, et al.; and Peterson, et al. support the idea that the benefits of controlling the spread of vectors with pesticides, when conducted according to the directions on the label, outweigh the risks of potential harmful health effects from pesticide spraying...Mosquito control programs can use these [town hall] meetings to discuss how the relative health risk of pesticide spraying is considerably lower than the risks posed by many mosquito-borne diseases such as West Nile virus."

The debate/battle is a question of immediate public health risk versus long-term and environmental concerns.  Of course, these pesticides are not so specific as to only target mosquitoes.  The spray in question, pyrethroid, is toxic to aquatic organisms and bees.  It warns against being used on agricultural land.  But, it's also approved by the EPA for exactly this purpose - public health.

It is important to note that one time spraying does not eliminate the threat.  Only those mosquitoes that come in contact with the spray will be killed.  Typically, multiple applications are required.  And adult mosquitoes are only a portion of the problem - continued larvacide application and removal of breeding area is necessary to prevent more mosquitoes from hatching.

Education is an important first step (and one that has certainly been in the media the past few weeks).  It's not practical to tell people to avoid mosquitoes altogether, so instead, authorities are adivising the public to:

• Use insect repellents containing DEET, picaridin, or oil of lemon eucalyptus.  (MJ and I acquired some for our home a few weeks ago.)
• Wear long pants and long sleeves outside.  (A challenge when it's 100+ after 7 pm!)
• Avoid being outdoors when mosquitoes are most active at dusk and dawn.
• Drain standing water.  This is the breeding ground for mosquitoes.

"The mere implementation of risk communication messages does not mean that the public will immediately accept the program’s advice. The target audience must also see the recommended actions as practical and feasible. The public must also believe that the risk is substantial enough to take action. Several West Nile virus studies suggest that many people who ignore advice to wear repellent or adopt other preventive measures do so because they do not perceive the risk of contracting mosquito-borne disease to be high enough to warrant such actions. People most often report they believe their time of exposure is too short for them to be bitten or that repellents are inconvenient as reasons for non-use of repellent." -Before the Storm, CDC

So there is personal responsibility at play.  There's another complication, as well.  Mosquitoes have wings, so simply ignoring the insect does not solve the issue.  While there is a certain concentration to the current reported cases, there's also some evidence that the affected area is increasing, with central Texas reporting some cases as well.  Containment is needed.  Sometimes you need a really big hammer to stop the escalation.  And perhaps, if there ever was a time to consider wide-use pesticide, this is the sort of time that merits it.

What do you think?

More reading:
Dallas Morning News editorial, 9 August 2012
The spray program
Editorial on risks of West Nile virus
Fort Worth starts spraying (Includes interesting statistics on who has been infected)

Enemies no longer

It all started out innocently enough.  My youth group had volunteered at the animal shelter for a day, and I missed out.  But, they shared stories about how much they enjoyed visiting with the animals, walking the dogs, petting the cats, in short, giving the animals some loving human interaction.  So, I thought it might be fun for MJ and I to do the same.

Now MJ had a fear - I have a soft heart for animals and he was quite worried that our dog walk might be all the way from the shelter to home - with a new pet.  No, I said.  We just moved into a new house, we haven't unpacked everything, we aren't ready for a dog.  Now, we'd talked about adding pets.  We have a lovely affectionate cat, and I'd always wanted her to have a friend.  But, the apartment pet policy made it prohibitive for us to have two, so Mox was a solo cat from her adoption almost two years ago.  Perhaps you already see where this is going...

It was four visits to the shelter before I brought along a cat carrier.  Four visits in the course of about a week.    I stayed true to the dog comments.  (After all, wouldn't it be easier to introduce Mox to another cat before we brought a dog in?)  But, we found ourselves seduced by "Gold Eyes".

Before we brought Little Cat home, I read a lot of web resources about introducing a new pet into the household.  Some details varied, but generally all agreed that you should isolate the New Cat in a room with food, water, litter box, bed, and toys to herself, while letting the Existing Cat continue to have the rest of her realm.  Let NC get accustomed to her new surroundings and people, and give EC time to get used to the idea.  Introduce them to the other's cat's scent on you.  No face-to-face introduction.  They also talked about the "best" companions - smaller than the EC, younger, possibly the opposite gender - neutered.  We had no idea how Mox would react to a new cat, so we ruled out some sweet, gentle older, larger cats who might have seemed threats.  But "Gold Eyes" was curious, playful, and only about nine months old (and not spayed).

There was an issue right away.  We had Little Cat's room set up for her and ready to go.  But, Little cat needed little time to adjust.  She was ready to play and explore and not interested in being locked in a room alone.  And she's fast.  So, the first or second night, opening the door, Little Cat ran out - into Mox who was just outside the door.  Hissing, upset cats, and not at all the introduction the experts recommended.

Your futile begging will gain you naught.

Little Cat continued to meow and fuss at the door she was trapped behind.  Mox would walk up to it and hiss or just lie outside, watching.

We started giving Little Cat more rooms to explore in the evenings when we were home - never letting her in the master bedroom, but keeping her in the area between that and the main room, with Mox in the main room.  I tried feeding them wet canned food (a treat; they get dry) under the door.  Mox was okay with this, provided there was at least two feet (and a door) between them.  At the end of a week, we left them loose together.  Mox continued to hiss when she saw Little Cat.  They chased each other.  There was growling (but no biting).  I was worried this might not work out.  MJ thought we should let them be and work out their own terms.

Mine.  And don't you forget it.

So, time passed and they did.  In particular - Mox was boss, and my bed was her domain.  So was MJ and I.  Any interaction between us and Little Cat got a glaring Mox watching.
Experts say you should play with them together, with a common toy.  That didn't work for us.  Little Cat is full of energy, spontaneous, and attacks right away.  Mox takes her time (so much time!) and stalks, considers, and then pounces.  Generally, this led to Mox going after Little Cat instead of the toy.  Or else, just walking away, bitter.

Over time, the hissing lessened, although Mox always wanted to know what Little Cat was doing and where she was.  For her part, Little Cat wanted to play.  A lot.  More than laid-back, easy-going, people-interested Mox wanted.  Still, it wasn't long before we decided we were comfortable leaving them out together while we went out.  It was relief to come home to both cats with two ears, full tails, and no blood or clumps of fur.

When the time came to take Little Cat to get neutered, Mox seemed a little joyful to have the house to herself.  "Finally, you've taken the usurper away!"  She was less than pleased when Little Cat returned the next day, smelling a bit like the vet (or so I'm told).  In only a couple of days, though, the hissing stopped again and they found a common interest.  Patio bugs.

I felt encouraged to find them sitting near each other, peacefully.

Now, they aren't cuddling up next to each other, and Mox still chases Little Cat away from any box (or my bed) that she decides she wants.  And there's still a bit of a jealous glare if we hold or pet Little Cat.  (Little Cat isn't big on being held anyway.)  But they aren't enemies.  They even play together.  (At the moment, Little Cat is crawling on the floor under a box lid and luring Mox to attack her.  Like a turtle.  It is basically hysterical.)  Perhaps they'll end up being friends after all.

Have you introduced new pets to one another?  How did it go?  What surprised you?

Summer lovin'

Lots of changes in the MJ-KC household, including the addition of a new kitty, the purchase of a house, and the announcement that there's a wedding to plan for!  Those are all very exciting things, and work has certainly been keeping me busy as well.  All of this means I've been rather distracted.

So to get back into gear here, an update on the two issues I mentioned in March:

1) Petition to outlaw BPA.
FDA was set to decide on this back in March.  Here's some discussion of it (and the Safe Cosmetics Act legislation) in Forbes.  The result?  The FDA rejected the ban proposal, claiming that the studies presented were inconclusive about the effect of BPA on humans.  (They did acknowledge that there are serious concerns about BPA's affect on children.)
So what happens now?
Well, despite the FDA's ruling, public concern about BPA has been on the increase.  So for now, we have market-driven reduction in BPA products, with many companies bragging that their products are "BPA-free."  One caution here, though.  While there's a case to be made that BPA is toxic, not much is known about the polymer products that will replace it.  Buying another plastic that is BPA-free may or may not be any safer than the BPA-product.
Another important point? Studies of BPA exposure suggest that the greatest exposure to BPA is from canned goods.  (BPA is used as a liner to prevent cans from rusting - a danger itself.)  BPA is used because it works well for this purpose and it's difficult to replace.  So changing your water bottles and Tupperware-ish containers aren't going to stop all of your exposure.  (Although it's worth noting that several major companies, like Campbell's and Heinz, have announced plans to phase out BPA.)  Another common source?  Receipts.
Time covered the FDA non-ban, too  A quick read detailing the concerns and the reasoning behind the FDA decision.


The final word on BPA isn't here yet though.  Just last month, Congressman Ed Markey petitioned the FDA to remove approval for BPA in infact formula packaging.  His reasoning?  It's been largely abandoned and should no longer be used.


2) Petition to label products containing GMOs
The FDA received the results of the "Just Label It" campaign in March - declaring that it received 394 comments.  How so few?  Well, the FDA counts multiple matching form letters as one "comment".  And a petition with hundred of thousands of signatures?  That counts as one "comment." too.  Read about such counting techniques from The Chicago Tribune.  To be fair, I sorta see where they're coming from, at least if you're talking about concerns to respond to.  There are 394 individual concerns voiced.  However, that doesn't equate to lack of public concern.
What happens next?
Well, there's still a lot of noise on this one.  Several states are sending proposed required labeling laws to the ballot.  If those pass, things get complicated for manufacturers, as it may set different requirements in Vermont than California than Kansas.
New York Times has a fairly comprehensive summary.
It's a complicated issue, to be sure, as some genetic modification is less worrisome than other.
To give equal time, some defense of GMOs by a biologist.

Headed to Washington

No, I'm not headed to the East Coast anytime soon, but there's a few bits of legislation related to things I've mentioned here that you ought to be aware of.  (It's up to you how you might want to respond.)

The first I discovered from an Environmental Working Group headline:
"This month, we have an unprecedented opportunity to make sure our food is free of bisphenol A. By March 31 - just days away - the federal Food and Drug Administration plans to decide whether or not to continue allowing food packaging that leaches BPA. There is no time to lose - the FDA has to hear from you before it makes its call. The government needs to know that Americans will not stand for food contaminated with toxic chemicals. Email the FDA today and tell them you want BPA out of your food's packaging!"


By now, you've probably heard about the debate and risks of BPA.  It's research that's been building for years but now seems to point pretty solidly to two concerns: BPA is absorbed by the body and can be measured in saliva, urine, and breast milk; BPA is a hormone disrupter and linked to several cancers and other conditions (insulin resistance, for example).  More and more companies are removing BPA from their re-usable products (often using this fact as a marketing tool) and it's banned for use in baby bottles in many countries.  Even taking BPA out of water bottles, exposure sources remain.  One of the most common is in food packaging.  
Why use BPA in packaging?  Well, it forms a barrier between the packaging (say a tin can) and the food itself. However, while the bag or can is protected and reinforced, the BPA itself can still leach into the food, particularly acidic foods like tomato sauces and coconut milk.  


Till now there really hasn't been much regulation for the containers that food is stored and shipped in - here's an opportunity to speak up about it.




The second is a petition to label foods that use GMO (genetically modified organism) products.  This one is a pretty heated debate, that quickly leads into discussion about more global issues about how food gets from the farm or factory to our table and the politics involved.  However, if you want to learn more from the pro-label side, check out: justlabelit.org  This organization has filed a petition with the FDA that you can join from their website:
A legal petition (Docket # FDA-2011-P-0723-0001/CP) has been filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calling on the FDA to label genetically engineered (GE) foods. 

(There are multiple organizations devoted to this cause, largely in the organic market.)
Should labeling GMO products be de-facto (like allergy labels have become) or should companies that avoid GMO products be the ones to label their products as a self-promotion tool?  One argument here is that GMOs appear in unexpected places that the consumer might not even know to look out for.


So go forth and learn about these issues - and act if you find yourself interested in these questions!

Is this spring that I'm feeling?

MJ has a theme for our garden this year.  He's actually had it for almost half a year, ever since he first saw seeds for purple tomatillos at one of our gardening stores.  Last year was not optimal for planting them - summer was oppressive and long and we wouldn't have had time to grow medium-long growth plants from seeds.  But this year, we're starting early.

The theme is "purple."  Not long after seeing those seeds, we found some purple pak choi seedlings and the idea was born.  (Incidentally, pak/bok choi - pretty tasty and grew well for our fall garden.)

We had a beautiful weekend and headed to the gardening stores with the idea of getting tomatoes in now.  (I'd read that this was the time to do that in Texas - the idea of a 9 month+ growing season is still a bit "off" to me.) After much consideration, we picked up some tomatoes (including two purple varieties), snow peas, purple pak choi, and dark kale.  We did go get those tomatillo seeds, too, as well as picking up some watermelon and pumpkin seeds.  That, plus some beet seeds and swiss chard plants that survived the winter, completed our garden.  We'll be adding some pepper plants to fill it out.  For those interested in such things, there are a few heirloom varieties in there - three tomoato plants, specifically.

We're definitely excited to see how we do.  We spent some time prepping the soil - weeding the weeds that this winter was not cold enough to kill, and adding fresh compost, top soil and fertilizer.  We feel that each year we try this garden thing we learn more and get better; I'm actually a little concerned that we may have started having "expectations", rather than just being pleased to get something, anything.

Happy new year! What are you reading?

Hello, and welcome back!  Have you noticed that each break between post groups gets shorter?  Perhaps after a few years I'll actually have a regular, disciplined posting schedule!  But seriously, I've been spending the past few months healing - first from some sort of infection/cold gak and then surgery.  Everything appears to be good on the latter front, but motivation doesn't seem to accompany recovery.  At least, not for me.  In my absence, though, so many random musings, some of which may make it to "print"!


Two quick book reviews to share tonight.  Both are books that others inspired me to read.




The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right by Atul Gawande was brought to my attention by Tom Young, a leader at J.R.Clancy.  Tom writes a number of articles and blurbs in his role, including a newsletter for specifiers.  In one of these, Tom mentioned this book, which I took note of but continued on to other pursuits.  (My reading list is ever-growing and will probably never be empty.)  After one of my co-workers read it and found it "interesting," I decided to give it a look myself.  I was gifted a copy and several months later started in.  Why the delay?  Well, how intriguing does a book about checklists sound?


After reading, it should sound like a good, easy read.  The premise is very simple, and perhaps it doesn't need about 200 pages to explain.  Simply put, Gawande's thesis is that well-designed checklists help avoid preventable, common mistakes, particularly in high-stress situations.  However, by taking a full book to discuss this, Gawande takes the reader through multiple industries, including construction and aviation, before focusing on healthcare, his own specialty.  The book is a result of his research with the WHO to improve surgical success rates, whether the surgery is in a well-funded American or British hospital, or an under-staffed and under-supplied facility in Africa.  I'm sure you can guess the proposed solution.


"Despite showing (hospital) staff members of the benefits of using the checklist, 20% resisted stating that it was not easy to use, it took too long and felt it had not improved the safety of care. Yet, when asked an additional question - would you want the checklist to be used if you were having an operation - a full 93% said yes."


Much of the text reads like a medical drama - war stories from operating rooms.  Still, it's engaging. And, I confess, while we were preparing for my surgery in December, I asked my doctor/surgeon about checklists and whether the hospital used one.  She admitted they did, and we discussed it a little.  Of course, part of the point of the book is that the theory isn't restricted to one or two industries - and that perhaps a checklist would be well-utilized in your own practice.
I'll have to ask Tom if his reading of the book changed any of the practices in his company.  




The second book takes less introduction.  Driving with our then-middle school youth director and some students to a church youth retreat, conversation turned to a book that many of the boys had read, some required to - The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.  I had never heard of it before and my director friend advised me that I ought to read it.  It's not quite a year later, but the buzz around this book has only been increasing, especially with a soon-to-be-released movie based on the novel.  


In a lucky find at Half Price Books (they can't keep it in stock), I grabbed a copy.  One Friday evening, I picked it up and started reading.  By mid-afternoon the next day, I was done.  It's been a long time since I've been so captivated by the world of a book that I simply devoured it.  (Harry Potter was likely the most recent one.  Perhaps I'm a sucker for young adult literature.)  It took me a couple of chapters to really get into the story, but then I was hooked.  The story takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where most of the people in North America live in an impoverished state imposed upon them by the capital to keep them sedate.  A similar motivation is behind the Hunger Games, an annual event pitting adolescents from every district against each other in a fight to the death.  


A few political themes are raised, as are some questions about moral relativity, growing up, responsibility, and hope geared particularly to the younger audience.  Even though I had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen, I kept turning the pages to see whether or not it all worked out the way I assumed it had to.  By Sunday, I had MJ started o it and was checking the library webpage to see if the second in the series was available.  (It's a trilogy.)  It wasn't, by the way.  And, I missed my chance this weekend and find myself back on the end of an even longer waiting list. But I will read it, soon - and likely as quickly as the first.  If you haven't read any of them yet, I recommend taking a look before the movies come out.