The closest I have been to tropic is hermosa beach calif, and a couple days in Jacksonville just ahead of a hurricane. To a miserable cold Michigander California had something fabulous: fluffy dark red porous soil. When it rained the rain went in like a sieve. Michigan soil by contrast (except for the sandy sites) makes a heavy dark mud when it rains. It holds the water in dirty puddles. Water gorged earthworms coating the sidewalks after a summer rain are childhood memories. Calif and Florida dirt seems light and fresh. Also the succulents. So many plants had thicker leaves or waxy flowers giving a richness. Florida had a scent - spicy-musty that might have come from all the mulch used. My imaginary tropics is defined by a warm and somewhat humid air, plant scents, and especially birds, parrots and exotics with louder calls and brilliant colors. The nights are not cold (like california). There would naturally be more water: waterfalls, streams, ponds, fountains. A palm tree or two would not hurt but aren't required. I think of flowers colored white, pink, red more than yellow, orange. Funny that in Michigan I find plantings with white blossoms cold looking, but in a tropical setting I would find them rich and warm looking. Wouldn't expect to see a field of blue flowers in the tropics.

My desire to avoid GMO that have been modified to resist glyphosate is not out of ignorance. I am also not against genetic modification. In fact, on Friday I toured a lab at MSU that was working on the genetic modification of many crops, including blueberries. The ways plants can be genetically modified is vast, but the ones on the market have been modified in very few ways, one primary one is to be resistant to glyphosate in order to facilitate more use of that herbicide. The lab I visited was working on the genetics of cold tolerance. The main obstacle to other types of genetic modification in plants is the cost of the basic research--who is going to pay for it? The blueberry industry does not have the vast resources of Monsanto. And Monsanto invested in all that money in genetic research they thought would be most likely to benefit their company. I have no problem with that either, but don't argue it was for the betterment of civilization or for the health of the human race. And if you've ever really delved into the scientific studies on some of these things, you will find that we don't know far more than we know. Certain questions are not asked and not studied because there is little funding to do so. DDT was deemed safe for many years. But then it was found that the long range effects of it were significant because it didn't break down and built up in the environment because it adhered to fat cells that accumulated in the tissues of animals, including humans. That was not extensively studied in advance. DDT is still used in some countries because they don't care if it does that, they feel the benefits outweigh the costs or else they don't have a choice. But pests developing resistance to herbicides and pesticides is well known and studied, it is the same process by which bacteria and viruses develop resistance to antibiotics. This is why integrated pest management is preferred and disease prevention is so important. Integrated means pest management is built into the way you do business. And planting thousands of acres of the same crop year after year is just inviting pest trouble, not a system that is designed to be unattractive to pests, just the opposite. So if you farm using this system, you are forever tied to chemical pest control. I'm not picking on farmers, they have a right to do business as they see fit, but I want foods labeled if they have been modified for resistance to glyphosate. There are many industrial uses of corn and soybeans that do no involve eating them, so they can grow their thousands of acres for that if they want, and for the folks who don't mind eating food that has been routinely sprayed with glyphosate. I am not even sure how much of the corn or soybean crop even goes into food. It's odd to me that folks lump all genetic modification together and then argue that "genetic modification" is safe, when actually we are talking about the widespread use of Bt toxin insecticide and glyphosate, not the genetic modification process itself, which as I started this note by saying, can be used to do a multitude of things, but currently is limited to resistance to a few types of pesticide, which then allows their widespread use. OK, don't label it as genetically modified then, label it as "modified to resist glyphosate" or "modified to contain Bt." So I want to be clear, I am not concerned about the process of genetic modification, which humans have been doing one way or the other for thousands of years, I am concerned about the specific modification that allows for resistance to glyphosate and also engineering Bt toxins into corn. That one is a problem because Bt is actually an organic pesticide because it breaks down readily in the environment. Using it in such a widespread manner, increases the danger that its effective lifespan will be shortened. I know organic farmers who are totally against this Bt corn because they fear it will eventually take one of their most effective tools out of the equation by speeding up resistance. I'm not even concerned about Bt or glyphosate, it is just the widespread use of them, or in the case of genetically modified corn and soybeans, the mandatory use of them.

Physicians' Formula makes a mineral face powder with no talc. I like it a lot because it looks good, doesn't bother my allergies, and has in a well-designed container with its own brush and mirror that is small enough to fit in my purse. It is not very expensive and the quality is good. Since "aging skin" tends to be dry, I find it's best to use a good moisturizer first, before the powder. I also dab a bit of liquid foundation on my nose and under my eyes with a damp wedge sponge before applying powder. I watched a news segment this morning where they advised us to buy high-quality foundation (for the smooth consistency) and mascara, but that the cheaper brands of powder, blush and lipstick weren't much different from the high-priced ones. I like the Clinique moisturizing foundation that comes in a tube, even though it is a bit costly. At my age, I use very pale blush and go easy on the eye makeup. Speaking of cost, why are you skimping on your makeup? I think you deserve to use cosmetics that suit you, and I'll bet you could save money on something else in your budget instead.

Forgive me Homer, but I gotta say it... MMMMM BACON! My mother always kept a can for grease and would use some, but often it'd get thrown (horrors!) but fear not, there was an ongoing supply that kept coming through. Occasionally I'll save some bacon grease if I'm planning a use in the next few days. While camping, grease is a great campfire starter. Again, shameful waste! But oh what a fire! And one of my secrets to great coleslaw is pouring a drizzle of the bacon fat over the cabbage. Not so much that it's greasy, but boy does it add flavor. Most people think it just comes from the ample amount of bacon that goes in there (after all, bacon = better, so more bacon = more better) and don't realize there's the extra flavor. Wildchild hit it right. And one has to laugh at the number people who get in their cars to drive to a gym or mall to walk. It speaks volumes. And the difference so often overlooked is while the couch potatoes count carbs and calories, previous generations worked it off in the fields, doing chores or whatever. 5000 calorie diets kept them healthy, and they burned it off without buying a miracle buttmaster from an infomercial. Yeah, getting off topic a bit I know. Back to the topic. I don't have a good cast iron pan to do the bacon grease cornbread. That's the type of cornbread I like.