The unmasking of a school lunch hero: Mrs. Q speaks

Sarah Wu, aka Mrs. Q.Photo: Jill BrazelSome of you may already know of Mrs. Q, the teacher who blogged anonymously about her adventures eating lunch in the cafeteria of the public school where she worked every day in 2010. Her daily posts included pictures of each day's meal (pizza, chicken nuggets, pasta with meat sauce, etc.) and brief descriptions of how they tasted and made her feel. This simple formula gained Mrs. Q a huge following of teachers, parents, students, and citizens interested in changing the food system (improving school lunch, many reformers say, could be a step toward combating childhood obesity).

Now that her book, Fed Up with Lunch, has been released, the world can finally know Mrs. Q. as Sarah Wu, a speech pathologist working in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) whose first career, in a weirdly ironic twist, was at Kraft Foods ("I knew that it was not right for me at all," she said).

Wu's unlikely rise to food-movement stardom (she's been featured on The View and Good Morning America) began when she simply forgot her lunch one day and ended up buying one from the school cafeteria. Wu still works for CPS, although she has voluntarily transferred from the school where she ate for a year (for "self-preservation"). Just in time to wrap up National School Lunch Week, we recently had a chance to chat with her about what this project means, for her and for school food everywhere.

Q. How did you decide to commit to this challenge, and why did you take this anonymous, Morgan Spurlock-esque immersion approach?

A. At that point [the beginning of 2010], I had worked for CPS for three years. I'd noticed the food, but I think at the time I was just concerned about doing a great job as a speech therapist. I had a little boy who was just turning one, and starting to eat real food at home, and I was really starting to consider, well, what is it that I'm putting on the table? I had always figured that I was a healthy cook; we didn't eat fast food. I would never let my son eat what they served me that day, and I was just heartbroken that my students were going home to potentially not very good food, and a lot of them live in poverty -- it was pretty disheartening to see that.

I think I ended up making more of a dent by doing what I did, instead of trying to do advocacy at the local level. My objective was to put those lunches out there because I was affected by them. But I didn't want to be the kind of person [who is] labeled as a rabble-rouser. I'm not like that.

Q. For people who may have already followed your blog, what more does the book offer?

A. As an anonymous blogger, there's tons that I wasn't able to say. I didn't tell anyone that I'd worked at Kraft, which I think adds an interesting dimension. I didn't tell anybody what the school district was; I didn't get into a lot of detail, even though I blogged every day. So the book really is a journey; it's the story of me going along my little way, and everything that I learned about the food system, and ingredients, and health and wellness topics in general. I talk about recess, because the school I was at last year had no recess. People in power making stupid choices on behalf of kids, that's really the problem.

Q. What's been the most surprising thing throughout this whole experience?

A. What's been the most surprising is the reception from my coworkers. They want to talk to me about these issues. For example, a coworker of mine came up to me and said, "I'm so proud of you, the food they're feeding the kids is crap and we need to change it." He would never have started that conversation with me [before]. That's been most surprising, that people were not angry about what I did. I felt a lot of inner turmoil, because I was struggling with the fact that I want to be a great speech pathologist, I want to be a good employee, I take pride in my work, and I didn't want to jeopardize that. And I didn't want to be labeled as this bitch. So I totally miscalculated their response.

Q. For parents who are aware of or concerned about their kids' school lunches, but aren't sure where to start in terms of making changes, what's your advice?

A. I've changed my son's daycare food slightly by just asking the right questions. It's either parent-teacher night, or report card pickup day (which is what they do in Chicago Public Schools) -- that's when you want to ask those questions. Explore the school -- find the lunchroom manager, find the gym teacher, and people who are invested in health and wellness. Chat them up, start asking those questions, talk to the principal, and be nice about it. [Kindness] goes a lot farther than if you come down hard.

Q. Have your blog and book had any effect on Chicago Public Schools?

A. CPS issued a statement last week saying they are adhering to USDA standards and they have been improving. And they're right -- I [ate school lunch] for a calendar year, January to December, so I saw two different school years. There was improvement; there were more fresh veggies and fruit. I don't want to take credit for it because everyone's thinking about this right now. It's amazing.

Q. So how did eating this food every day make you feel? Did it have any effect on your health?

A. I started eating school lunches and it just completely wreaked havoc on my body. I was so grateful to have summer break for recuperation. In June I went to the doctor and got diagnosed with mild asthma, which was odd, and I got a prescription for an inhaler. But I also lost 20 points on my cholesterol, and I think it's because [I was] eating better than I've ever eaten in my life outside of school lunch.

I had suffered from irritable bowel syndrome for many years, and I felt like I sort of had it under control, so I didn't really think about the fact that if you eat school lunch it's going to aggravate everything. I thought, it's just food, and I think that's how a lot of parents think -- who cares, it's no big deal. But really what I learned is: Food is everything! It's our whole life.

Q. You seem to have gained a particular affection for school lunch ladies (or men, as the case may be). What's that about?

A. The person who feeds you creates a relationship with you, you know? It's not just a transaction, it's that human contact. When I feed my son, it's not just putting food in front of him, there's love involved, and that's exactly what happens with lunch ladies. It's not easy working in the lunchroom -- it's hot, you burn yourself all the time, they're tired, but they're there for the kids. Lots of times lunch ladies have other roles in the school. The lunch lady at [the school where I ate for a year] mentored some of the difficult children who were having tough times behaviorally. She reached out to them. That's something I don't think people realize.

Q. So now that your book is out, after the publicity dies down, what's next?

A. Oh my gosh. I don't have a clue. I just enjoy my work. I guess I'm open to possibilities. I didn't do this because I hated my job, I did this because I love my job. So if everything's the same, that's okay.

Claire Thompson is an editorial intern at Grist. She just graduated from Northwestern University and is happy to be back in her hometown of Seattle, proving that her journalism degree is not worthless.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Experiment in (e)co-habitation gets the green light

The G•O Logic prototype passive house.Photo: Steve ChiassonScanning through the website for the Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage development in Belfast, Maine, you might find yourself wondering if this is a buncha pinko commies who've just slapped a fresh coat of paint on the '60s commune-in-the-woods routine. Says here there will be extensive common facilities (uh huh), complete resident management (ayup), a non-hierarchical structure (I have heard this all before). But wait, what's this? Separate income sources?

WTF?

"We probably do have some hippie communists [in the group] that have grown up and look a little different now," says Sanna McKim, the project's founder. "But this is really about a return to an old fashioned neighborhood. I want to have more to do with my neighbors, I want to share more -- but I don't want to share everything."

Oh, thank God.

This super eco-groovy condo-development-to-be will function more like an tight-knit, urban neighborhood than the bong-smoking boondoggles of decades past. The houses, many of them duplexes and triplexes, will be clustered together to leave room for farming and forests on the rest of the 42-acre site -- and they'll be small by design, to encourage residents to spend more time in shared spaces both in- and outdoors.

A clubhouse -- "common house" in co-housing lingo -- will serve as a community center where residents can gather and where meals will be served five nights a week for any who want to partake. (Imagine dragging yourself home from work to find that dinner is already served! You cook maybe one night a month, and enjoy the fruits of others' labor the rest of the time. But only if you feel like it!)

"It's a way of bringing more leisure and social life for busy parents," McKim says.

The site is something less than two miles from the grocery store and schools: "It's bike-able, walk-able , draft horse-able," says McKim, who used to farm with horse-power. (Her husband, Alan Gibson, is a former horse logger.)

And the homes themselves will be quite remarkable as well. They will be built under the "passive house" model, developed in Germany, meaning that they will be so snug and airtight that no furnace is required to keep them warm through the New England winters. (Passivhaus fans like to brag that you can heat these homes with a hair dryer.) The company that will design and build the houses, G•O Logic, has won a stack of accolade for its prototype passive house, built just down the road. (Check out the video at the end of this post for a totally geek-tastic home tour.)

The bulldozers cleared the access road just last week, so after a long planning process, building can finally begin. So far, 24 families have bought in as partners in the ecovillage. There's room for 12 more.

McKim says living in a community like this is bound to come with challenges, but apparently we've learned a thing or two about living well together in the last 40 years -- or she hopes so: "If we can't [live peacefully together] with a small group of people, how are we going to do it globally?"

Grist special projects editor Greg Hanscom has been editor of the award-winning environmental magazine High Country News and the Baltimore-based city mag, Urbanite. He tweets about cities and the environment at @ghanscom.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The brown revolution: increasing agricultural productivity naturally

A hay field in South Dakota.Photo: Lisa M. HamiltonDusk in western South Dakota. A half-hour ago, at sunset, the world here made its last pulse for the day: Birds hurried between fence posts, mosquitoes emerged from the shadows and feasted furiously, the sweet clover turned iridescent yellow in the late light. Now, the movement has ceased. Even by day it is a quiet landscape, inhabited primarily by meadowlarks and grasses. But as night draws its blue self over this place, the silence is profound.

On this particular 8,000-acre section of the Plains there is a single light in view, coming from inside a trailer. Bustling about camp are three men -- cowboys, you'd probably call them. They certainly look the part, dressed in boots and wide-brimmed hats, one of them splitting old fence posts with an axe to build a campfire, another working on some beef for dinner. They call this pasture Horse Creek for the water running down its center, and on it they have 1,100 yearling cattle.

And yet, for these men the bovines are only a means to a greater end. According to the unofficial ringleader, Jim Howell, their goal is nothing less than helping the world to avert a looming global catastrophe. What they're doing here is not just herding cattle; they are starting what they call "The Brown Revolution."

Howell is not revolutionary looking, being of medium height and middle age, with gray spun into his short, blond hair and a bit of John Denver in his face. Back home in southwest Colorado he runs cattle on land that his family has ranched since the 1880s, but over the years he has worked with cattle from New Mexico to New Zealand. He thinks about the world in a vast way, and articulates his globally-minded perspective with clarity and depth, even when sitting by a campfire.

He is the first to offer that the name the Brown Revolution has its drawbacks, foremost of which is that for many it calls to mind a movement based on dung. (Full of conviction, he wonders optimistically if that will spur people to seek more information.) The name is a modern spin on the Green Revolution of the mid-twentieth century. The Green Revolution greatly increased agricultural productivity in developing countries to meet the demands of a growing world population, then one of the world's great challenges; Howell and his group aim to increase agricultural productivity around the world as a way of addressing one of the great challenges of our time, climate change. But while the Green Revolution hinged on implementing new technology, the Brown Revolution relies on restoring natural systems.

The underlying technique is called holistic management, and was developed by biologist Allan Savory in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) beginning in the 1960s. He saw that the arid grasslands on which the region's people, livestock, and wildlife depended were succumbing to desertification. In looking for a solution, Savory recognized that the grasslands had evolved out of a symbiotic relationship with large, grazing herbivores. In time, he saw that the same was true of similar ecosystems around the world, including that of western South Dakota and the rest of the Great Plains, with its once-great herds of bison.

In arid environments, plant matter doesn't degrade easily on its own -- it needs these large animals to break it down in their rumens and stamp it into the ground and generally work the land. This was accomplished naturally: As the herbivores traveled in large herds for safety against their predators, they would cause a great disturbance to the land; then, for their own sake, they would leave and not return until the plants had had enough rest to regenerate.

Now take away the Great Plains' bison, or the equivalent animals elsewhere, and replace them with cattle, property lines, and fences. The equation still includes large, grazing herbivores, but because they are relatively stationary within the landscape, the symbiosis is lost. Certain areas are overused, and elsewhere plants simply oxidize and die off from underuse; microorganisms decline, water cycles fall apart, and the land gradually collapses.

The basic premise of holistic management is to use livestock like wild animals. But whereas bison on the Great Plains moved through the landscape by instinct, now ranchers must supply that direction. Rather than simply turning cattle into a pasture, these ranchers conduct them like a herd, concentrating bodies to graze one area hard, then leaving it until the plants have regenerated. The effect can be tremendous, with benefits including increased organic matter in the soil, rejuvenation of microorganisms, and restoration of water cycles.

Jim Howell and his partners, biologist Brandon Dalton and rancher Zachary Jones.Photo: Lisa M. HamiltonAccording to Howell and his colleagues, there can also be an exponential increase in the land's ability to sequester carbon. Savory explains in his paper "A Global Strategy for Addressing Global Climate Change" that there are already 12 million hectares (29.7 million acres) of rangeland managed holistically in Australia, Africa, and North America. Increasing those soils' organic matter by 1 percent would remove 3.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from the atmosphere. (For context, he offers that "the annual total emissions from all sources for the year 2000 was an estimated 44 gigatons.") Savory goes on to argue that increasing the organic matter by just 0.5 percent across all of the world's 4.9 billion hectares of rangeland would sequester 720 gigatons of CO2e; increasing it by two percent would sequester 2,880 gigatons. In a nutshell, the Brown Revolution consists of sequestering massive amounts of carbon by bringing holistic management to the world's arid grasslands.

"It has to be done on a freaking massive scale," Howell says, "so it's going to require huge flows of capital to make it work. We're not going to own the whole world, but hopefully we're going to be a significant player at the table and influence land management policy on a global scale."

Howell's goal is twofold: to implement holistic management on enough land as to have an impact on climate change, but also to provide a model that becomes the standard for grasslands management around the world. And he and his team intend to go big, fast. More than once, Howell and his partners referred to the Gates Foundation as an example of the level of influence they hope to wield in coming years.

For now, they have partnered with a handful of alternative-minded investors who are fronting the money to buy land that Howell and his crew then manage and transform; Horse Creek's 8,000 acres are less than one percent of what they hope to buy in the western Plains over the next three years. In the long run, they imagine a publicly-traded entity with shares available to even $10-investors. Because Howell feels so confident in the power of holistic management, his predominant attitude is that more or less all that lies between here and there is just buying the land and making it happen.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Remember when Americans used to care about population? [VIDEO]

These days, when even many environmentalists go out of their way to avoid mention of the P word, it's almost hard to believe that population used to be a mainstream, widely discussed issue. Back in the '60s and '70s, security hawks were worried about global birthrates, average Americans were worried about overcrowding, and enviros were worried about famine and wholesale ecological collapse.

This segment from PBS's Need to Know highlights some of that history, including Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon each pledging to tackle the threat of population growth, and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich making some 20 appearances on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. The video also touches on some of the controversial issues that would eventually lead so many people to back away from population: the right-to-life movement, concerns from African Americans and other minorities, and the hot-button topic of immigration. 

Need to Know is a partner with Grist in the Climate Desk project.

This is the latest in a series of GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof). It's also part of Grist's 7 Billion series.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist, which she cofounded back in the day. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+. She writes on politics, population, and other green issues. She coined the acronym GINK (green inclinations, no kids) and won a 2010 Population Institute Global Media Award for her writing on the childfree choice. If you're like-minded, become a fan of GINK on Facebook. If you're not, no hard feelings.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Riding the crimson tide: bicycling when you have your period

For some, it's hard to go with the flow and cycle during the cycle.Photo: OMARPHOTOWORLDAs someone who writes about gender and cycling, I get asked a lot -- why don't more women ride bikes? My answer is usually that sexism is the problem in general, and economic inequality and the division of unpaid labor in particular. There's nothing essentially gendered about transportation choices.

But every month I get blindsided by the reminder that there is one issue that really is ours and ours alone.

Menstruation, while it's something most women deal with for many years of their life, is hardly a singular, universal experience, though.

Many of the women I spoke with for this piece bike right through their periods with no problems. They were surprised that I was even asking. I was surprised that they were surprised. Clearly this is a topic we don't talk about enough. When I pitched the story to Grist's managing editor, Ted Alvarez, he loved the idea. "We like to publish edgy stories," he said.

"I don't think it's that edgy to talk about having your period," I responded. It's an issue, after all, that half of us can relate to directly and the other half can only gain a better understanding of humanity by hearing about. But he has a point: For some reason it's taboo to discuss menstruation in public.

So in the interest of getting the conversation started, I will tell you that for the past 21 years of my life, everything has slowed down to a crawl for two days a month. Heavy flow, exhaustion, hideous cramps, sore muscles, and a brain-sucking sense of doom mean that getting on a bike, much less off the couch, can be a real struggle. This is often when I do my best thinking and writing, but going anywhere is a pure drag.

Apparently I should listen to these signals, says Dr. Andrea Seiffertt, a health practitioner in Santa Barbara, Calif., who combines Western and Ayurvedic medicine:

Your cycle is when your body is purifying and "re-booting," so taking it easy is the most important thing ... While light exercise and movement makes things flow better and definitely helps with muscle cramping and aches, pushing against or ignoring your body's messages to rest isn't healthy. If possible I'd suggest public transport or carpool on those days, or if you work from home like I do, permission to chill more than a normal day.

While I heard from women who have similar experiences to mine, many other women I spoke with said that they have more energy than usual during the heaviest days of their periods and actively seek longer rides as a way to manage the discomfort of cramps and bloating.

"Definitely listen to your own body," responds Seiffertt.

Some issues are more universally frustrating. "I have a white saddle," says my friend Maria Schur, who works at a local bike shop and races bikes in her free time. "Sometimes it gets red." 

Schur is admirably unflappable, but for those of us who do most of our riding in street clothes rather than easily-changed Lycra, a lack of functional menstrual products can be a messy problem. Pads bunch and chafe -- and reusable ones are worse than thin disposables. Tampons, for those unfazed by getting intimate with nasty toxins, can leak -- and oh, that uncomfortable string.

Writer and bicycling mom Marion Rice voiced this frustration in an article a few years ago, and dozens of responses rolled in giving accolades to silicon cups for use by the menstruating pedalers of the world. The two widely available brands are the Diva Cup and the Keeper. Word to the wise: Several women said the bottom tabs of these cups can chafe unless they are cut short.

For every woman whose period poses a transportation problem -- or at least a wake-up call -- there seem to be several for whom it is just one more minor logistical detail when getting ready to ride out into the world.

One thing that is clear, though -- we don't talk about this stuff enough. And when we do, we all seem to learn something.

For Gristy reviews of sustainable options, check out this two-part series that you and your little friend will love:

Elly Blue is a bicycle activist living in Portland, Oregon. She has been the managing editor of BikePortland.org, the lead coordinator of the Towards Carfree Cities conference in Portland in 2008, and has been an active bike funnist since 2005. She publishes a feminist bicycle zine called Taking the Lane.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Heritage livestock: Milk ‘em for all they’re worth

A rare Guernsey calf.Photo: Rick HarrisonAs heirloom produce gains a growing cult following among eaters, the more under-the-radar interest in heritage livestock breeds may see a resurgence, too. The first National Heirloom Exposition in California last month featured heritage farm animal breeds in addition to the fruits, veggies, and seeds that get foodies excited. Cheese devotees, especially, should take note -- buying and enjoying cheese made from the milk of certain rare breeds of cattle helps ensure their survival. Over on the blog It's Not You, it's Brie, cheese enthusiast Kirstin Jackson collected notes from dairy farmer and veterinarian Dr. Noreen Dmitri. Here's a condensed version what we learned.

Back in the day, before industrial agriculture was the norm, breeds like the Milking Devon, Ayrshire, and Randall Lineback had traditional uses on the family farm, and each produced cheese of a unique flavor. But many of these breeds are now endangered: America's first cattle breed, the Canadienne, has a population of less than 500 worldwide, while Holstein cows, favored by industrial farms for their large size and milk production, number 19 million and account for almost 20 percent of U.S. dairy cattle.

As the market for locally and sustainably produced food has grown, small dairies and the heritage-breed cows they use have found new life. The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy in North Carolina is working to preserve the breeds, and the number of small dairy plants in New York State doubled in the past two years. Something called the Swiss Village Farm Foundation is also using embryo transplants to boost Canadienne reproduction.

Lovers of fine cheese should look for a "Heritage Milk" label when they shop. If you're in the Midwest or on the East Coast, It's Not You, it's Brie's Kirstin Jackson has also collected a great list dairy farms selling heritage-milk cheese.

Claire Thompson is an editorial intern at Grist. She just graduated from Northwestern University and is happy to be back in her hometown of Seattle, proving that her journalism degree is not worthless.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The Washington Post’s boneheaded conventional wisdom on Solyndra

Get your conventional wisdom right here.Photo: M.V. JantzenA couple weeks ago, I wrote a post about Very Serious Conventional Wisdom on energy. Last week, in an editorial on Solyndra, The Washington Post echoed that VSCW with eerie fidelity.

It begins, as so many vacuous editorials have, with the premise that the president isn't upset enough. He needs to show us more upsetness, so we understand how upset he is. He's just not nailing this scene. Once more, with feeling!

Then the CW, raw and uncut: government is a "crappy" venture capitalist that shouldn't be picking winners. This is something all Very Serious People know. It is bolstered by plucking from the history of U.S. funding for innovation a few well-known failures like synfuels and corn ethanol. Of course, one could just as easily pluck a few spectacular failures from the history of private investment and conclude that private investors are crappy venture capitalists. In fact, government has a pretty good record on technology development. Read Fred Block's State of Innovation: The U.S. Government's Role in Technology Development.

More importantly, as Block's book shows, we have a pretty good idea of what works in technology development funding. We can do it better or worse. Yet the neoliberal VSCW doesn't conclude that it should be done better. It concludes that we should scrap it. No "picking winners" for us.

To be clear, this CW has not eliminated, nor even dented, existing U.S. industrial policy, which is active and robust, if not particularly coherent, and mostly supports carbon-intensive incumbent industries. Instead, the CW has the effect of directing suspicion and hostility toward new industrial policy, for new industries. Those are always the most visible and contested investments.

Why can't government ever do this investment thing right? Because "bureaucrats ... are generally not full-time investment experts and have no skin in the game themselves." As it happens, the administration hired a full-time investment expert, Jonathan Silver, to run the loan guarantee program. He hired other investment experts. By all accounts he built a smart team and, in the words of George Frampton, a former chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, "put together a total portfolio you could be proud of."

We are to believe, though, that since their own money was not on the line, Silver and his team of investment experts didn't try as hard. They had no skin in the game, so their hearts weren't in it.

It's astonishing that we're so casually willing to believe that about other people. It's not only insulting, it's woefully psychologically reductive. These venture capitalists are some of the most prideful, competitive people you will ever meet. They want to succeed, to be the best, to bet on the game-changing companies, to leave their mark on the world -- they want status among their peers, not just money. The latter is only a means to the former anyway, at least the kind of money these folks make.

The reality is that investment decisions are made by human beings. The process can be more or less thorough, reliable, and informed, but it can never be free of risk. Plenty of private-sector investors bet big on Solyndra too. WaPo editors, whose expertise in venture capital is no doubt equal to their expertise on macroecnomics and geopolitics [cough], second-guess all these investors, saying that some other private-sector investors thought it was a bad bet. But that will be true for any investment in a bleeding-edge company.

Finally, the editorial concludes with a common if fairly obvious error of fact. It says that the $527 million in taxpayer money will simply vanish, it "now cannot be used for any good objective," and the U.S. debt will grow by that amount. But that is nonsense. The money Solyndra paid its employees was spent on goods and services. The money it invested produced physical assets that will outlive it. That plant is still there. Bloomberg says taxpayers may be "stuck with it," but it's a huge, sophisticated manufacturing facility! It's not worth nothing.

The company's assets will be sold and taxpayers will get some of their money back. No one is sure how much -- I've heard close to all, I've heard much less -- but it won't be $0. So the $527 million did not vanish into smoke. A great deal of it was pumped into the U.S. economy. And yes, it was deficit spending, but contrary to WaPo theology, that's the whole damn point. That's what economic stimulus is.

Aside from the details of this "scandal" being so hyped and distorted, the worst thing about all this is the lesson U.S. policymakers are likely to learn from it: Don't take any chances supporting cutting-edge clean energy companies. WaPo editors and U.S. politicians do have a knack for learning the wrong lessons.

David Roberts is a staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.