fresh batch: men’s pocket squares
I’ve got tonsof new material for pocket squares! Hubby got rid of some button-down shirts, which…
Pocket squares are super easy to make. Especially if you cheat like in our post.
Summary findings:
- A large majority of Americans (87%, down 5 percentage points since Fall 2012) say the president and the Congress should make developing sources of clean energy a “very high” (26%), “high” (32%), or medium priority (28%). Few say it should be a low priority (12%).
- Most Americans (70%, down 7 points since Fall 2012) say global warming should be a “very high” (16%), “high” (26%), or “medium priority” (29%) for the president and Congress. Three in ten (28%) say it should be a low priority.
- Six in ten Americans (59%) say the U.S. should reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do. Relatively few (10%) say the U.S. should reduce its emissions only if other industrialized and/or developing countries do - and only 6 percent of Americans say the U.S. should not reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
- Americans say that corporations and industry (70%), citizens themselves (63%), the U.S. Congress (57%), and the President (52%) should be doing more to address global warming.
- Majorities of Americans support:
- Providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels (71%);
- Funding more research into renewable energy sources (70%);
- Regulating CO2 as a pollutant (68%);
- Requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to pay down the national debt (61%);
- Eliminating all subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry (59%);
- Expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast (58%);
- Requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it costs the average household an extra $100 a year (55%).
- Support for some of these policies, however, has fallen since 2008, including funding renewable energy research (-21 percentage points), expanding offshore drilling (-17 points), and tax rebates for energy efficient vehicles and solar panels (-15 points).
- Half of Americans (50%) have never heard of the Keystone XL pipeline. Moreover, few Americans say they are following the issue closely (18%). Among those Americans who have heard of the Keystone pipeline, about two in three support the project (63%).
The report includes an Executive Summary and reports trends in key indicators over the past several years. It can be downloaded here:
Public Support for Climate and Energy Policies in April 2013
Ugh, keystone… It’s good for America if we are going to use the oil, but it is bad for the environment if they plan on shipping that oil to other countries risking a spill. Furthermore, the pipeline will have to be constantly monitored due to it running past a very large body of water in the u.s. and the oil having a huge amount of sand in it causing abrasion and possibly wearing the pipes thin leading to a spill. Oil dependency is a very bad thing, no matter what your opinion is.
Product review - Olive Essence Organic gold peptide complex - 10/10
I needed a moisturizer that was organic for under my eyes at night and I found it at a discount store. Results from the free radical fighting antioxidants are supposed to show after 6 weeks i believe but after using this for a week, I’d say it does what it’s supposed to… moisturize! Lots of good oils in this and it doesn’t make my face oily.
the size is small but it’s entirely organic and I only use a fingertip full eachtime. They sell a specific moisturizer, but it wasnt at tjmaxx/marshalls so I got this one.
I would purchase this again… i should have bought thee other jar that was there since it was the only other one and it cost half what they do online. Oh well…
Vegetarian / Vegan advice?
posted my dilemma at http://thekindlife.com/forum/topic/4068496/having-trouble-avoiding-meat-altogether
Hoping to get rid of meat after my 21st birthday. Any tips?
“we first-world humans find ourselves lacking the ability to discern anymore what is nourishing from what is toxic to our lives and our spirits”
http://laughingsquid.com/midway-tragic-film-on-the-mass-starvation-of-baby-albatross-due-to-plastic-garbage/
Fish, and other wild life such as the albatross are suffering due to the mass production of the environmental abomination: plastic. The caps seen in the stomach are eaten due to their bright colors and they are in the ocean due to the lack of recyclability. No program is present that will recycle caps.
Plastic was meant to not break down, and in the landfill, conventional plastics do not get eaten by the enzymes present on decaying matter.
Wherever possible, choose something other than plastic to prevent things like this happening.
Todays P.S.A. brought to you by SimpleSpiveys.
Wonderful, cheap, durable and human friendly flooring is possible?
According to this PAPER flooring blog post at http://lovelycraftyhome.com/2011/11/09/the-ultimate-brown-paper-flooring-guide/ it is.
Yes it is made from trees, but unbleached paper pulp is much less “tree murder” than thick hardwood floors. Yes, polyurethane is toxic, but safe coat brand makes a polyureseal that is no voc and even locks in off gassing of previous paint so it can be used all over your home if you do not want to release the paint of previous years by sanding.
Thanks for inspiring us, lovely craft home! We don’t have many other options than our toxic apartment carpet.
HELP my bathroom vanity is disgusting, awful, big, and broken
Replacing it is possible, except there’s no tile under it… Yes, they skimped on three tiles.
It is solid wood except for the fake marble chipboard top and the doors we took off since they fell apart(formaldehyde off gassing particle board).
What should we do? Got any ideas?
ROCKVILLE, Maryland (Reuters) - U.S. regulators on Thursday approved plans to build the first new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years, despite objections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman, despite objections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) chairman, who cited safety concerns stemming from Japan’s 2011 Fukushima disaster.The NRC voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. The units will cost Southern and partners about $14 billion and enter service as soon as 2016 and 2017.No nuclear power plants have been licensed in the United States since the partial meltdown of the reactor core of the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979. After the accident, the NRC adopted more stringent safety standards, which caused construction costs for nuclear plants to skyrocket and stopped dozens of planned plants in their tracks.*This post is for anon, who earlier this evening asked me to update a previous post on new plants in the US. No update is needed. There have been no new nuclear power plants allowed to be built in the US since 1978. Anon may have been referring to applications for new plants or perhaps rehabs of old power plants.
D: This means Florida could be a potential radioactive state if and when a meltdown happens. I am very unhappy about this. Something will go wrong AGAIN and who’s gonna stop it? No one…
Mother’s day or any day gift box
Turn a cigar box into a present with fabric, paint, a family photo, and creativity.
I used labels for the bottom but you can use paint or fabric to cover the while thing
Preventative measures and risk factors for Breast Cancer
This is Ashley, my aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer some time ago and is now cancer free. For information on calculating your risk, some possible causes, and preventative measures, you can visit:
http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/AP-Deo
I’ve included the link to the risks page, because the section 2. puts me off a little. Since not much research has been done to identify how or why exactly the parabens get into breast tissue, yet they discredit them completely for having anything to do with cancer when they really don’t know one way or the other… and furthermore, not much has been done to stop it. I cut parabens out of my life completely when I cleaned out my makeup stash of all things and started buying true mineral makeup which does not require preservatives, nor has any shelf life. The article somewhere also quotes that the FDA regulates cosmetics… which is not true, considering there is an organization for this separate from the FDA(can’t remember the abbreviated name). The cosmetic organization has only deemed something like 20% of cosmetic ingredients unsafe in its “lifetime” when most products on the shelves have the dreaded paraben preservatives or formaldehyde derivatives(their names are tricky and dont sound like formaldehyde). Hopefully one day light will be shed on this. Until then, you MUST read your labels before buying. If there is anything there you do not understand then you probably shouldn’t put it on or in your body until you research the scientific trials testing the ingredients (you can find info about ingredients on EWG.org
Oh yeah, and I didn’t see anywhere on the page anything about PTHALATES in fragrances which are in cosmetics and soaps that do disrupt hormone function… which raises your risk.
It’s pretty odd that the USA hasn’t caught up with the Europeans’ banning of unsafe cosmetics. I think it has something to do with the companies all having to switch their formulations and find something even worse to replace the parabens and pthalates with.
I calculated my risk for breast cancer and it is somewhere between 9.2-11.0% when the national average is around 12%
So hopefully you can use the tools available to assess your risk and prevent your risk from getting too high.
Props to Jolie for going through with the double mastectomy publicly!
