I'm not posting this because the author agrees with my own views on the topic, but because of his rational analytical approach to how he reached (and changed and evolved!) his views on same-sex marriage:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/27/frum.gay.marriage/index.html
I really wish that our politics didn't have to be this "all-or-nothing", "black-or-white" thing - when you actually ask people more in-depth what their opinions are on this or many other topics, the answers are a lot more complex and across-the-board. But those kinds of things don't fit into 30-second sound bytes, political speeches, news headlines, or 2-minute news segments. And they don't force people to polarize, which seems to be the objective of most politicians (on both sides of the aisle!)
Monday, June 27, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
TV no more?
An interesting article from friend Bill, talking about something I've been saying for awhile now:
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/most-tv-content-moving-web-within-two-years/index.html
The article says that the major TV networks and players will be distributing 75% of their content via the internet within 2 years. That is a bit faster than I have been predicting - I'm not sure everyone has the bandwidth capacity yet for that - but I would guess within 5 years we'll be there for sure. Every device that comes out now is network-capable, and most have applications built-in to play Netflix, Hulu, or just general web browsers where you can play anything.
The big takeaway from this article is the idea that we need to stop thinking about TV shows as TV shows, movies as movies, etc. and realize that in the future they are all in the category of "video content" and the internet is content-type-agnostic. This also solves SO many technology problems of the past, where we all had to have very specific hardware for TV broadcast formats, cable formats, satellite boxes, etc. and upgrading to a newer technology took years because it meant everyone had to get new hardware. Now that this is all software (mostly) in these devices that are basically all just computers on one scale or another, rolling out something like a new HD standard or a new company like Netflix or a new network providing content will be much more open and easy.
We've been "off the TV grid" (meaning only getting over-the-air and internet-delivered content) for over a year now and we're loving it - and saving about $90/month in the process.
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/most-tv-content-moving-web-within-two-years/index.html
The article says that the major TV networks and players will be distributing 75% of their content via the internet within 2 years. That is a bit faster than I have been predicting - I'm not sure everyone has the bandwidth capacity yet for that - but I would guess within 5 years we'll be there for sure. Every device that comes out now is network-capable, and most have applications built-in to play Netflix, Hulu, or just general web browsers where you can play anything.
The big takeaway from this article is the idea that we need to stop thinking about TV shows as TV shows, movies as movies, etc. and realize that in the future they are all in the category of "video content" and the internet is content-type-agnostic. This also solves SO many technology problems of the past, where we all had to have very specific hardware for TV broadcast formats, cable formats, satellite boxes, etc. and upgrading to a newer technology took years because it meant everyone had to get new hardware. Now that this is all software (mostly) in these devices that are basically all just computers on one scale or another, rolling out something like a new HD standard or a new company like Netflix or a new network providing content will be much more open and easy.
We've been "off the TV grid" (meaning only getting over-the-air and internet-delivered content) for over a year now and we're loving it - and saving about $90/month in the process.
Monday, June 20, 2011
199 - Diet Conclusions
(and, no I'm not "DONE" yet, "DONE" meaning I've reached my goal weight of 180 - but as an update, I just finished week 14, and I weighed in at 199 this morning - down 24 lbs)
I was going to do this post a few weeks ago, but I decided that I wanted to wait until I actually had more weeks and data to draw conclusions on. I will start again with the disclaimer that these are my own conclusions based on my own experiences, reading, and research. I am not a doctor or a medical professional and would advise anyone to talk with a doctor before making any changes concerning their diet or health.
I will also ask that you not confuse my passion for this topic with the idea that I am on some sort of crusade for or against, well, anything. I think the only crusade I'm on is against ignorance, and for people to know that THEY are ultimately in charge of their health. When it comes to weight, diet, exercise, etc., don't accept that there is no solution out there for you - everyone is different and there is no one right answer.
The mistakes I've made with diets in the past
I really do believe that I have a carbohydrate addiction that is some combination of physical and mental. For me, eating something sweet or highly starchy produces a reaction in my body similar to the reaction that people with other addictions (drug, alcohol, gambling, etc.). I only know a limited amount of science on the topic, but I understand that it has to do with dopamine levels among other things.
As is the case with many physical addictions, the only way to stop them is to stop doing whatever the addiction is. Now, if you have a food addiction, obviously you can't just stop eating food. I think many people (including me) incorrectly assume that they have a food addiction though, when what they really have is that addict/dopamine reaction to sugar and high-glycemic carbs. After a few weeks of cutting that stuff out, my physical cravings were gone and have not returned.
This time around, I've tried to be particularly aware of the mental process that goes on when it comes to my food choices. A good example is the coffee shop, where I love my mochas and lattes. Now, I love me my coffee, and I get my big mug full every morning and enjoy it all morning at work or at home. But frequently in the afternoons, or when I'm away from home, I get the urge to go get a mocha or a latte. Sure, they taste good, but why, really, do I want them vs. having a decaf cup of coffee, which is probably just as satisfying to my love of coffee? What I've found is that, in my head, I tend to view these kinds of treats as both "celebrations" for when I'm in a good mood, and "pick-me-ups" for when I'm in a bad mood (and sometimes just plain time-filler for when I'm bored!). Occasionally that is probably a good thing. Every day, sometimes multiple times a day? That is a dependence. I have similar feelings at home about chips or crackers or other snacks - when I start to question WHY I actually want something, I've had similar insights.
My own "big picture" conclusions
Human beings that lived "pre-agriculture" were hunters and gatherers. Their diets were primarily seeds, nuts, berries, fruits, and animals they hunted for food. Agriculture - the ability to grow things like wheat in mass quantities, has really only been around "en masse" for a few hundred years, which is a tiny fraction of human history. So, regardless of your beliefs on the origin of human beings, it would stand to reason that the human body was designed and/or evolved to operate on that pre-agriculture/hunters-and-gatherers type of diet.
In the earlier part of last century through the 50s, it is estimated that 5% of the population was obese. There was no non-organic food, no bleached flour, very little pre-packaged and processed food, no high fructose corn syrup, and sugar was not added to everything. People of our grandparents generation ate real, whole food - eggs, real butter (or lard!), whole milk, fruits, vegetables, and meat. Carbohydrates back then consisted of fruits, nuts, seeds, and whole-grains. As we got into the 70s, 80s, and 90s, more and more processed, pre-packaged carbohydrates became available, many touted as "low-fat" as the push toward low-fat diets continued. And yet, obesity numbers have steadily increased over that period - depending on which sets of numbers you look at, 35-60% of people are now considered overweight or obese (it's certainly larger than 5%!)
Again, I would always encourage anyone to do their own research, and certainly find something that works for you and do it. And of course consult with your doctor, but also remember that YOU are ultimately in charge of your own health, and that there is no "one-size-fits-all" doctor or solution for everyone - if it were actually that easy we wouldn't have problems!
I was going to do this post a few weeks ago, but I decided that I wanted to wait until I actually had more weeks and data to draw conclusions on. I will start again with the disclaimer that these are my own conclusions based on my own experiences, reading, and research. I am not a doctor or a medical professional and would advise anyone to talk with a doctor before making any changes concerning their diet or health.
I will also ask that you not confuse my passion for this topic with the idea that I am on some sort of crusade for or against, well, anything. I think the only crusade I'm on is against ignorance, and for people to know that THEY are ultimately in charge of their health. When it comes to weight, diet, exercise, etc., don't accept that there is no solution out there for you - everyone is different and there is no one right answer.
The mistakes I've made with diets in the past
- The foremost mistake I've made in my first two weight-loss attempts was not having a long-term/lifetime plan and goals. The losing weight goals are fairly easy. But I need to have a plan in my head for what to do if I gain 5 or 10 lbs somewhere down the road - how to steer myself back on course without letting myself get 45 lbs overweight again. If you think of it as a permanent change or lifestyle change, it has to include a long-term plan.
- If I am to do another marathon someday, I also must have a plan for my "in-training" eating and then a plan for getting back to my "not-in-training" eating when I'm finished. (Will I ever do another marathon? Maybe...it's really not an ideal way to stay in shape, I'd say it's more an "accomplishment" and not strategy for weight loss or healthy living)
- During my 2004 Atkins, which was at the height of the low-carb hype/craze, there were a ton of low-carb "replacement" types of products - shakes, ice cream (boy do I miss Kemps Caramel Cow Tracks low-carb!), things made out of protein flour, etc. - the goal of these products, besides making money, was to try to replace the high-carb versions so you didn't feel so "deprived". I bought a lot of them, and they certainly worked. However, I don't think it really helped me break the mental addiction I have to those "comfort" carb foods. This time around, the hype is all gone and there aren't all those products, and I'm focusing on eating good, quality, real, whole foods and not trying to replace the carb stuff.
- MYTH: Dr. Charles Atkins died of his own diet. REALITY: Dr. Atkins died of complications from a head injury he suffered falling off of a ladder.
- MYTH: Low-carb diets are hard on your kidneys. REALITY: High-protein diets have the POSSIBILITY of being hard on your kidneys. Low-carb diets like Atkins replace most of the carb calories with fiber and fat. A general guideline I've read in exercise and weight training books is that a person consume a minimum of 1g of protein per 3 lbs of body weight. If you're somewhere around that, it is unlikely that you will have kidney issues (of course, always check with your doctor!!!)
- MYTH: Low-carb diets raise your cholesterol and triglycerides because you consume more cholesterol and fat. REALITY: Besides the articles I've linked below, numbers generally speak for themselves. You should absolutely be checking these numbers at your regular physical examination with your doctor.
- MYTH: Low-carb diets work because you actually consume less calories. REALITY: Well, actually, in some instances people might eat less calories. I personally don't know if I do or not because I do not count calories. But the questions that should be asked are "why do you eat less calories?" and "does it really matter?" If you can lose weight, don't get hungry, aren't depriving or starving your body, and can eat more food any time if you really need to, the number of calories you're actually consuming seems kind of irrelevant. (also see my own conclusions on the self-limiting nature of proteins and fats).
I really do believe that I have a carbohydrate addiction that is some combination of physical and mental. For me, eating something sweet or highly starchy produces a reaction in my body similar to the reaction that people with other addictions (drug, alcohol, gambling, etc.). I only know a limited amount of science on the topic, but I understand that it has to do with dopamine levels among other things.
As is the case with many physical addictions, the only way to stop them is to stop doing whatever the addiction is. Now, if you have a food addiction, obviously you can't just stop eating food. I think many people (including me) incorrectly assume that they have a food addiction though, when what they really have is that addict/dopamine reaction to sugar and high-glycemic carbs. After a few weeks of cutting that stuff out, my physical cravings were gone and have not returned.
This time around, I've tried to be particularly aware of the mental process that goes on when it comes to my food choices. A good example is the coffee shop, where I love my mochas and lattes. Now, I love me my coffee, and I get my big mug full every morning and enjoy it all morning at work or at home. But frequently in the afternoons, or when I'm away from home, I get the urge to go get a mocha or a latte. Sure, they taste good, but why, really, do I want them vs. having a decaf cup of coffee, which is probably just as satisfying to my love of coffee? What I've found is that, in my head, I tend to view these kinds of treats as both "celebrations" for when I'm in a good mood, and "pick-me-ups" for when I'm in a bad mood (and sometimes just plain time-filler for when I'm bored!). Occasionally that is probably a good thing. Every day, sometimes multiple times a day? That is a dependence. I have similar feelings at home about chips or crackers or other snacks - when I start to question WHY I actually want something, I've had similar insights.
My own "big picture" conclusions
Human beings that lived "pre-agriculture" were hunters and gatherers. Their diets were primarily seeds, nuts, berries, fruits, and animals they hunted for food. Agriculture - the ability to grow things like wheat in mass quantities, has really only been around "en masse" for a few hundred years, which is a tiny fraction of human history. So, regardless of your beliefs on the origin of human beings, it would stand to reason that the human body was designed and/or evolved to operate on that pre-agriculture/hunters-and-gatherers type of diet.
In the earlier part of last century through the 50s, it is estimated that 5% of the population was obese. There was no non-organic food, no bleached flour, very little pre-packaged and processed food, no high fructose corn syrup, and sugar was not added to everything. People of our grandparents generation ate real, whole food - eggs, real butter (or lard!), whole milk, fruits, vegetables, and meat. Carbohydrates back then consisted of fruits, nuts, seeds, and whole-grains. As we got into the 70s, 80s, and 90s, more and more processed, pre-packaged carbohydrates became available, many touted as "low-fat" as the push toward low-fat diets continued. And yet, obesity numbers have steadily increased over that period - depending on which sets of numbers you look at, 35-60% of people are now considered overweight or obese (it's certainly larger than 5%!)
Again, I would always encourage anyone to do their own research, and certainly find something that works for you and do it. And of course consult with your doctor, but also remember that YOU are ultimately in charge of your own health, and that there is no "one-size-fits-all" doctor or solution for everyone - if it were actually that easy we wouldn't have problems!
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Minnesota
I've been following the news and Facebook posts concerning the Minnesota Legislature's current attempt to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage onto the 2012 general election ballot. Thirty-one states have had similar state amendments put on their ballots over the last 15 years, and 31 states have approved them (one state rejected the first attempt and passed it the second time). Most political analysis tends to show that, in large part, conservative politicians tend to want so-called "wedge" issues like this on a ballot because it gets conservative voters to show up on election day, and likely vote for conservative politicians.
My response so far has been to write letters to my state senator and state representative, both Republicans (District #29, Dave Senjem and Duane Quam). Senator Senjem has already voted for this in the senate, and the house has not yet voted. I expressed my disappointment to Senator Senjem, and to both I asked them how they would feel if the right to marry their wife and have the legal protections that their wife and children have was put onto a ballot for voters to decide on. I also pointed out that over the next year and a half, I, like many other people in my situation, will be spending our time, energy, and probably money campaigning to defeat this amendment, instead of spending our time, energy, and money on our families, and doing things that actually make a difference (for me, that is the volunteering I do at church and the animal shelter, and the community bands I play in, not to mention the time I will be spending on my master's degree).
The response I am expecting from my elected officials (if I get any at all) is that they're not voting for a marriage ban, they're voting to give Minnesotans the right to vote and make the decision themselves. Which is a complete political cop-out. If that is really how they believe things should be (that we should all vote on everything ourselves), then we do we have elected officials? It is also important to point out that 301 out of the last 304 proposed constitutional amendments were NOT passed on to voters. So the VAST majority of the time, the legislature does NOT believe that people should have the right to vote on an issue themselves.
The constitution should be HARD to change or amend. Our US constitution only has 26 amendments in almost 250 years. Some states, like Iowa, require that the legislature pass a proposed amendment in two consecutive sessions (i.e. 2 years apart) before it goes to the ballot. Other states have similar rigorous procedures like requiring 2/3 majorities. The US constitution requires that, after it gets through the senate and house, that 3/4 of all of the states ratify an amendment in a general election. 3/4!!! All to make sure that amendments are taken seriously. Minnesota? Legislative majority, and popular vote majority in one election. Governor has no power to do anything. Minnesota Supreme Court can't overturn an amendment. Where are the checks and balances here?
Friend Shelley shared a good blog post with me from Nick Coleman on the topic. A recent poll hows that over half of Minnesotans don't support amending the constitution for this issue. But history also shows that even when poll numbers show that something isn't going to happen in an election, sometimes it still does (Proposition 8 in California in 2008). So, despite the best efforts of me and a lot of other people over the next year and a half, it's very possible that this amendment will pass, and that my right to marry the person I love will be taken away in Minnesota forever (forever = it would take another amendment to nullify this one, which would probably mean years more of time, energy, money, campaigning, etc.).
Oh, and in case you didn't know, there is already a law on the books in Minnesota prohibiting same-sex marriage. Yes, that law could be overturned by a court or repealed by a legislature. But that has not happened, and so even if this amendment fails, I still don't have the right to marry the person I love.
For the first time since I've lived in Minnesota (and just so you know, I've lived in Minnesota the majority of my life, from age 1 to 8, and from age 22 to 36, a total of 21 out of 36 years), I am really considering whether I will be living here for the rest of my life.
My response so far has been to write letters to my state senator and state representative, both Republicans (District #29, Dave Senjem and Duane Quam). Senator Senjem has already voted for this in the senate, and the house has not yet voted. I expressed my disappointment to Senator Senjem, and to both I asked them how they would feel if the right to marry their wife and have the legal protections that their wife and children have was put onto a ballot for voters to decide on. I also pointed out that over the next year and a half, I, like many other people in my situation, will be spending our time, energy, and probably money campaigning to defeat this amendment, instead of spending our time, energy, and money on our families, and doing things that actually make a difference (for me, that is the volunteering I do at church and the animal shelter, and the community bands I play in, not to mention the time I will be spending on my master's degree).
The response I am expecting from my elected officials (if I get any at all) is that they're not voting for a marriage ban, they're voting to give Minnesotans the right to vote and make the decision themselves. Which is a complete political cop-out. If that is really how they believe things should be (that we should all vote on everything ourselves), then we do we have elected officials? It is also important to point out that 301 out of the last 304 proposed constitutional amendments were NOT passed on to voters. So the VAST majority of the time, the legislature does NOT believe that people should have the right to vote on an issue themselves.
The constitution should be HARD to change or amend. Our US constitution only has 26 amendments in almost 250 years. Some states, like Iowa, require that the legislature pass a proposed amendment in two consecutive sessions (i.e. 2 years apart) before it goes to the ballot. Other states have similar rigorous procedures like requiring 2/3 majorities. The US constitution requires that, after it gets through the senate and house, that 3/4 of all of the states ratify an amendment in a general election. 3/4!!! All to make sure that amendments are taken seriously. Minnesota? Legislative majority, and popular vote majority in one election. Governor has no power to do anything. Minnesota Supreme Court can't overturn an amendment. Where are the checks and balances here?
Friend Shelley shared a good blog post with me from Nick Coleman on the topic. A recent poll hows that over half of Minnesotans don't support amending the constitution for this issue. But history also shows that even when poll numbers show that something isn't going to happen in an election, sometimes it still does (Proposition 8 in California in 2008). So, despite the best efforts of me and a lot of other people over the next year and a half, it's very possible that this amendment will pass, and that my right to marry the person I love will be taken away in Minnesota forever (forever = it would take another amendment to nullify this one, which would probably mean years more of time, energy, money, campaigning, etc.).
Oh, and in case you didn't know, there is already a law on the books in Minnesota prohibiting same-sex marriage. Yes, that law could be overturned by a court or repealed by a legislature. But that has not happened, and so even if this amendment fails, I still don't have the right to marry the person I love.
For the first time since I've lived in Minnesota (and just so you know, I've lived in Minnesota the majority of my life, from age 1 to 8, and from age 22 to 36, a total of 21 out of 36 years), I am really considering whether I will be living here for the rest of my life.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Willpower
My good friend Shelley writes a world-renowned blog on Debt Reduction. One of her most recent articles talks about the temptation/struggle of excess spending when you actually have more money to spend (vs. saving and wiser, more planned uses of money). This got me thinking about how we all have temptations we have to deal with, and the willpower we use to deal with them.
I have gone 7 straight weeks on the Atkins diet now, and have not cheated or slipped once (yes, not even once, not even a little bit!) That's been the case on every diet I've ever seriously committed to, marathon training I've done, weight lifting programs I've been on, etc. People look at that and tell me that I must have extraordinary "willpower". It's fun to get a compliment like that, but I'll admit that in this case what they're calling "willpower" is really rooted in what I would describe as an "obsessive" personality (to a degree anyway). Once I decided to start doing this diet, there are clear rules to follow and I have no trouble following them and almost nothing can make me deviate from clear rules (that I've decided to follow). This phase of the diet is very simple and safe for me - follow the rules and you will lose weight. There are no decisions to make, no optional paths to follow. Two good recent examples - Thursday Erin baked a whole bunch of cookies for work, and many were still out (and they smelled SO good!). I was home alone, no one would know. Did I flinch? No, not really. Almost no force on earth would have made me eat one of those cookies, because the rules were in place in my head, and I was following them. Last night after handbell practice, one of my dear friends brought in some leftover wedding cake from her daughter's wedding, which I attended earlier this year. I had had a piece of this cake at the wedding reception, and it was some of the best cake I'd ever had. Did I flinch? No. The only potential hard thing I might have had to deal with was offending someone by not taking a piece of cake, and having to explain why. But pretty much nothing would have made me want to eat a piece of that cake.
What's going to be the hard part? The reason why I end up in these situations needing to be on diets in the first place? That will come when I've lost all the weight I want to lose. "Eating in the Real World" is what Atkins calls it, and the South Beach book has a similar section. For some people this is much easier than the diet itself - "moderation" is what it's called. Enjoy that occasional cookie or piece of wedding cake, and do a good job the rest of the time. My personality doesn't seem to work that way though. I don't know how to enjoy an occasional treat without the "rules" in my head having to be altered. I don't know how to skip a day of marathon training (I did miss days but they were always for planned reasons). For me the easy part is now. The hard part is yet to come.
bt Reduction. One of her most recent articles talks about the temptation/struggle of excess spending when you actually have more money to spend (vs. saving and wiser, more planned uses of money). This got me thinking about how we all have temptations we have to deal with, and the willpower we use to deal with them.I have gone 7 straight weeks on the Atkins diet now, and have not cheated or slipped once (yes, not even once, not even a little bit!) That's been the case on every diet I've ever seriously committed to, marathon training I've done, weight lifting programs I've been on, etc. People look at that and tell me that I must have extraordinary "willpower". It's fun to get a compliment like that, but I'll admit that in this case what they're calling "willpower" is really rooted in what I would describe as an "obsessive" personality (to a degree anyway). Once I decided to start doing this diet, there are clear rules to follow and I have no trouble following them and almost nothing can make me deviate from clear rules (that I've decided to follow). This phase of the diet is very simple and safe for me - follow the rules and you will lose weight. There are no decisions to make, no optional paths to follow. Two good recent examples - Thursday Erin baked a whole bunch of cookies for work, and many were still out (and they smelled SO good!). I was home alone, no one would know. Did I flinch? No, not really. Almost no force on earth would have made me eat one of those cookies, because the rules were in place in my head, and I was following them. Last night after handbell practice, one of my dear friends brought in some leftover wedding cake from her daughter's wedding, which I attended earlier this year. I had had a piece of this cake at the wedding reception, and it was some of the best cake I'd ever had. Did I flinch? No. The only potential hard thing I might have had to deal with was offending someone by not taking a piece of cake, and having to explain why. But pretty much nothing would have made me want to eat a piece of that cake.
What's going to be the hard part? The reason why I end up in these situations needing to be on diets in the first place? That will come when I've lost all the weight I want to lose. "Eating in the Real World" is what Atkins calls it, and the South Beach book has a similar section. For some people this is much easier than the diet itself - "moderation" is what it's called. Enjoy that occasional cookie or piece of wedding cake, and do a good job the rest of the time. My personality doesn't seem to work that way though. I don't know how to enjoy an occasional treat without the "rules" in my head having to be altered. I don't know how to skip a day of marathon training (I did miss days but they were always for planned reasons). For me the easy part is now. The hard part is yet to come.
Monday, May 2, 2011
15
Life has sort of interrupted my blogging as of late, but a few updates...
On Easter Sunday, we managed to plant almost all of our garden (the nicest day in the last two weeks weather-wise). We took a more minimalist approach this year and didn't do seedlings and just planted the seeds, we'll see how it turns out. Erin is still looking at getting grape vines strung up too.
Very excited about our forthcoming retaining walls, which may not happen now until early June because the weather isn't cooperating, but it's going to be great when they're done. Very ready to get out there and plant trees and rose bushes!
Got to see my two nieces this weekend, and niece #3 who is forthcoming in July :) Not the greatest weather weekend but we did see the movie "Rio" which was just plain fun as far as movies go.
And last but not least...after 7 weeks of faithfully following my low-carb diet, I am down 15 lbs this morning, feel great, and am not having any problems sticking to it. If the weather would ever cooperate, I might even get outside more :)
On Easter Sunday, we managed to plant almost all of our garden (the nicest day in the last two weeks weather-wise). We took a more minimalist approach this year and didn't do seedlings and just planted the seeds, we'll see how it turns out. Erin is still looking at getting grape vines strung up too.
Very excited about our forthcoming retaining walls, which may not happen now until early June because the weather isn't cooperating, but it's going to be great when they're done. Very ready to get out there and plant trees and rose bushes!
Got to see my two nieces this weekend, and niece #3 who is forthcoming in July :) Not the greatest weather weekend but we did see the movie "Rio" which was just plain fun as far as movies go.
And last but not least...after 7 weeks of faithfully following my low-carb diet, I am down 15 lbs this morning, feel great, and am not having any problems sticking to it. If the weather would ever cooperate, I might even get outside more :)
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Camp Companion
I just have to give a general shout out to the wonderful group of people that is Camp Companion of Rochester - I don't know that I've EVER witnessed such an active group of people in any organization anywhere. I love to go to their Facebook page and just see all the animals being rescued, treated, adopted, so many all the time! We adopted our 3 cats from them and they are just wonderful to work with. And all of this is done via foster homes - quite an undertaking and quite amazing.
https://www.facebook.com/campcompanion
https://www.facebook.com/campcompanion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)