I'm going to be in Southern California next week for training and I'll be staying at a hotel in which there is no refrigerator and no microwave. The only thing there is a coffee maker. There are two restaurants on premise but eating out every day for every meal would be way too cost prohibitive. I'm looking for ideas for food that I can take with me that doesn't require refrigeration or serious cooking.

The only thing I can come up with is "Luncheables" (I've never tried these but I can't imagine they'd be very good) and the tuna-in-a-pouch and crackers thingie. Can't bring much in the way of fruits as it just doesn't travel well (I'll be traveling Amtrak/Bus). I also don't care for Ramen.

You guys ALWAYS have good ideas. Anyone have any suggestions for this situation?

Thanks,
LTH

--------
So, I'm back from my trip. I ended up bringing WAY too much food but everything I packed (thanks to you guys for the ideas) was PERFECT! I brought some wax-encased ghouda cheese, really good crackers, apples, peanut butter, bagels, tuna salad and chicken salad with crackers, yogurt-covered pretzels, and a couple of packs of those Quaker snack bars. That provided meals for breakfast and dinner and I ate out for lunch. I did splurge on Wednesday evening as the hotel I was staying in had Food Truck Night and I treated myself to some Fettuccini Alfredo which was yummy. Also, the place they sent us to for training had all kinds of choices for lunch. One day I hit a place serving Armenian Food and another day I went to a Syrian food restaurant with THE BEST chicken I've ever tasted. I spent total of $74.00 all week and probably $20.00 of that was spent tipping the shuttle driver for 5 days.

Thank you ALL for you suggestions as I know I would NOT have come up with as many ideas without you.

LTH

IBL?

It may yet be too soon but I'm curious as to what UK residents think about officials at Heathrow detaining Glenn Greenwald's partner today (yesterday?). Also, what has been the press' response? Is it a ho-hum story or is it front-page news or maybe something in between? Again, it's probably too early to answer this but I'm just curious as to how this is playing with the natives.

Thanks,
LTH

a couple weeks ago and I'm trying to find one made in the U.S.A. Went to my local hardware store where I buy my cast iron pieces but all they had was crappy stuff made in China. Same problem with Sears and Penny's. So I call Williams Sonoma and yes, they have a wonderful line that is made in the U.S.A. -- All-Clad. So I go over there and she shows me the most beautiful stock pot I've ever seen. I mean, I'm JONESING for this thing. Here's a link to it (I can't post pictures):

http://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/all-clad-d5-stainless-steel-stock-pot/?pkey=ccookware-all-clad&

So, without looking at the price I said, "I'll take it!" She starts ringing this thing up and I'm thinking maybe $150-$200. She rings up $450.00. At this point I had to sheepishly admit that it was over my budget and said I'll have to come back another time. $450.00. for a pot. But DAMN is it a beauty! (I did manage to find it online for $319.00 but still . . .).

Just thought my fellow cooks might appreciate this story.

Source: U-T San Diego

SAN DIEGO — Sheriff: Burned body in Calif. house is 8-year-old son of slain woman, brother of missing girl.



Read more: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/09/sheriff-burned-body-in-calif-house-is-8-year-old-s/

---

Nothing else at this time on this story. I'm sure there will be more soon.

This is the first time I've heard about this and thought others might find the information interesting. Gives me the idea for selling my homemade jams/jellies.

The California Homemade Food Act was signed into law in September 2012 and became effective on January 1, 2013. The new law will allow certain low risk foods, known as Cottage Foods, to be made in private homes and sold to the public. Individuals who own and run these home-based businesses will be known as Cottage Food Operations (CFO). Specifics on the Cottage Food Bill can be found on the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) website or below at the "Related items" section

http://tinyurl.com/a8sf6rl

Here's a news story of a woman who is directly benefiting from the Act.

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=9197825

Weird. Can't seem to scroll past about 2/3 of the way down. Not sure if the problem is on my side our yours.

Thanks,

LTH

As a Boomer I lived through one of the most liberal times this country has seen. The policies of the New Deal were still in place and Johnson's Great Society, which included Medicare, was enacted. Civil Rights legislation was passed. Women won the right to have power of their reproductive organs as well as gaining their social and financial independence. In California, if you wanted to go to a public college, your tuition was free, books were affordable and part-time jobs were aplenty. The G.I. bill afforded MILLIONS of people to go to school, start businesses, and buy houses. Strong labor unions ensured families needed only one breadwinner to have a comfortable life. Pensions were a given in virtually all businesses as was health insurance, life insurance and, in some cases, dental and optical. These were ALL liberal policies and they benefited everyone. We benefited as a nation.

But it all changed with the Reagan presidency. Reagan was the perfect front man for the capitalist vultures. He gave the bloodsuckers cover with all that down-homey, ah shucks routine. He told the witless that gummit was the cause of all their problems. (Scapegoats are important when there is a power takeover.) They began one of the most successful campaigns to this day and that was to re-define the word "liberal" as a pejorative. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, who didn't exactly love Carter and criticized him just as vociferously as did the Republicans, ran to the nearest corner, pulled their binky over their heads and looked frantically for their "passies." They accepted the narrative and we've lived with he consequences ever since.

But I think about the people who were born after the Reagan Era. The above experiences are foreign to them. They think shrinking jobs, wages, rights, safety nets, education, home ownership, etc., is the norm. They've nothing with which to compare. Further, there seemed to be nothing that would really get them up and work for changes as we watched more and more of our liberal world disintegrate. For a long time I didn't see many young people at rallies or political gatherings. But, in 2008, here comes Barack Obama. The young people seemed to relate to him. The fact that he was bi-racial was a plus and the prospect of electing the first African-American president was exciting and I think made them feel like they were part of history. And they were.

Then Obama takes office and takes a sharp right turn. Five-and-a-half years out young peoples' positions are more precarious than ever. Not only can't they find jobs with a living wage, education has fast become the impossible dream as has home ownership. Obama promised them and us a great many things and delivered on almost none of it. The disillusionment was apparent in the 2012 election as far fewer young people and other disenfranchised people who worked for Obama in 2008 were present.

So Obama's failures are two-fold: 1) He sided with the corporations at a pivotal point in our history. We could have begun to reverse so much had the desire by this administration been there. But he had to dance with them who brung him so virtually everything coming out of this White House has been corporate friendly. 2) Just as important -- he disillusioned millions of our young people. This was a population that was apathetic to begin with and here we have an opportunity to engage them and they WERE engaged for awhile until virtually none of the promises were fulfilled. This generation is a instant-grat generation and they see no grats for them. How in the HELL will we ever get them back and engaged again after this?

HEARTBREAKING statement ready by one of this monster's vicitms: (Sorry, I couldn't get this to embed.)

http://www.hulu.com/watch/517312?playlist_id=1031&asset_scope=all

I think most people will agree that too often, we are forced to hold our noses and vote for someone almost wholly unrepresentative of our own values and ideals. This process repeats itself election cycle after election cycle and I'd like to try to open up a discussion to address the issue as to as it relates to the Primary process. Specifically, I'd like to focus on two aspects: The current staggered primary system and political party interference in the primary process.

It's not a new idea but I propose we change all states' primaries to the same day. Too much of the country is left out of the selection process. As a Californian, I don't actually get to participate in determining where the candidates are placed on the hierarchy. Iowans get to do that for me. As do the people of New Hampshire and South Carolina and a handful of others. I'm a Californian and, as a Californian, my sole contribution to the primary process is to give money which then gets taken out of California so people I don't know can determine the candidate for me. We're the most populated state in the union and our primaries are in June, a full THREE MONTHS after the candidates have been selected. Wouldn't a more equitable system be that all primaries are held on the same day? A process that leaves out 80% of the population cannot possibly be called democratic.

Another serious problem is the interference of the political parties in the primary process. Ideally, the Party is supposed to remain neutral but that doesn't happen. We all know, for example, who the Democratic frontrunner will be in 2016 -- a full 3 years before the primaries. I don't think any serious person could deny that Hillary Clinton firmly has the Party Machine behind her. That's the reality. And should she, for whatever reason, decide not to run, their Corporate Toady bench is deep. We can't change what the Democratic Party Machine decides to do but, what if we ask each Democratic primary candidate to pledge that they won't pull out of the race until every state has voted (assuming we're still having staggered primaries)? Each candidate would have to rely on their supporters to keep going but isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

Discussion would be most welcome.