If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The word on the street is that people plan to be more frugal and practical this Valentine's Day.  No surprises there.  The big question is how to do it without looking or feeling cheap or thoughtless.

Fortunately, ideas abound.  Just search the internet for frugal Valentine ideas, or try some below.

Chocolate. It's practically required, but how many of us really want to add a whole box of chocolates to our hips and waistline?  Instead of paying for fancy packaging and presentation, do the presentation yourself: a few rich and creamy Dove brand chocolate hearts on the pillow speak volumes, and hint at even more. ht to Frugal Fiction

Flowers. Another firmly entrenched tradition where it's possible to break free from consumerism and come out smelling sweet.  Try hand-delivering a single rose with a kiss and a single chocolate (but don't leave it at that!), or buy a variety of flowers with more personal meaning than overpriced high-demand red roses.   Tulips are lovely and last longer than thin-petaled flowers.

A potted flowering plant is usually far less expensive than cut flowers and will last much longer, even if your sweetheart doesn't have a green thumb.  Again, tulips are inexpensive, widely available and absolutely beautiful in pots.  With a little know-how, they can be enjoyed for years to come.

If you really must buy a dozen flowers, here's a fun idea to get a lot of bang for your buck:  Plan to meet in a public place, and have eleven strangers each deliver a single flower to your sweetheart just before you arrive to deliver the last flower.  Oh – do make sure you have a vase or box to hold the collection when you arrive.

Express yourself. Don't rush to buy a sparkly $5 card full of cliches written by a total stranger.  Write a love letter, try your hand at poetry, or jot down a handful of love notes and leave them in unexpected places.

Dinner. It doesn't have to be at a fancy restaurant.  When we were first married, we often celebrated by splurging on inexpensive steaks that we cooked together at home.  Over the years, we tried our hand at seafood and other specialty items that we could never afford to order at a restaurant.  A nice bottle of wine at home is also far cheaper than 2 glasses of nice wine at a restaurant.

Later, when we had children and couldn't afford a sitter, we would buy the kids some fun foods like chicken nuggets and fries, then send them to bed with – gasp! – a video in their room.  If they weren't ready to fall asleep at 7, they stayed put until they were ready to sleep, and hubby and I had the rest of the house to ourselves.  The kids still have fond memories of these times.

Gifts. Sometimes the most appreciated gifts are the practical ones.  One year hubby and I went clothes shopping together.  We each bought 2 or 3 badly needed items that lasted for many years.  Some years, we buy one item for the house that we have both been wanting, using the holiday to justify the purchase.

Get creative. Some gifts are free, requiring your time rather than money.  If you are married, you have a whole other class of gift options from which to choose.  Use your imagination.

Dates. Dates need not include a full sit-down dinner and a movie.  Go browse a bookstore (then come home and check PaperbackSwap for the titles that caught your eye), go out for ice cream or coffee,  split an appetizer at your favorite restaurant, stroll through an art museum, or visit that fast food restaurant where you first met your sweetheart.  Look for sentimental value rather than retail value.  more ideas here.

Movie. If you do want to take in a movie, consider renting one from the library, Netflix, or RedBox (search the internet for a free rental code).  You could even buy an old favorite as a mutual gift.  Pop a bowl of popcorn, dim the lights, and snuggle up together on the sofa.  No matter how you get it, a movie at home is a more relaxed and intimate time and has far more potential for romance than the local theater.

If you must go to the theater for your movie fix, try an early matinee or a dollar theater, and avoid the concession stand.  Instead of shelling out $10 for popcorn and coke, save your money and split an appetizer at your favorite restaurant afterward, or buy a nice treat to take home with you.

Need more ideas?  Check out the roundup of posts at the Carnival of Valentine's Day Personal Finance Bloggers' Posts.
Do you have ideas of your own, or memories from Valentine's past?

Want more like this post? Read on!

1. Frugality and the WOW Factor The three frugal books I have found most helpful remain…
2. Spring Planting All kinds of planting going on around here. A couple…
3. A Frugal Birthday and Family Craft The above picture was taken from a birthday several years…

  
 Options

Nearly all men would agree that enduring longer in the bedroom to offer their partner the maximum pleasure is a good aspiration. Not only will you be giving pleasure to your partner, but you will enjoy it too. Several men have a difficult time in this area, however. For men it usually is a harmful occurrence to have a premature ejaculation and lose endurance because it occurs prior to the woman has had an “enjoyable” experience.

Among the many tricks that a man can make use of to last longer in bed is to masturbate before a sexual encounter. This is certainly something which can be done if you have a planned night of romance with your partner and will not work well for sudden or spontaneous romance. The theory behind this trick is that masturbation decreases the built up tension and helps you be are more durable when you find yourself with your partner.

The next trick that you are able to effortlessly use is thinking about other “far and distant thoughts” while with your partner. This is a common technique for delaying ejaculation, but it can be quite effective. To use the technique, when you feel that you’re getting closer to orgasm, think of something as different from sex as possible. This will take your attention off of the thoughts and delays ejaculation.

Some men think of their romantic evening with their spouse to delay ejaculation and others must resort to something completely removed from the evening altogether. This has become quite a common joke among some men. Some men even visualize sports while having sex while others think of food or an extremely unattractive person – all to to put from the final moment slightly longer.

Try to stop having sex for a few minutes to prevent premature ejaculation. The few minutes that you stop might be all it takes to keep on going for considerably longer. With this time, men switch positions or do something different so they aren’t just lying there waiting for a couple of minutes to go by.

A more direct route to preventing an ejaculation is to pinch the top of the penis before orgasm. This act can slow down ejaculation for a few momemts by minimizing the stimulation.

For most men, lasting longer with their lover is the ultimate goal. Employing a few techniques to delay ejaculation can help to boost your sex life. Ladies will enjoy the time spent in bed also. Both partners will enjoy the time spent in bed when it is equally gratifying for both. This will usually increase your love at the same time.

Learn some more great tips to last longer in bed

As I did at Advent, I've compiled all of last year's posts about the upcoming liturgical season into one, long, wordy post, and here it is. The title of the series, “A Meaningful Lent,” comes from then-six-year-old Ramona's protest that she would not give up something such as talking back to her sisters, but rather, she planned to give up something meaningful.

So, here goes. Our attempts at meaning follow.

Part 1. A Meaningful Lent 

The other day, Ramona told Betsy that instead of giving up sassiness, she was going to give up something meaningful.

But what does “meaningful” mean, and how do we enter into into Lent in a way that will really make it meaningful?

I start by asking, “What to Give Up?”

We sometimes hear this debate: Should we give up something “good” or something “bad”?

I see no reason to debate. All we have to figure out is the answer to this question: “What will help me grow closer to God?”

On the “good” side of the debate are those who say we must give up “a good” or it's not a sacrifice (a sacrifice being the giving up of an objective good for a greater good.)

On the “bad” side, are those who say that giving up “something bad” (a bad habit, such as complaining, smoking, caffeine) is just as difficult as giving up something good, and therefore, is a great spiritual exercise.

I hereby declare a draw. Both sides are right.

The key is in our perception: if it's a struggle to give it up, we're inordinately attached to it.

When we give up an addiction, we say to God, “You are more important to me than this thing. I'm giving it up for You.”

It's the act of love that counts, but our acts of love often lead to real and positive change. When we offer an addiction for God, we find Him working on our hearts, ridding us of painful, controlling attachments.

In that sense, it's certainly an acceptable Lenten sacrifice to give up “something bad.”

On the flip side, when we give up something that is objectively good, we get the joy of that thing's return on Easter Sunday. And this is a beautiful thing to experience. We see, in a small but concrete way, that sacrifice leads to Resurrection. (”Break out the chocolate bunnies! He is Risen!”)

There's still a bit of room for debate: is chocolate an objective good or an unhealthy addiction? (Umm, okay … so that's not up for debate. God invented the objective good of chocolate right after Adam, Eve and the amazing way we love our children. They don't call chocolate the food of the gods for nothing.) What about moderate alcohol use? Blogging, Facebook, Twitter? Meat every day? Dessert every night? TV? Movies? Music?

There's often some overlap. I have to ask myself, “Am I addicted to what would, in moderation, be an objective good?” Perhaps, when Easter arrives, I'll find that God has helped me to let go of the attachment, and enjoy the thing as it's intended to be enjoyed.

That overlap is the reason it can be helpful to choose several things to give up — something in the “bad” category (”God, help me get rid of this vice forever!”) and something in the “good” category (”Grill a steak! Pass the wine! Celebrate the Feast!”)

It's all so personal. What's easily managed for one person might be a torturous attachment for another.

That's why we really shouldn't debate about the “right things” to give up for Lent.

If giving it up will help you grow closer to God, then it's the right thing.

(Various things I've given up in the past that have borne spiritual fruit: meat on all days of Lent, wine, the radio, the wearing of any jewelry, all sweets, chocolate, complaining, 

Part 2.  Why Give Up Anything?

The short answer is, “Because Mom said so.”

Mom — Mother Church — knows what's best for us. And when we follow her advice, we find that, even if we didn't initially understand the reason, our actions bear good fruit.

But, we always want the long answer, don't we?

First, occasionally people say, “You don't have to give anything up — just take on something positive.” I have a couple of thoughts about this perspective. While I understand the good intention behind the “positive spin” (that instead of giving up candy or some other trifle which can seem meaningless one is trying to do something of more”importance”) I think it overlooks the good that is inherent in fasting.

I also want to point out that in “taking something on” we are making a sacrifice. If we sacrifice leisure time in order to do something else — read more Scripture, pray at an abortion clinic, volunteer at a food pantry, or do something else that is a good — then that is certainly a sacrifice offered in the spirit of Lent. Scripture reading, prayer, talking with a frightened woman who is tempted to abort her child, helping to feed the hungry — these are corporal and spiritual works of mercy that yield real results, both seen and unseen.

Additionally, on the subject of results we can see, here's a small, but concrete benefit of a fast: if we save the money we would have spent on the trifles (how much is a bag of M&Ms? What's the beer budget? The cost of meat for forty days?) and donate it, we see the results of our sacrifice. Our children see it. The trifles suddenly don't seem to be such a trifle when we realize how much we normally spend on them.

But, second, why do we feel the need to put a “positive” spin on something that is already positive? For a Christian, isn't sacrifice always a positive? If what Jesus did for us isn't the ultimate positive example, then I've got the wrong religion.

Sometimes, we're looking for loopholes and an easier road. But, there's no easy road to avoiding sin. It's an uphill battle for us, this fallen lot. So, let's listen to Mom and give Lent the spin it deserves.

We now return to our regularly scheduled post.

I never say anything better than the Catechism of the Catholic Church does, so I'll direct you to a couple of passages that discuss sacrifice, mortification and spiritual progress.

Paragraph 2015:

The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle.

Paragraph 2549:

It remains for the holy people to struggle, with grace from on high, to obtain the good things God promises. In order to possess and contemplate God, Christ's faithful mortify their cravings and, with the grace of God, prevail over the seductions of pleasure and power.

And, from Scripture:

“Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” — Matthew 6:21

During Lent, we are called to “pray, fast and give.” (See this document for more info.) In taking on additional prayer time, or attending daily Mass more often, or praying the Stations of the Cross, or other devotions such as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, in fasting from festive food and drink, or from various entertainments or areas of excess, and in freely giving of our time and money, we see that it's not a matter of “either/or.” We don't ask, “Should I pray more? Or should I fast from something? Or should I give of my time? Give away a few more dollars?”

To pray, to fast and to give are all intimately connected. Progress and growth in one area fuels further progress in the others.

Pray.
Fast.
Give.

This trinity is the foundation of a meaningful Lent. When I start there, good things happen.

Part 3. Fasting and the Holy Father 

Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI for Lent, 2009:

(Found in its entirety here.)

Excerpts:

For this year’s Lenten Message, I wish to focus my reflections especially on the value and meaning of fasting.

…We might wonder what value and meaning there is for us Christians in depriving ourselves of something that in itself is good and useful for our bodily sustenance. The Sacred Scriptures and the entire Christian tradition teach that fasting is a great help to avoid sin and all that leads to it. For this reason, the history of salvation is replete with occasions that invite fasting.

…In the New Testament, Jesus brings to light the profound motive for fasting, condemning the attitude of the Pharisees, who scrupulously observed the prescriptions of the law, but whose hearts were far from God. True fasting, as the divine Master repeats elsewhere, is rather to do the will of the Heavenly Father, who “sees in secret, and will reward you” (Mt 6,18). He Himself sets the example, answering Satan, at the end of the forty days spent in the desert that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Mt 4,4). The true fast is thus directed to eating the “true food,” which is to do the Father’s will (cf. Jn 4,34).

…In our own day, fasting seems to have lost something of its spiritual meaning, and has taken on, in a culture characterized by the search for material well-being, a therapeutic value for the care of one’s body. Fasting certainly bring benefits to physical well-being, but for believers, it is, in the first place, a “therapy” to heal all that prevents them from conformity to the will of God.

…The faithful practice of fasting contributes, moreover, to conferring unity to the whole person, body and soul, helping to avoid sin and grow in intimacy with the Lord.

…At the same time, fasting is an aid to open our eyes to the situation in which so many of our brothers and sisters live. In his First Letter, Saint John admonishes: “If anyone has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, yet shuts up his bowels of compassion from him – how does the love of God abide in him?” (3,17).

…Dear brothers and sisters, it is good to see how the ultimate goal of fasting is to help each one of us, as the Servant of God Pope John Paul II wrote, to make the complete gift of self to God (cf. Encyclical Veritatis splendor, 21).

**********

As Lent approaches and we consider giving up the foods and other things we enjoy, we sometimes feel overwhelmed.

It's helpful to me (a rich American, despite my protests about the cost of the latest van repair) to consider that the things overwhelming me could be foundational:

– In 2008, the number of undernourished people in the world rose to 963 million

– Hunger and malnutrition are the No. 1 risk to health worldwide, greater than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined.

– The total food surplus of the United States alone could satisfy every empty stomach in Africa; France's leftovers could feed the hungry in Democratic Republic of Congo and Italy's could feed Ethiopia's undernourished.

– Today 25,000 people will die from hunger. A child dies every six seconds of malnutrition or starvation.

More information from:

Catholic Relief Services
CRS and Operation Rice Bowl
Kids Against Hunger
The Hunger Site
Fasting Against Global Hunger
Pope Benedict XVI on hunger, here and here.

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for Me.'


– Matthew 25:40

A reminder from Mom:

If you are a pregnant or nursing mother, or are ill, Mom (Holy Mother Church, not me) doesn't want you to fast from nutritious meals. There are myriad ways to fast.

Take care of your physical health, and offer the things from which you must fast (sleep, time, favorite foods that affect breast milk, sanity) as your prayer and your offering. Mom knows your situation, and she not only understands, she insists that you take care of yourself so that you may take care of the gift you've been given.

Part 4: Lent with Young Children

Some of our favorite things:

The Lamb of God Calendar

On poster board, draw a picture of a lamb. (I drew this one freehand, but based it on this one.)

Divide the body into squares to make a calendar, covering the entire period of Lent.

Every day, Ramona glues a cottonball on that day’s space. This is such a great way for little ones to count down to Easter and it gives them a concrete picture of the length of the season of waiting. When Easter arrives, we replace the little Lenten notes (click on the picture for a larger version — you'll see the notes, which say things like, “Pray … fast … give … Love”) with big, colorful “Alleluia!” notes. We've been doing this one since Anne-with-an-e was little, and all of my girls have loved this activity.

(In an effort to give credit where credit is due, I have to say that the credit for this goes to someone else — I just wish I knew who! I saw a very similar idea in a little newsletter years ago. They suggested gluing cotton balls on a paper plate lamb, but I made a wall calendar instead. So, whoever you are … you inspired this wall calendar, and we thank you!)

**********

*Sacrifice Jar

There are different versions of this all over the place, but here's what we do: We place an empty jar next to a bowl of dried beans. For every sacrifice, prayer, act of kindness or penance performed, a bean goes into the jar.

On Easter morning, the beans will be replaced with jelly beans and M&Ms, reminding us that the rewards of Heaven will be sweet! And, please note: the M &Ms will be overflowing, even if the jar did not get filled. God's grace is like that, no?

**********

Lenten Caterpillars

This idea is from my dear friend, Holly, godmother to all of my children.

Cut out 1/4 of a cardboard egg carton and paint it for the caterpillar's body. Glue on “googly eyes” (or paint them on) and use pipe cleaners for antennae and legs (or toothpicks and tiny pom-poms.) When Holy Week arrives, wrap your caterpillars in paper or coffee filters (their cocoons.) On Holy Saturday night (after kids are in bed) tear open the cocoon and replace it with a butterfly.

The butterfly will depend on the artistic skills — or lack thereof — of Mom and/or Dad. Our butterflies have ranged from drawings, to origami, to a picture from the internet (that was a hectic year) to fun foam and sequins. Add to the symbolism of rebirth with a note proclaiming, “Jesus gives us New Life! Alleluia!”

**********

*Homemade Soft Pretzels

1 1/2 c. warm water
1 pkg. yeast
1 tsp. salt
1 tbsp. sugar
4 c. flour
1 beaten egg
Coarse salt

Measure warm water into large (warm) mixing bowl. Sprinkle on yeast and stir until it looks soft. Add salt, sugar and flour. Mix/knead dough. Shape dough into the usual (or your own special) pretzel shapes.

Grease cookie sheets and lay pretzels on them and brush with beaten egg. Sprinkle with coarse salt. Bake at 425 degrees for 12-15 minutes.

**********

I always choose a new prayer for us to learn during Lent. We say it nightly, at bedtime prayers, and memorize painlessly. (We do this at other times of the year, too, as a way for all of us to learn various prayers.)

Part 5: Confession and Dorothy Parker 

In this post, I want to share my three best tips for a meaningful Lent.

They are:

1. Go to confession.
2. Go to confession.
3. Go to confession.

And, if I haven't mentioned it lately, I also think going to confession would be a good thing to do.

If you love going to confession, good for you. Keep it up.

If you hate going to confession, consider giving up “not going to confession” for Lent.

If you hate to go, but love having gone, you may be a Dorothy Parker fan. (Of her profession, she said, “Hate to write … love having written.”)

I am a Dorothy Parker sort of confessee. Hate to go. Love having gone. Love going regularly, even though I hate going. (And, although it has no place in this post, I'll share another Dorothy Parker quote: “This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.” Love that, although it's completely out of place here.)

And, finally, one more Dorothy Parker quote that does have a place here:

“It's not the tragedies that kill us, it's the messes.”

Confess the mess.

And, that's the last of Dorothy Parker I can share. If I repeat her most famous stuff, I'll have to head straight to confession.

Part 6: His Lent and My Lent

It never fails.

I always make plans for Lent. Plenty o' plans.

But, God always has His own plans for my Lent.

Just a friendly, neighborhood reminder: if your Lent doesn't turn out to be what you envisioned, keep in mind that it's because we aren't really in charge. We never are.

If He hands you a different Lent from the one you planned, be assured that it is truly from His Hand, and tell Him, simply, “Thank You.”

Part 7: My Crown of Thorns
When I was received into the Catholic Church fourteen years ago, my dear friend Jack gave me an incredible gift: a crown of thorns.

This is not a miniature replica, nor a harmless likeness. It is a real, piercing, terrible, beautiful crown of thorns.

Every year, during Lent, it is prominently displayed in our home. It does wonders for my tiny Lenten sacrifices. A brief, but penetrating gaze upon the thorns penetrates my thoughts, my soul, my desires. It keeps my little offerings in perspective.

The sight of the crown that our King endured keeps me close in thought to Him, the Man Who gave everything for me, the One Who loves me no matter how weak I am, or how petty or selfish. No matter how much I may stray or grow lukewarm, He is there. He is faithful, waiting for the one He loves to return that love and fidelity. All. The. Time.

And that's what Lent is, for me … a rekindling of the greatest love affair of my life. And, when I am tempted to think that my little Lenten sacrifices are too much, or too hard, I gaze upon that crown of thorns.

And I know that nothing is too much. He showed us what it means to give everything. The least I can do is feel the sting of my small sacrifices.

Now with all of this explained, there's assistance for you to learn different cures or therapies in helping the two of you understand how to make factors improved so you can last longer in bed. And trust me, whenever you and your partner work about it jointly, it varieties a tighter relationship and it'll perhaps you have ways to delay ejaculation!

My Xbox just RROD'ed. I've had it for just under 2 years, and microsoft honored it's warranty, and said that Xbox 360's have a 3 year warranty against RROD's. which, honestly, is a pretty long warranty imo. and when I get my xbox back, they give you a free 30 day card, to make up for the repair time.

EDIT: ninja'd by marsey99..

Buzz…by Bargain Briana
Wendy’s Boneless Chicken Wings
Kellogg’s Cinnabon Snack Bars
Indiana Fever: Inspiring Women Night at the WBNA
Chiquita Smoothie: Cheap Alternative to Expensive Smoothie Shops
Smooshies: Make Your Own Creation

Grab This Button

(MCT) — Chris Farrell, like many other recession-watchers, points out that being frugal is often synonymous with being green.

Here's the good news: Being frugal is not synonymous with being cheap.

Buy the good bike, the low-energy-use appliance; they're better made and will last longer. Just don't be reckless, with your life or your habitat.

In the book "The New Frugality" by Chris Farrell (240 pages, $16 at Amazon.com), tips include college savings plans, shared home equity, home insurance, investing, borrowing and retirement.

It's full of Web sites, books and organizations to help the reluctant American channel his inner New Englander.

The spirit of our most famous frugalista, Benjamin Franklin, hovers over pages full of practical tips, much like Poor Richard's Almanack.

"'Tis easier," the original saver wrote, "to suppress the first desire, than to satisfy all that follow it."

Login to reply to this post

Date: 1/28/10 0:30 AM

Getting patterns on sale is a good strategy. Just keep a list of what you want and perhaps a computer printout so you can remember what it is in case you change your mind or only want to get a few.



Also, you can subscribe to Burda magazines or other pattern magazines that include dozens of patterns stapled into the center. It's a really good deal as you can usually find several patterns you like in each, and even if you only found one every two months, it would be cheaper than buying a pattern or about the same. Plus, you get lots of styling ideas, and they are usually a year or two ahead of the curve. I've seen things in there that I thought would be silly to wear and then a year later everyone is wearing it. Mrs. Stylebook is a Japanese magazine that gives you instructions for drafting the featured patterns.



Buying patterns used is a great idea of they are in good shape and uncut (just traced or never used).



Or buy good basic pants, shirt, etc. patterns and reuse them by modifying details. Getting the fit down really well and learning how to modify the look through the details or changing the width or shape of a pant leg or skirt or sleeve can get you a lot of mileage out of a few patterns.



Also, you can buy wardrobe patterns where several types of garments are included in multisized patterns.



And, you can learn to draft your own patterns. This is useful even if you often buy patterns because it helps you be able to modify purchased patterns for your taste and figure.






— Edited on 1/28/10 0:32 AM —

With every the features digital cameras have these days, you could find keeping batteries a problem. This could fine be your biggest expense, nevertheless there are various objects you may do to increase the length of time your batteries stay charged. Let’s begin plus the three biggest sources of control drain. The LCD panel takes up the most command. It is possible to roll this characteristic off unless you certainly feel the want for it. Using the camera’s viewfinder will conserve energy. Another great supremacy drain is the flash. Whenever you may, use natural lighting to convey your photos then spin off the flash. This will facilitate save your battery for times while you fully require the flash. A third drain on your battery is constantly using your zoom. It takes further power zooming in furthermore out than it does keeping your zoom at a steady place. Check to find a surroundings you require with sticking including it as much whilst likely.. Some added items you can do to produce your battery last longer are:: * Make convinced Supremacy Saving mode is on, or merely key off your camera whilst you’re not using it. *In cold weather, keep your camera and batteries warm in your jacket until you are ready to use them. The cold drains batteries very soon. *Store batteries in a cool, dry atmosphere away starting sunlight next added heat sources. *Avoid unnecessary playback of your already taken images. Prove to select as you take the illustration if it is a “keeper” or needs deleted and and refrain commencing reviewing until the movies are downloaded to your computer. *Use the AC adapter. Most digital cameras have an adapter that allows you to plug directly into a supremacy site. If you don’t plan on moving selected a lot moreover are here an outlet, the AC adapter will improve the life of your batteries. Needing to buy additional or recharge your battery is something you won’t be able to avoid fully, though with a few precautions this won’t be needed once frequently. Visit here for other information: surveillance camera, cctv systems, fake security cameras

Snow and ice has kept millions from their workplaces, and bosses in all industries can but shrug at the empty desks and unmet deadlines. But the food sector is different. Everyone has to eat, whatever the weather, and the food chain – from field to final consumer – is uniquely vulnerable to meteorological treachery.

After 18 months of recession, a big dumping of snow and all the disruption that brings to food supplies is hardly what the food industry needs. It could be enough to freeze the green shoots of recovery just as they start to poke out of the ground.

And not just the proverbial green shoots, either. Beans, peas, Brussel sprouts, potatoes, grain. Farmers are starting to report frost bitten crops that won’t be fit for human consumption later in the year.

Concerns are already being raised over availability of certain snow-felled vegetables later in the year. That could result not only in higher produce prices but it will have a knock on effect to other foodstuffs too: Ingredient manufacturers will struggle with higher raw material prices; and food manufacturers, in turn, will pay more for inputs.

Under siege

Forgive me for being doom and gloom at the start of a new year, but history has shown that a harsh winter can have a catastrophic effect on food supply. After the infamous winter of 1946-7 in the UK, for instance, cereal and potato crops were down 10-20 per cent that year, and 25 per cent of sheep stocks were lost.

It’s not just journalists who display a heightened sense of drama and a siege mentality with a fresh fall of snow, either.

“All laptop users have something in common: we want our device's batteries to last longer. Whether it's for the daily commute or a long flight, an extra 30 minutes of power means an extra 30 minutes of entertainment.

“If you're running a Linux-based distribution on your netbook, there's a lot you can do to squeeze every last negatively charged ion from your power source. Here we're going to cover the best techniques that we've discovered.

“Don't worry if you're not a netbook user, as much of this information can be used on Linux laptops too. However, we've specifically tailored our advice for netbooks as these seldom include full-blown distros (and hence any easy way of compiling and installing new software).”

Complete Story

Related Stories:

Linux gives me confidence(Jan 06, 2010)

3 new netbooks show signs of progress but also old and fresh mistakes(Jan 06, 2010)

XBMC 9.11 released(Dec 30, 2009)

AMD Does RAID On a Chip(Dec 23, 2009)

PC fits into keyboard, uses only five Watts(Dec 18, 2009)

A striking thing about British politics is the infrequency of changes in government from one party to another. In the last 30 years, since the victory of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives in May 1979, there has been only one change of government, the victory of Tony Blair’s New Labour party in May 1997. We’ve only had one period of 30 years with only one change of party control over the executive in the United States in the last century, the period from 1921 to 1953. Otherwise, there has been no such period in either Britain or America since the mid-19th century.

In contrast, the United States has had four changes of government since 1979: in the presidential elections of 1980, 1992, 2000, and 2008, just as we had changes at eight-year intervals in 1952, 1960, and 1968.

Why have there been so few changes of government in Britain these last 30 years?

We’ve only had one period of 30 years with only one change of party control of the executive in the United States in the last century, the period from 1921 to 1953.

One reason is that the transformative policy changes initiated by Thatcher’s Conservatives have been widely accepted—just as Thatcher and her party have left alone one transformative change effected by the post-World War II Labour government, the National Health Service. Thatcher’s policies were ratified by her party’s electoral victories in 1983, 1987, and, after she was ousted from Number 10 Downing Street, 1992.

Blair’s New Labour essentially accepted most of Thatcher’s changes and campaigned in 1997 on a platform of not raising taxes. And Labour has not raised taxes substantially until the economic crisis hit in 2008. Labour’s victory in 2001 was virtually a carbon copy of its victory in 1997; in 2005 it slumped just a bit but still received a robust parliamentary majority. That was the first time in its more than 100-year history that Labour won three elections in a row (although it won popular votes pluralities in 1945, 1950, and 1951, it won fewer seats in the House of Commons than the Conservatives in that third election).

For the most part, the Thatcher policies and the Blair modifications have been perceived as successful—in vivid contrast to the records of both Labour and Conservative governments elected between 1964 and 1979. In those circumstances British voters may well have been wise to keep the ruling party in.

Another reason for the infrequent party turnovers has been the failure of opposition parties to adapt to circumstances. Instead, they have responded to initial crushing defeats by indulging their true believers, their left and right wings. In 1983, Labour leader Michael Foot, a distinguished intellectual, ran on a party manifesto that appealed to the atavistic socialism of the left wing of the party and that was labeled “the longest suicide note in history.” In 1987, Labour leader Neil Kinnock skinned back only a little (it was his speech about being the first in his family to rise above the working class that inspired Joe Biden’s plagiarism in 1987).

One reason for the infrequent party turnovers has been the failure of opposition parties to adapt to circumstances. Instead, they have responded to initial crushing defeats by indulging their true believers.

In 1992, with John Major having replaced Thatcher, Kinnock and Labour seemed on the verge of victory. But a late campaign rally raising the specter of left-wing socialism and the attacks of The Sun, Britain’s largest-circulation tabloid, enabled Major’s Conservatives to eke out a narrow victory. Some Conservatives started crowing that they could never lose.

Then two things happened. In September 1992, Britain was forced to go off the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, a Common Market currency agreement, which resulted in vastly rising interest rates—a disaster for the recently increasing number of homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages. The Conservatives’ reputation for economic competence vanished, while their reputation for nastiness remained.

The other was the successful New Labour project led by a small group around Blair, Gordon Brown, and Peter Mandelson. Mandelson said that it would have been a disaster if an unreformed Labour had won the 1992 election before he, Blair, and Brown modernized the party. And they profited by the unforeseen death of Labour party leader John Smith in 1994. Brown yielded to Blair, who was quickly elected party leader at age 41. He and Brown continued in uneasy partnership in the opposition for three years, with Labour enjoying wide leads in polls all the time, and in the ten years in which Blair served as Prime Minister and Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer—a job that seems to combine the powers of the American Treasury Secretary and Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It was an uneasy, increasingly bitter alliance. Mandelson, always a Blair rather than a Brown disciple, was twice forced out of cabinet office by what seem to this pair of American eyes very minor scandals; he spent several years as the trade minister of the European Union and, after Brown became prime minister in 2007, was summoned back to London and given a seat in the House of Lords and a cabinet position that has made him the de facto prime minister. Mandelson’s progress reminds me of Winston Churchill’s description of Arthur Balfour during the political crisis in December 1916 when Herbert Henry Asquith was ousted as Prime Minister and replaced by David Lloyd George: “He passed from one Cabinet to the other, from the Prime Minister who was his champion to the Prime Minister who had been his most severe critic, like a powerful graceful cat walking delicately and unsoiled across a rather muddy street.”

One negative consequence of the infrequency of shifts in party control in Britain is that the governing party in its later years in the majority grows tired, stale, corrupt, and fractious.

If Labour in opposition pursued the will o’ the wisp of socialism, Conservatives in opposition flayed each other over the ouster of Margaret Thatcher by the “wets” in November 1990 and vied in their devotion to conservative causes such as immigration restriction, traditional moral values, and opposition to the European Union—positions not necessarily unpopular with most voters, but of low priority to most of them and seemingly out of touch with the Cool Britannia of the post-Diana years. Conservative party leader William Hague veered from traditionalism to modernism in the run-up to the 2001 election; his successor as leader, Iain Duncan Smith, had some intelligent things to say about how the welfare state hurt its intended beneficiaries, but was forced out of the leadership in a few years; Michael Howard, the leader in the 2005 election, could not efface his reputation as a hard-edged Home Secretary in the Major government.

David Cameron’s election as party leader in fall 2005 finally put aside the 1990s intraparty fights. Cameron, photographed riding his bicycle in London and surveying endangered species in the Arctic, embraced environmentalism and the slogan, “Go Green, Vote Blue.” (The Conservative color in Britain is blue, the Labour color red, as it should properly be.) The Conservatives have been leading in polls by wide margins, with good but not assured prospects (not assured because the current districting works heavily against them) of winning a majority in the House of Commons this year.

It seems to take British opposition parties a long time to adapt—a lot longer than American opposition parties. The British electoral system plays a role here. General elections occur only once every four or five years, unless a party has such a small majority that it is forced to go back to the polls, which hasn’t happened since 1974. By-elections in vacant parliamentary seats occur frequently, and the party in power tends to do poorly in them (except for Labour from 1997 to 2006). But if anything this discourages rather than encourages the opposition’s attempts to adapt and refashion its policies and appeal.

My experience in interviewing British voters is that they often employ tactical voting and are very aware of the signals it sends to the governing party.

My own view is that opposition victories in by-elections, together with the low job ratings that incumbent prime ministers and parties in power tend to get in polls (again, Labour 1997–2006 is an exception), are one means British voters use to confine the power, theoretically total, of the majority party to enact its policies into law. My experience in interviewing British voters is that they often employ tactical voting and are very aware of the signals it sends to the governing party.

Nor does the opportunity to seek local, regional, or EU office give opposition parties much chance to come up with alternative policies. The one exception: the office of mayor of London, created in 1999. But its only two holders so far—the left Labourite Ken Livingstone, elected over Blair’s opposition, and the colorful and perhaps eccentric Conservative Boris Johnson—have not become alternative national party leaders. Opposition parties typically do well in EU elections, which British voters and political insiders consider of little consequence; local offices tend to be decided on local issues, and in any case Parliament and the executive exert so much control over local government that it seldom if ever produces policy initiatives like the welfare and crime control initiatives that ultimately swept the United States in the 1990s.

There are two obvious negative consequences of the infrequency of shifts in party control in Britain. One is that the governing party in its later years in the majority grows tired, stale, corrupt, and fractious—as anyone familiar with the later Major years or the current Brown years knows. Of course this happens in America too, after even shorter periods in power, as denizens of Capitol Hill in 1994 or 2006 could easily observe.

The other consequence is that if an opposition party does win, its leaders typically have little if any experience holding executive office. This was true of New Labour: Blair and Brown had both first been elected to the Commons in 1983, and never were part of a majority. It will be true, or largely true, of a Cameron government if Conservatives win this year. Cameron was first elected to the Commons in 2001, his shadow Chancellor George Osborne in 2005. Hague, slated to be Foreign Secretary, did serve as a minister for Wales in the Major government and Kenneth Clarke, Chancellor in the Major government, may get a lesser cabinet position, but these are rule-proving exceptions. In the United States, in contrast, with changes of government every eight years (or 12 years, as in 1993), each party has cadres of policy experts available for high positions in the executive branch.

But it may be beside the point to tote up the advantages and disadvantages of infrequent changes of power. Voters in Britain and America can change the pattern any time they want to.

Michael Barone is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

FURTHER READING: Barone specializes in analyzing elections and districts. He’s recently reviewed “A Keystone Election” in Pennsylvania, discussed the correlations between “Delayed Childbearing and Voting Behavior,” noted “An Immigration Tipping Point” in America’s decline in foreign-born population, and explored “Republicans and Democrats: A Tale of Two Bases.” Barone also thinks the “GOP Should Push Education and Pro-Family Tax Reform” and that President Obama’s presidency is based on two “Mistaken Assumptions.”

Image by Darren Wamboldt/Bergman Group.