Another issue, which the author only mentioned in passing, is how the customer gets to the market. If you live in San Francisco or New York, maybe you pass a farmer's market on the way to work, or you can walk a few blocks to get to one. My job is in the suburbs, and I live near my job. But there are no farmer's markets near me. I finally found one that was open at hours when I could go, and it was 25 miles away. That means every time I wanted to buy some local vegetables, I had to make a 50 mile round trip. That's definitely not very efficient, compared to shopping at the local grocery store which is within walking distance of my apartment (but doesn't carry "local" produce).

I think the key to how the voting turned out was something that Ted said - it's not just who "won" each course, it's how much you like each one. Even though Lisa "won" the second course with her soup, Stephanie's dish was still very good. But the judges seemed to think that Stephanie's winning dishes (particularly the lamb) were significantly better than Lisa's or Richard's. Even her dessert wasn't bad, according to the judges, just boring.

Stephanie was my favorite chef from the beginning, and I think she's been the best chef all along. Richard has moments of brilliance, but he's not consistent, and he always has to put some kind of "twist" on his food. Which isn't a bad thing, but Stephanie won challenges with Asian-inspired dishes, homey meals, even dessert. She has cooked a much wider range of dishes than most of the other contestants, and done it successfully. I wouldn't have been unhappy if Richard had won, but I think Stephanie deserved it.

(For some reason, I think I've seen Richard making bacon ice cream before. Maybe when he was on Iron Chef America?)

I'm a scientist, and one reason I chose this field was the de-emphasis on clothes and appearance. I worked in a bank one summer, and having to dress up in skirts and heels every day was enough to make me say, "never again". I'm glad I can go to work wearking jeans and a t-shirt, just like the guys.

However, there's a tricky line that female scientists have to navigate, when it comes to "dressing up". If you look too feminine, you aren't taken seriously. I remember when I presented my first research seminar in graduate school, I was planning to wear a jacket and skirt - both very conservatively cut, but in a bright color. My graduate advisor looked at me in horror and told me I looked "like a secretary". He suggested I go home and change.

If you're a woman in science, and you have to dress up for some reason, it can be really hard to find something that looks conservative and professional, but not "too feminine". Because if you look "too feminine", you won't be taken as seriously.

I've actually always had employer-provided health insurance. But there's always this fear, what happens if I lose it? I've been laid off twice in the last two years, and I'm debating right now - if I'm unemployed for several months or more, do I deplete my savings by paying the astronomical cost of COBRA (and end up having to go into debt) or do I chance the private insurance market and hope I don't get turned down for pre-existing conditions, or pray that the insurance company doesn't decide I'm not a good risk and drops me? I'm pretty healthy and rarely need a doctor, but even minor health issues can doom you to be "uninsurable", and once you drop down that rabbit hole, all you can do is cross your fingers and don't get sick.

This is one thing my Dad (who retired on Medicare) just can't understand. I try to explain to him the current situation, where you can lose your insurance any time and there's this constant worry and fear, and it just baffles him. He never had that fear.

I don't know how the efficiency numbers for train travel were calculated. But the last time I traveled by train (from NY to GA), the trip was not one steady trip from start to finish. There was a LOT of stopping and starting. At least once or twice an hour, the train had to pull off to the side and wait for a freight train to pass. The train had to slow down to a crawl every time it passed through a small town. (I asked the conductor about that, he said it was mandated by the towns for "safety reasons".) At some points, we were going so slowly that people oustide were walking faster than the train.

I assume that a train gets much worse mileage when it's stopping and starting and speeding up and slowing down all the time, rather than the ideal case when it's going at a regular rate of speed. But Amtrack shares its rails with freight trains.

If you went on a cross-country trip, there are more open spaces and probably fewer stops than there are on the congested East Coast routes. But until passenger trains have dedicated tracks, they aren't anywhere near "high speed".

Karen

This topic came up on another site today, and this web site was mentioned:

http://www.benefitscheckup.org/

It's a clearinghouse with information about various programs that seniors may qualify for. It might help the original poster or someone else reading the comments.