[Abel-tasman] Stop wasting time baking potatoes

[Potato Express Cooker]

Quickly steam potatoes, corn, and bread in microwave

http://www.zondaphku.us/3201/183/405/1485/3040.10tt62883642AAF11.php





Unsub- http://www.zondaphku.us/3201/183/405/1485/3040.10tt62883642AAF12.html













Voters are divided over how the White House is handling the September 
11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed 
a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. On President Obamas role, however, 
voters are clear: he should have been more involved.A Fox News poll 
asked voters about their reaction to former Defense Secretary Leon Panettas 
testimony to Congress in February on the Benghazi attack. Panetta testified 
that after the initial 5:00 PM briefing with the president, he didnt 
hear from the President Obama or anyone at the White House again 
that night. CLICK TO VIEW THE FOX NEWS POLLWhile almost a third 
of voters (29 percent) think there was probably a good reason for 
the president not to be personally involved, most voters -- 61 percent 
-- say Obama should have been directly involved no matter what.Most Republicans 
(82 percent) and over half of independents (57 percent) feel the president 
should have been more engaged in responding to the assault. Among Democrats 
views are split: 43 percent say Obama had a good reason not 
to be involved, while 45 percent say theres no excuse.The new poll, 
released Wednesday, also asked voters to react to former Secretary of State 
Hillary Clintons testimony that she hadnt seen a cable from the consulate 
asking for additional security and warning the administration about the 
dangerous situation diplomats were facing. Some 39 percent of voters say 
it is troubling Clinton didn
assaulted    because 
they were perceived as gay. About 13 percent of lesbians said the 
same.A separate study of young people in England also found that, in 
their teens, gay boys and lesbians were almost twice as likely to 
be bullied as their straight peers. By young adulthood, it was about 
the same for lesbians and straight girls. But in this study, published 
recently in the journal Pediatrics, gay young men were almost four times 
more likely than their straight peers to be bullied.At least one historian 
says it wasn't always that way for either men or women, whose 
"expressions of love" with friends of the same gender were seen as 
a norm    even idealized    in the 
19th century."These relationships offered ample opportunity for those who 
would have wanted to act on it physically, even if most did 
not," says Thomas Foster, associate professor and head of the history department 
at DePaul University in Chicago.Today's "code of male gendered behavior," 
he says, often rejects these kinds of expressions between men.We joke about 
the "bro-mance"    a term used to describe close friendships 
between straight men. But in some sense, the humor stems from the 
insinuation that those relationships could be romantic, though everyone 
assumes they aren't.Call those friends "gay," a word that's still commonly 
used as an insult, and that's quite another thing. Consider the furor 
over Rutgers University men's basketball coach Mike Rice, who was recently 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://post.in-mind.de/pipermail/abel-tasman/attachments/20131122/66a29d9d/attachment.htm