Filed under: food
Michael Pollan’s brilliant essay, “Unhappy Meals” in the NY Times describes how, among other things, “nutrients managed to push food aside in the popular imagination of what it means to eat.” The essay is rather long but truly worth a read!
Something’s very wrong with the way most of us buy and consume food in America but Pollan really breaks it down:
Consider what happened immediately after the 1977 “Dietary Goals” — McGovern’s masterpiece of politico-nutritionist compromise. In the wake of the panel’s recommendation that we cut down on saturated fat, a recommendation seconded by the 1982 National Academy report on cancer, Americans did indeed change their diets, endeavoring for a quarter-century to do what they had been told. Well, kind of. The industrial food supply was promptly reformulated to reflect the official advice, giving us low-fat pork, low-fat Snackwell’s and all the low-fat pasta and high-fructose (yet low-fat!) corn syrup we could consume. Which turned out to be quite a lot. Oddly, America got really fat on its new low-fat diet — indeed, many date the current obesity and diabetes epidemic to the late 1970s, when Americans began binging on carbohydrates, ostensibly as a way to avoid the evils of fat.
Of course it’s also a lot easier to slap a health claim on a box of sugary cereal than on a potato or carrot, with the perverse result that the most healthful foods in the supermarket sit there quietly in the produce section, silent as stroke victims, while a few aisles over, the Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms are screaming about their newfound whole-grain goodness.
Filed under: politics
Father Robert Drinan, a former US Congressman, has died.
Here’s a very brief overview of his career. Among other notable acts, Drinan was a tireless advocate of peace and human rights, and was the first member of Congress to call for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.
Congressman Drinan came to my high school once (long time ago!). A wiry man in a black suit, his manner was forthright, even a bit brusque. None of the slickness I’d soon come to associate with politicians I raised my hand to ask a question I had carefully practiced beforehand, basically: Did he support the ERA? Of course! he said. As an already-ex- Catholic teen, I was surprised to hear a clergyman voice such unequivical support of women’s rights.
He took lots of questions and explained specific legislation he was working on, never once talking down. Later on, when Pope John II barred priests from holding office, it seemed clear the main target was Drinan. I wished he had stayed on in Congress anyway; the fact that he did not says much about the depth of his committments, both religious and civil.
Filed under: politics
After ten years of stalling and billions of tax cut giveaways to big business, the US Senate still balks at raising the minimum wage. Watch Sen. Ted Kennedy thunder on behalf of America’s low-income workers.
Filed under: politics
Gary Wills reminds us that US civilians have no Commander in Chief.
A Quote:
“WE hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”
But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.”
Filed under: sports
Ya know when that shark bites, with his teeth, babe
Scarlet billows start to spread
Fancy gloves, though, wears old MacHeath, babe
So there’s nevah, nevah a trace of red.
Filed under: politics
Unless it’s the Saudis.
From defining the enemy to claiming credit for job creation, Bush made mincemeat of the truth during last night’s SOTU. The Washington Post has a great run-down of where and how Bush made a hash of it
Filed under: politics
Re: State of the Union.
Cheney managed to look both evil and dead.
Bush speech? Stinkbomb start to finish.
Jim Webb’s response was really good. Strongly anti-war, anti-”surge”. I hope it will lead to more than a non-binding resolution. As far as domestic issues he really laid into growing income disparity in the US. And unlike Bush, he spoke about New Orleans.
Cool to see Pelosi there in the chair over Bush’s left shoulder. Just for history’s sake.
Lastly: Why the hell do Congressmen and Congresswomen swarm around Bush asking for his autograph? They all look like lackeys, not members of a co-equal branch of government. Get some dignity.
Here’s a thoughtful, consise response to the SOTU from Joshua Micah Marshall
Filed under: TV
Finally saw an audition on American Idol. Truth be told, I saw the final episode last season, where the white-haired boring guy won and Prince performed at half-time. So, I had seen a crowning, but never the run-up…
The first-round contestants seem like isolated, lonesome people whose exposure to other humans comes solely from watching them on TV.
The whole hotel-room audition thing is a pretty harrowing spectacle. Last week’s contestants really practice the American ethos of ‘If you believe it will happen, and try and try and try (and try), it will happen’. Other considerations (talent, training, money, connections, etc) don’t enter in. The resulting clash between self-delusion and reality makes for cruel, riveting TV.
Example: A young, small, big-eyed, tuneless, clueless contestant “sings”. He says “yo dog” to Simon Cowell. His bravado is ridiculed. Rejected, he tries a little more back-and-forth with Cowell as the camera lingers. Rejected by all 3 judges, he retreats out the wrong door of the hotel conference room (why does one exit door stick in both Seattle and Minneapolis??)
And the ratings are beyond high. No wonder nobody’s in the streets protesting war in Iraq – everybody in the USA is either in line to audition for American Idol, or watching it on TV.
There is truly something deranged about the perseverance displayed by these people. It makes determination itself seem scary. I mean, even when told they don’t make the grade, they WON’T STOP SINGING.
It’s almost impossible to look at it (though I sure did), this raw national exposure of private desire. These folks have been tucked away in bad homes, tiny towns, poverty, aiming their desperation into the mirror for a long, long time. They have pictured themselves impressing the crap out of the celebrity panel, they have imagined 40 million jaws dropping in unison (the small guy even said something like “your mouth will drop” to Simon). They want fame or love or both. I don’t know.
It’s brutal and humbling. Like looking directly inside someone’s chest at their beating heart.
Some are more menacing than others: The hairdresser who finished singing terribly and approached Cowell with a dab of hair gel. Three security guys erupted out of the fucking walls.
Only one contestant compels silence from the panel: A young round guy with an odd, loud voice. He appears to have some sort of developmental disability, and as soon as he speaks the judges grow quiet. This is the ‘Do Not Cross’ line I guess. It took a long time to reach it. Again, the camera lingers.
I don’t know if I can take it. Not because the show is terrible but because it’s sort of powerful – Americans are dreaming alone in rooms. If they could only win it would make up for everything that ever went wrong in their lives, and rescue them from invisibility. I would not want to be one of those judges, beseeched and despised, sitting like Fate itself armed with red plastic cups and sharpened pencils.
Filed under: politics
‘Spank’ is a strange euphemism. Outside its use in soft porn, the term ’spank’ now only refers to the hitting of children. Its core definition, however, is always the same: a blow (or smack) delivered with an open hand.
The use of the word ’spank’ in the context of striking a child is defensive. Like the media’s insistence on the term ‘abuse’ rather than ‘torture’ to describe the treatment of American detainees in the so-called War on Terror, the use of the word ’spank’ seeks to blunt the reality of violence through language.
This is not to say a ’spank’ on the bottom is the same as torture at Gitmo; nor is every hit the sort of life-threatening crime you read about in the news every day. What it is, however, is violence, the kind any one of us (adults) would not inflict on a fellow adult without risking
1. physical retaliation
2. criminal charges
3. public condemnation
If the word ’spank’ were replaced in every instance ( in conversation among parents and the public in general, in the media, among policy-makers) with the word ‘hit’, public acceptance of the practice would decline. At the very least, a more honest discussion of corporal punishment would ensue. Children are not property, and adults have no more right to hit a child than they have a right to hit each other, or any one other person.
If, as some maintain, hitting “works”, it is only in the way that spousal abuse and sexual abuse “work”, by instilling compliance based on confusion and terror.
Bravo to State Assemblywoman Sally J. Lieber of California for introducing this legislation.
Filed under: sports
Looks like Jimmy Connors is really making a difference in Andy Roddick’s game.
And Serena Williams is into the fourth round. Serena is the 2005 Australian Open winner, but has struggled a bit. I’d love to see her do well this year.
My prediction on the men’s side is a safe one: Roger Federer beats somebody (James Blake?) in the final.
For the women’s final, I think it could be Sharapova and Amelie Mauresmo in the final,
but not sure who’ll win…need more time to hedge my bets.
