clevermanka (
clevermanka) wrote2009-05-13 09:15 am
Entry tags:
Salty
This article is made of win. How Mac N' Cheese Is Like A Cigarette. I would support a tax on junk food and soda. I hate the idea of more taxes, but they're taxing the hell out of my booze and smokes. The food junkies can fucking pony up along with me. Don't read the comments, though. Half of them are written by whiny parents pointing their fingers at the food industry instead of shouldering the blame for what they themselves put in their grocery cart. These people should be shot in the face.
In other Selective Reading news: For quite a while, I crushed on Coilhouse pretty hard. When the original creators post, it's still wonderful. And I like David Forbes, who writes the SF literature articles. But some of their other guest bloggers? Um. Not so much. This was painfully spotlighted in this article here, which posted yesterday. Not only were there numerous spelling errors (which I can only hope were fixed soon), but some of them caused some LOL-ing. My favorite was the author's misspelling the name of the company French Melody as "French Malady."

Couple that with the (same) author's admitted ignorance of fashion, but who continued writing about...fashion. Not every writer for Coilhouse needs to breathe and bleed design, but this "see how funny I am when I'm writing about something you all care about but I don't" attitude is not interesting or engaging. This same writer recently posted another Coilhouse article, featuring a You-Tube clip of C-SPAN, that was mostly about how the author doesn't really watch C-SPAN. I didn't like his introductory interview, either, so I shouldn't be surprised. I wish Coilhouse's bylines would appear at the top so I could be warned not to bother when this particular blogger's posts appear.
I realize that the sacred and original triumvirate are overwhelmingly busy with the print edition. However, I'd rather have fewer but well-written posts than some of what's gone up lately. I know, I know! It's a free blog and I should just STFU. But it's disappointing when a personal darling fails to deliver. Repeatedly.
This morning, I kosher-salted my coffee. I grind the beans for the week and bring the grounds to the office, so instead of grinding with the salt, I sprinkled a pinch on top of the grounds before I started the pot. It's much less bitter, and has a smoother mouth feel. I didn't even bother sweetening it, and I like my sweet coffee. It makes more of a difference than I would have imagined. The girl who shares the pot of coffee with me even asked if I'd switched coffees--and I hadn't mentioned anything to her.
nottygypsy, I bet it would help out with your budget coffee until you can afford some of The Good Stuff again.
In other Selective Reading news: For quite a while, I crushed on Coilhouse pretty hard. When the original creators post, it's still wonderful. And I like David Forbes, who writes the SF literature articles. But some of their other guest bloggers? Um. Not so much. This was painfully spotlighted in this article here, which posted yesterday. Not only were there numerous spelling errors (which I can only hope were fixed soon), but some of them caused some LOL-ing. My favorite was the author's misspelling the name of the company French Melody as "French Malady."
Couple that with the (same) author's admitted ignorance of fashion, but who continued writing about...fashion. Not every writer for Coilhouse needs to breathe and bleed design, but this "see how funny I am when I'm writing about something you all care about but I don't" attitude is not interesting or engaging. This same writer recently posted another Coilhouse article, featuring a You-Tube clip of C-SPAN, that was mostly about how the author doesn't really watch C-SPAN. I didn't like his introductory interview, either, so I shouldn't be surprised. I wish Coilhouse's bylines would appear at the top so I could be warned not to bother when this particular blogger's posts appear.
I realize that the sacred and original triumvirate are overwhelmingly busy with the print edition. However, I'd rather have fewer but well-written posts than some of what's gone up lately. I know, I know! It's a free blog and I should just STFU. But it's disappointing when a personal darling fails to deliver. Repeatedly.
This morning, I kosher-salted my coffee. I grind the beans for the week and bring the grounds to the office, so instead of grinding with the salt, I sprinkled a pinch on top of the grounds before I started the pot. It's much less bitter, and has a smoother mouth feel. I didn't even bother sweetening it, and I like my sweet coffee. It makes more of a difference than I would have imagined. The girl who shares the pot of coffee with me even asked if I'd switched coffees--and I hadn't mentioned anything to her.

no subject
no subject
...sooooo, transmitted by syphilis?
no subject
I agree with the other commenter, send them an email. They will probably appreciate it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I can't for the life of me figure out why they chose this guy. Their introductory post of him was practically a mash note, so I don't imagine my gripe will fall on sympathetic ears, but perhaps it's worth a try.
no subject
no subject
I don't know either. Of course, I also don't know what options they had.
no subject
no subject
One thing in the article, though, that raises some questions for me is this:
For example, in 1960 women aged 20 to 29 weighed an average of 128 pounds. By 2000 the average weight had jumped to 157.
For one thing, I'm struck by the fact that the author chooses to discuss only women's bodies in particular. Why not quickly list averages for men and children, too, if their weights are equally important? It could still be one sentence and it could easily avoid reinforcing the idea that weight matters more for women than for men.
Furthermore, I wonder how the effect of Americans' rising average height over the last 40 or 50 years factors into this equation? Women have gained an inch to an inch and a half in height, I believe, since the 1960s. Acknowledging this does not destroy his argument, but it does make it more accurate. Without this acknowledgment, his numbers seem to represent women (and other Americans) simply ballooning up and getting fat, when the reality is that they have grown both up and out.
Finally, I can't help but apply these numbers to myself and have a sneaking suspicion that other women reading this will, too. I'm 5'8", so taller than average, but my weight fluctuates near the average weight of the year 2000 for women, which is made to seem fat in the context of the article. But I cannot fathom weighing 128 pounds. If I were even in the mid-140s I'd feel frighteningly skinny to myself. Like I said, I know that my height is above the average female height, but it seems that just throwing out average weights without any more context than is provided here seems both disingenuous and potentially dangerous for people who may read this and take away the wrong, too simple idea about the proper weight range for American women.
no subject
The weight comment was out of place and unnecessary. I think stating a BMI would've been more helpful.
no subject
I should have taken your advice and not read the comments though. Most people on both sides pissed me off--especially the person who implied that I should never have been born.
I grew up eating really cheap, processed crap because I lived in true poverty, not middle-class overspending poverty. Sorry my mother decided to ruin my life by having me when she got pregnant instead of killing me. Sorry we ate crap so we could eat for the entire week instead of eating fresh so we could only eat for half the week. Sorry that I am now another useless, fat burden to society.
I don't disagree with the article--except maybe with the tax, or have any bad feeling from the author. I also don't think self-righteous asshats pompousizing their beliefs ever helps any cause. They are just as bad as the whining parents.
no subject
no subject
I must've stopped reading before I got to that one. Nice.
People who think they can't grow beyond circumstances are often the same people who don't take responsibility for their own choices.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I am guilty of the fast and easy answer. I am also making strides toward learning to make better choices for my family when it comes to food. (cut and moved to own journal instead of hijacking yours...)
Definitely something to continue thinking about!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Then I come home and read the part about shooting people in the face and I fell out laughing. Though- not intended- that totally brightened this peace-loving buddhists day!
I read the article there were a couple of other along the same lines, but dealing more with the classism of food that I should dig out for you. Also- have you read Animal, Vegatable, Miracle? I am reading it right now and really digging it.
Yay for seeing you Saturday!
no subject
I am 100% totally on the classism of food bandwagon. Yes. It's an obscenity that few people recognize or even admit. I wrote an LJ entry about it a long time ago, but can't remember when. Probably if you dug through my "opinions" tag (don your hazmat suit and welding mask first) you might find it.
I haven't read that book, no. Is it in the same vein as the ones
I'm so excited for the workshops! Yay!
no subject
Maybe there should be tax breaks for healthier choices instead?
Quite frankly, I don't think that food should be taxed (sales) at all. (It wasn't in Nevada) Add to that toilet paper, hygiene products and vitamins. Radical, eh?
no subject
I don't care how poor you are, you don't need to drink soda and eat Twinkies.
I don't think that food should be taxed (sales) at all
I don't either. But I don't think that soda and Twinkies should qualify as food. =b
no subject
I hear ya. anything that lasts that long without rotting is just WRONG.