Saturday morning roundup

Beijing denizens are breathing more easily. Residents of Russia's monotowns are hurting.

Calvin Trillin on what caused the financial crisis. BTW, the New Yorker's coverage, including that in, but not limited to, the last few issues, has been excellent (and more serious).

Another article debunks popular cougar theory.

On the topic of being"faced with... the smallest pool of compatible men," allow me to share a personal experience or two. Nothing serious. And I know--as a friend pointed out last weekend, speaking for herself, actually, as we were amazed at what some women are willing to put up with in a guy--I'm hardly in a position to talk. But I think this is interesting.

Some of you know of a friend of mine that was absolutely horrified--the horror stayed with her for months--that (a) a guy wore sweatpants to a party and (b) said guy hit on her. Her! She'd never go for a guy in sweatpants! What makes a guy in sweatpants think he could get her?? And I agree with her. But the guy in sweatpants didn't know that he was out of her league by virtue of wearing sweatpants, and sometimes it's less an issue of leagues, which imply hierarchy, and more an issue of compatibility. But the same underlying issue remains: one party sees a gaping incompatibility and the other has no clue. Like the guy that came to look at the room (who, I can tell you, would have been ten times worse than RM), who twice texted me and once called to ask me out. Well, another situation came up recently. A guy asked me out for coffee. I wasn't inclined to want to have coffee with him, but I didn't immediately decline. I proceeded to learn that he had once lobbied for the Farm Bureau. As in, "oh, you're interested in food policy? I once lobbied for the Farm Bureau."

For those of you who don't quite appreciate what that means, imagine he'd told me he'd once lobbied for Operation Rescue. Actually, I think that would have been less offensive.

***
Going back to one of the articles I posted on Thursday, I have to roll my eyes, again and for a different reason, at that line about how the supposed agri-intellectuals shouldn't scoff at people who want to eat at McDonald's. If anything, people scoff at me. People think there's something wrong with you when you do eat healthily. My mother is the most direct about it--if I opt not to eat something, she starts lecturing me about how I shouldn't take anything, including healthy eating to extremes. There's no rhyme or reason to her lecturing, though--she'll dish it out no matter what, because she operates under the impression that I have complicated reasons for eating or not eating everything that is possible to eat, just like she thinks that I watch every show on TV and recognize every TV personality, or watch the shows that I do because I think they're brilliant in every way.

Mom: Why do you watch this show? This show seems stupid.
A.: I'm watching it because it's on.
Mom: Who's that?
A.: I don't know.
Mom: But you watch the show.

And so on. I'll spare you the "why did he do that"/"I don't know" sequence.

When it comes to food, that conversation goes like this:

Mom: Why aren't you having any oranges?
A.: I hadn't noticed them...
Mom: Have an orange now.
A.: No, thanks. I'm not hungry.
Mom: It's just an orange.
A.: I don't want to eat anything right now.
Mom: You shouldn't take anything to extremes.

The point is, though, that mom may be the most direct, but other people say and think similar things. Consider my roommate, who got it into his head that I had an eating plan. Why does actively thinking about what you eat make some people think you're some kind of freak?