Sunday morning roundup and rant

Debates in three countries over secular government in their own way. Four, really.

Advertisers split hairs (pun intended, if hesitantly). I was thinking about the soup case, and other food "claims." I recently saw eggs boasting a "gluten free" claim (along with vegetarian-fed, hormone-free, certified humane, and other elements of "happy" eggs); this is akin to advertising produce as "cholesterol free," i.e., no $hit. I have a friend who has full-blown, diagnosed Celiac's--not "gluten insensitivity," not intolerance, etc. We've cooked and dined together quite a few times, and I've never seen her worry about the gluten content of eggs, whether or not they're grain-fed (first of all, who's going to feed hens with wheat? but that's not the point).

Also, I didn't have time during the week to rant about the mammogram debate (although I posted Gail Collins' and Steve Pearlstein's thoughts on the matter). In addition to their very valid points, the controversy speaks to our unwillingness to perform due diligence on important decisions that affect our lives. Health is complicated, and there are nuances; it's only natural that there won't be a clear-cut answer. Nonetheless, some people prefer to ask Suze Orman whether or not they can afford something, rather than come up with a budget and assess their priorities; some people would rather have the food industry slap a "smart choices" label on Fruit Loops rather than read the ingredients; some would rather eliminate entire foods and food groups from their diets, rather than accept that, say, eggs are good for you in some ways, bad for you in others (or when consumed in excess), and that there is both good in bad, in different ways, in both the yolk and egg; and some need to be told how often to get a mammogram, rather than actually read the research and delve into the details and specific implications that might tailor the research to their lives.

Would it be a stretch to connect that national impatience for nuance to the Palintological appeal that Frank Rich so astutely parses? Maureen Dowd also talks about it, while Kathleen Parker takes a different angle.

I know the Post probably thinks it is serving the interests of balance by chronicling various faces of the recession, and in all fairness I haven't read the whole article--which spans part of the front page and two more pages of the A Section--and don't intend to because the lead on the front page hasn't made me care. I know blond girls who can't find work right out of business school are people, too--and I'm not being smug; had I graduated in hard times, I'd be struggling, too, and with a much less impressive resume. I'm just saying, is this kind of thing really worth so much (A Section) real estate?

While I'm Post-bashing... the paper's Travel Section is normally a waste of space, but this piece on Holocaust museums in Chicago is quite thoughtful.

Human rights should not be but an auxiliary to our China policy.

Lessons from Rwanda on balancing, or not balancing, open society with development.

Blah, blah, blah. Jonathan Safran Foer has been saying it better for weeks. Of course, Foer doesn't advocate strict veganism. And Steiner makes a good point: meat-eaters are a self-righteous bunch: they're always the ones demanding that we vegetarians (or pescetarians, since some deem me unworthy of the vegetarian label) justify ourselves. By the way, I do think it's odd that when my parents go for walks, they admire the ducks they see, but don't think twice about having them for dinner. My mom probably does think twice about it, actually, but that's not enough to stop her. And I can't blame her-- after all, I love squid, both in nature and on my dinner plate.

The delicate matter of correcting an adult's grammar and pronunciation for his or her own good.

Chocolate-lovers, go find your local Russian food store and check out their dark chocolate offerings.

Ezra Klein's tips for not encouraging gorging this Thanksgiving.