More pictures, not sure whether depressing and uplifting or both, this time of Detroit.
Bike shares are working on the helmet issue.
Dudes, for the umpteenth time, nobody wants to see your $hit. I'm sorry that you got the short end of the stick (no pun intended) among the animal kingdom in that it's women's bodies that are the 'ornamental' ones, but such is life, and god knows we have enough crap to deal with for it, such as your blaming your bad behavior on our irresistibility. We're sorry that our bodies turn you on (for the most part; for each of us, there's one of you at a given time that we're not sorry to turn on), and I guess we're sorry that your packages don't turn us on, but they just don't, so deal with it.
So I thought about this Carolyn column--about a woman whose husband won't get his @$$ of the couch--in light of an earlier column of hers about a woman whose husband won't draw boundaries to his ever-present buddies. Starting with the latest one--then I'll move on to what struck me about both--I don't see the bait-and-switch that the LR is accused of; it's understandable that something (for example, watching sports together) is fine when two people start dating but not enough to keep a relationship alive as it progresses. The common thread in both columns is that neither woman is asking too much--and Carolyn comments in the earlier one that the idea of the woman as the nag and the guy as just wanting to hang out with his guy friends is misguided and unhelpful--so why are these ladies pulling teeth to make their relationships work? This is part of why, in the same posts in which I unironically discourage one from taking relationship advice from single people, advise women to let guys take the lead early on. It's not (just) about traditional roles or turn-offs; it's about making sure the guy is able and willing to do (some of) the work of being in a relationship.
Trader Joe's' shoppers don't want antibiotics in their meat.
This woman's take on GMOs is exactly my take.
This sort-of take-down of whole grains is disingenuous and simplistic. That you'd have to eat nine servings of brown rice to get your daily allowance of fiber may be true, but did anyone ever say that you had to get all your fiber from brown rice? Maybe people are also eating vegetables, fruit, pulses, and other grains? Again, true that brown rice may be overhyped, but that doesn't invalidate the value of grains in general. As for the spurious claims on cereal boxes, it surprises people that food companies lie? That they inflate health claims? That if you actually care about nutrition, you probably know better than to rely on cereal box health claims? I mean, it's good that the article distinguishes between real whole grains and processed whole grains (and yet... I have whole wheat pasta, and it has plenty of fiber and nutrients), but the issue in question is false advertising, not genuine nutritional advice.
By the way, that Vaclav Smil excerpt I posted last week talks about how much, percentage-wise, is stripped off of wheat and rice, respectively. It also talks about the incontrovertible environmental impact of meat.
Speaking of spurious nutritional advice, how did the brilliant Linus Pauling fall prey to the vitamin myth, and take a bunch of the country down with him?
Chickens are smarter than your toddler. Just think about that when you make your decisions about dinner.
I ate my home- (well, garden-) grown cucumber today. It was awesome.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment