tl;dr – I don’t want bread
Stop with all the sandwiches for breakfast. Not everything has to be in sandwich form; you’re not leaving some moral culinary duty unfilled if you don’t serve sandwiches all the time. If you really must have sandwiches on the menu, the very least you can do is offer normal platter items, or an a la carte option so I don’t have to feel like such a dick in public when I have to say out loud “CAN YOU PLEASE HOLD THE BREAD? I’M NOT GLUTEN SENSITIVE I’M JUST ONE OF THOSE JERKS WHO’S INTO LETTING EVERYONE HERE KNOW THAT I DON’T WANT A GRAIN RIGHT NOW K?” Poor Chinese orphans have mobile phones with the power to make a random person fart on the other side of the world, but you can’t put one breakfast item on your menu that doesn’t have dry, tasteless sponge-slabs on it? Save sandwiches for lunch, like a true American establishment in the post-Quest For Food™ years—especially you, that one independent deli near work that has no excuse for not taking my special snowflake requests. I’m about to tie my colon into some Boy Scout knot so that whenever I eat your bleached enriched inflammatory white flour slices of conveyor belt gluten that you have forced upon me, you’ll have to deal with the projectile linguine-blast of regrettable disgust that comes out of me.
PS – Vegans and vegetarians constitute 0.000000000120001% of your customer base. They don’t need specific menu items. Make them feel like the special snowflakes, not me.
There was an Hispanic lady at the Chinese takeout place. I don’t know how I knew that. I tried my rudimentary Spanish on her, and she responded back with salsa-flavored friendliness. She knew I made an effort. I almost jumped the counter to tell the cooks my order because I thought that was customary. Someone held me back. There were two hands on my arm and it felt like a grip from different people. Maybe they can self-multiply on necessity.
The next day or month we were in a waffle house. The hostess was friends with us somehow but she didn’t give us any special treatment. She didn’t give any customers treatment. No one had food but we were all okay with it. When we left, still hungry, we found out she leaked gold or diamonds out of her various bodily holes—all of them. We didn’t think it worth the trouble turning around to become independently wealthy. She was black and she didn’t like white people. That’s not saying much because she hated everyone in the restaurant the same.
Authors Respond to Brexit on Twitter – I am shocked—shocked—that rich elitists would sympathize with soulless bureaucracies.
Fit for a King singer faces backlash for comments on race – AKA: People are oversensitive sissies.
Aristotle’s 2400 Year Old Tomb Found at Stagira – Found next to Plato’s Cave. Anyone? Yes? No? I’ll see myself out…
Covens vs. Coders: How Witchcraft Apps are Pissing Off Real Witches – “Real” witches…
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – Thug Notes Summary & Analysis – How have I not heard of these videos before?
The Empathy Industry – I’m okay with this as long as they give women prosthetic phalluses that “work” at very inopportune times.
Shifty merchants with 251 secret words for trade – “It looks like classic myth-repetition of the usual Eskimo-words-for-snow sort.”
Economists show that boys who grow up around books earn significantly more money as adults – Most economists are great at making connections with spurious logic. This seems like an example.
Doctor’s Plan for Full-Body Transplants Raises Doubts Even in Daring China – This is also suspicious.
It Took Centuries, But We Now Know the Size of the Universe – “We” are suspicious of this, too.
The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife – Totally suspicious, AKA: it’s just wishful thinking.
TED Talks are the pinnacle of bourgeois cheesepuff and self-back-pattery—a ‘roided up NPR with visuals. As a prole, I’m supposed to be floored by the priesthood coming out from behind the Veil of the Holy of Holies to radiate their revelations to me. Their videos are mildly interesting at best, but this one I couldn’t ignore since it involves books, and Natick, a city close to where I grew up, and one in which I worked a good few years (what’s up, Sam Goody?).
I also couldn’t ignore this because, given what I was expecting, it wasn’t completely terrible.
She found something she didn’t like in her life, and in the general marketplace of books, and fixed it herself by…fixing it herself. She didn’t whine about privilege* or to the government for taxpayer money, at least as far as I know. Good for her.
Her classmate’s instinctual objection to Grace’s desire to play Dorothy in the school play was understandable, though elementary school plays can bend a little since it’s about the kids and their experience in acting, and not so much historic or artistic accuracy. The Wizard of Oz was about an Anglo family in early 20th century, agrarian Kansas—though the Gales could’ve been Chinese, they weren’t. Having a Chinese girl play a white girl is silly…just as silly as having and blue-eyed Heidi play Dorothy from The Wiz. The Wiz was specifically utilized black culture in Harlem as its backdrop, and having our Heidi play Dorothy’s role breaks the coherency of the narrative: The Wiz would be about something different.
Regardless, I got a little lost when Grace finger-wagged at the end. Kids (presumably American kids…she might get laughed out of Chinese schools if she tried to diversify them) don’t “need” diverse books, they just need to be taught not to be dicks.
* As a young Asian female of reasonable attractiveness, living in America, Grace is literally one of the most privileged classes in the history of the world, not just present day. I don’t fault her for it and I don’t expect her to “check” any of it.
There’s a pilot ordered for a Nancy Drew series on CBS:
Described as a contemporary take on the character from the iconic Nancy Drew book series, the CBS project will center around a diverse, 30-something title character. A more mature version than the classic story, Nancy is now detective for the NYPD where she investigates and solves crimes using her uncanny observational skills, all while navigating the complexities of life in a modern world.
So…it’s basically another hour-long crime drama, and dare I call this darkwashing? Nancy Drew—yes, I read some of the books when I was younger—went through a lot of changes and iterations since the books started in the 30s, but three things were constant: she was white, suburban, and a girl. This depiction destroys two and a quarte of these things…the “quarter” part comes in because Drew was depicted as a teenager or a college-to-mid-twenties aged person. I don’t remember her being thirty years old at all, and thank God they didn’t make her a man. It’s sillier than making Thor a woman or Dr. Watson a Chinese woman living in America, but not as silly as using a half-Danish, half-Jewish actress portray Motoko Kusanagi from the upcoming Ghost in the Shell live action film. Don Quixote as an Indian auntie? Wonder Woman as a man? When does the Ship of Theseus become another ship?
But there’s degrees to this, and the live action version of Ghost in the Shell compared to its more canon material is a good specimen. Casting Scarlett Johansson as Kusanagi is wrong for fundamental plot/expository reasons: Kusanagi is an ethnic Japanese, a Japanese national, heavily involved with Tokyo politics and white-collar, technological crime. All of her prosthetic bodies are female and Japanese (there’s even an episode where a colleague asks why she chooses the same body type every consciousness transfer). Contrast this with the casting of as her co-protag, Batou. Batou is a French national that got involved with Shell’s Section 9 during a world war. Pilou Asbæk is portraying him in the 2017 film, yet he is half-French and Half-Danish, and a Danish citizen. Not completely off the mark, especially physiognomically, even if Asbæk were a 100% Dane. Batou’s Frenchness could be rewritten since it’s not essential to his character; that he’s not Japanese is, and Asbæk would still fit that bill.
I have no dog in the evolution debate because I’m not a biologist nor a theologian, but I do have loosely-held ideas—intuitions, really—not based on scientific study by nature but still relevant and true (to a degree) to me, internally.
This article on the romanticization of “natural” food, from the leftoid Jacobin site, provides an interesting clue. A apropos section:
Natural was usually indigestible. Grains, which supplied from fifty to ninety percent of the calories in most societies have to be threshed, ground, and cooked to make them edible. Other plants, including the roots and fibers that were the life support of the societies that did not eat grains, are often downright poisonous. Without careful processing green potatoes, stinging taro, and cassava bitter with prussic acid are not just indigestible, but toxic.
Nor did our ancestors’ physiological theories dispose them to the natural. Until about two hundred years ago, from China to Europe, and in Mesoamerica, too, everyone believed that the fires in the belly cooked foodstuffs and turned them into nutrients. That was what digestion was. Cooking foods in effect pre-digested them and made them easier to assimilate. Given a choice, no one would burden the stomach with raw, unprocessed foods.
So to make food tasty, safe, digestible and healthy, our forebears bred, ground, soaked, leached, curdled, fermented, and cooked naturally occurring plants and animals until they were literally beaten into submission.
To lower toxin levels, they cooked plants, treated them with clay (the Kaopectate effect), leached them with water, acid fruits and vinegars, and alkaline lye. They intensively bred maize to the point that it could not reproduce without human help. They created sweet oranges and juicy apples and non-bitter legumes, happily abandoning their more natural but less tasty ancestors.
It goes on as such. Assuming that Laudan’s facts are correct, and I have no reason to doubt that they are, a question arises: if humans had successfully evolved in much the same way other organism have, why do humans have to put so much effort into making things edible? If the organisms from which humans evolved didn’t have to apply an inordinate-seeming level of logical process to “food” as we do now, how did it occur that humans are biologically tasked with doing so? Wouldn’t a (truly) natural consuming of the raw materials, the kind of vegetations and animals that other organisms are observed to eat now, be the de facto state of things, and wouldn’t it have remained as such, evolving alongside the pre-homo sapien as they made their way into into modern humans? The idea that we have had to utilize a primitive form of modern science to process natural resources for something so basic as eating, on the surface, contradicts microevolutionary theory for humans specifically. It’s as though humans, if I want to phrase it dramatically, were thrown onto the planet ex nihilo to figure out how to fend for themselves.
To be more specific here, I believe creation probably began and progressed via one of the current pseudo-scientific* theories we all learned in school, but that humans were directly created by supernatural mean. I had originally thought this was called the very vague and unhelpful theistic evolution, but in reading its definition, it doesn’t address this idea specifically. But, as I’ve stated before, I hold this belief very loosely and not opposed to something different.
* “Pesudo-scientific” here isn’t the derogatory term, but an actual description of it. Origins of the universe and evolutionary theory are a mix of science and non-scientific conjecture or predicate logic. True, the scientific process always embodied predicate logic to sort of “fill in” gaps in knowledge until more raw information came in, but it’s my view that evolutionary theories contain too much of this type of inferential knowledge to be considered purely scientific.
I’m currently vacationing in Massachusetts, home to Elizabeth Warren and her corporo-fascism.
A new Cheerios commercial portrays a competent dad. Interesting for its novelty but especially attention-starved social justice warriors are going to Tumblr the new paradigm.
The Folly of Scientism – “Advocates of scientism today claim the sole mantle of rationality, frequently equating science with reason itself. Yet it seems the very antithesis of reason to insist that science can do what it cannot, or even that it has done what it demonstrably has not.”
“‘…Jimmie John’s bread is baked in the store every morning to give it a fresh and unique taste, whereas Chairman Mao Zedong of China exterminated over 45 million people.’ said Dr. Potamkin.”
Have any rightist dorks come across this and tried to make something out of it?
A band I don’t care about doesn’t take the Bible literally, just like 99% of all Christendom throughout history. The question is: in what way is not literal?
Three Reasons Why Private Property Is Essential for Human Flourishing. This is just common sense and a basic understanding of human behavior, but putting it in (good) economics terms doesn’t hurt.
Poking around to see if any other blogger-types actually published the words, Soveriegnman.com looks like he hit the jackpot over a month ago.
I found this guy that posed a challenge to use the words in a sentence. But why would I want to do that? The list does give me a lot of gas, and to target this sickness I plan to exercise, then drive to an airport and take an airplane through cloudy skies to a facility in Mexico, where I can help and aid the ice not leak and become snow. I cancelled the smart pork in China and Somalia!
*If you are an overpaid DHS drone (the bored human kind, not the flying metal ones) that landed here, please make yourself useful and click an ad or something.