Sunday, April 3, 2011
okay, new location!
I've decided to stop randomly blogging about my life, and instead to randomly blog about my garden, woo hoo!
http://eatdurham.wordpress.com
Saturday, February 26, 2011
i'm back
Even though the only people who read this blog are my father in law and ... well, thats it (hi dad!)...I need to proclaim something loud and clear over the internet (but not Facebook, because I'm too ashamed to tell all 800+ of my "friends" that i harbor this secret passion):
I secretly love Olive Garden and have been craving it for years. I haven't had any since December 2006 in Dallas, Tx, and haven't been able to return because everyone I associate with thinks its a disgusting trans-fat middle-class American paradise. And I'm not going there by myself - I'm not a traveling businessman on an over-valued per-diem trying to save some money.
This perception, while true, ignores all of the amazing merits of Olive Garden. Olive Garden is delicious. The [FREE] bread and salad are so good!! They are so liberal with the pepperoncinis in the salad, and the olives! and the standard iceberg and romaine lettuces covered with dripping salad dressing!! The pastas are so buttery and filled with suspicious gloriousness!! The soda beverages are all sparkly in their plastic (? plastic? cheap glass? i can't even remember!) glasses!
Olive Garden doesn't give a crap about your arteries, or America's expanding waistline, or the amount of grass that your cow eats or chicken sees (this part does prick my conscience a bit). They just want your taste buds to be happy and the pleasure centers in your brain to activate. and they're so successful at it!
No fancy schmancy truffle based titles, just google-translated Italian titles for spaghetti and alfredo deliciousness, mixed in with the names of somewhat well-known Italian cities, thanks to movies like, "Under the Tuscan Sun," and "My House in Umbria." Easy to read, easy to order, easy to become addicted and rant about it five years after withdrawal sets in.
i'm so hungry right now. There is some part of me that loves the same things that middle-class America loves (could this be because...gasp...I grew up in a solidly middle class American family? sometimes I resent my higher education viewpoints. Hmm. or maybe its just because middle-class Americans eat really tasty food. After all, we do find them appealing because evolutionarily our bodies are programmed to think fatty foods are delicious -- we're just not good at resisting temptation, thats all), even though I know they should be beneath me at some level.
other items I love: Olive Garden, Snickers Bars, frozen pizzas and bagel bites, Nesquick, Gushers, frappucinos, McDonalds cheeseburgers (THERE I ADMITTED IT), those giant bloomin onions from the fair, and chicken wings. and tacos and enchiladas. I. love. tacos. and. enchiladas. Particularly cheese enchiladas. i could eat chips and salsa every day for the rest of my life. I also love Korean food.
i must be a product of my environment.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
new post time
Beer is an interesting beverage. Why do people order just one? If you're just going to order one beer, you might as well just have a water. Or a more delicious root beer.
I was at happy hour today, and got a burger, and then I got a beer, without thinking. Very automatic response. HOWEVER. If I had thought about the fact that I didn't actually want a beer, I would have ordered a water. but i didnt. And if I hadn't thought about this just now, I would probably continue on in life, just sitting down and ordering beers every time I sat down at a drinking establishment.
Objectively, beer does not taste good. Beer is wonderful, and amazing, and some beers are way better than other beers. But if you had to compare a beer to a delicious iced tea, or lemonade, or hawaiian punch, beer would lose every time. Its just that delicious iced tea, lemonade, and hawaiian punch don't come packed with that feel-good wonderfulness that every beer is guaranteed to come with. And after years of drinking beer while searching for the feel good wonderfulness, one begins to associate the taste of beer with this feeling, and one fools themselves into thinking that beer tastes good. When in reality, it is being drunk that tastes good, not the beer, but we have lost sight of that along the way.
The point is. I am not going to waste my time drinking just one beer anymore. I'm not saying I don't love beers but - if you're not going to drink at least 2, why have any at all? Instead, I am going to make sure that I donate my part to the corn lobby -- dr pepper, here i come (back) !
I was at happy hour today, and got a burger, and then I got a beer, without thinking. Very automatic response. HOWEVER. If I had thought about the fact that I didn't actually want a beer, I would have ordered a water. but i didnt. And if I hadn't thought about this just now, I would probably continue on in life, just sitting down and ordering beers every time I sat down at a drinking establishment.
Objectively, beer does not taste good. Beer is wonderful, and amazing, and some beers are way better than other beers. But if you had to compare a beer to a delicious iced tea, or lemonade, or hawaiian punch, beer would lose every time. Its just that delicious iced tea, lemonade, and hawaiian punch don't come packed with that feel-good wonderfulness that every beer is guaranteed to come with. And after years of drinking beer while searching for the feel good wonderfulness, one begins to associate the taste of beer with this feeling, and one fools themselves into thinking that beer tastes good. When in reality, it is being drunk that tastes good, not the beer, but we have lost sight of that along the way.
The point is. I am not going to waste my time drinking just one beer anymore. I'm not saying I don't love beers but - if you're not going to drink at least 2, why have any at all? Instead, I am going to make sure that I donate my part to the corn lobby -- dr pepper, here i come (back) !
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
dog dreams
I love watching Napoleon sleep. Sometimes his legs shake a little bit, when he dreams hes running, and his whiskers flutter a bit, when he dreams hes barking. But what could he be dreaming about?
Does he have nightmares? Whats a dog nightmare consist of? Is there a plump, juicy looking bird that is just constantly out of reach (this is actually more like real life for him)?
Does he maybe do the stumble-run ... where you dream you're running, either away from or to something very important, and you have to run fast, but your legs keep stumbling underneath you?
Or maybe theres the recurring nightmare where the laser pointer is on a counter that is just out of reach, and he has to just jump, and keep jumping, and he never gets it (this is real life too).
Whats a good dream consist of? Does he catch his birdie? He would have no real life experience to base this on. Maybe he humps barry in some of his dreams (also real life). Does he dream about Evan, when Evan is gone?
I wonder if dogs that have saved their owners have nightmares that their owners are drowning or suffering again, and they can't do anything to save them. I bet that happens.
But the thing I am most confused about, is how dogs distinguish reality from their dreams. When Napoleon wakes up, after a particularly awesome dream where he is allowed to eat five rare steaks without having to sit or do any tricks for any of them, does he think that experience actually happened? Does it affect the way he perceives the world when hes awake (i.e., thinking he doesn't have to sit for treats)? Or are their dream memories so fuzzy and vague that it can't affect anything when they're awake?
I wonder if the ability to recall dreams is uniquely human. Why do we dream anyway? whats the point? If we sleep without dreams, are we missing out on some crucial bodily function? or...maybe dreams are the necessary ingredient, and not sleep -- perhaps if it were possible to dream without sleeping, then we would fulfill the necessary requirement that we currently attribute to sleep (these would be memory consolidation, categorization, recharge, rest, etc). Not that this is possible. and if it were, nobody would think to separate the two, or even be able to separate the two, for a very long time.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
obesity in the poor
Too many fat people in the world, too many poor fat people in the USA. America is one of the prized few countries where childhood obesity is correlated with poverty. Or at least with not being rich.
(man, my dog is cute)
Sooo what to do, what to do.....
ooooh pick me! pick me!
okay, yes, you, go ahead.
Alter the food stamps program to encourage consumption of healthier, low fat foods. People on food stamps do not get all of their food from the grocery store; rather, they get free food from the grocery store so now they can spend that money on something else (like, perhaps...McDonalds). But what if you could make it so that they didn't buy a McDonald's cheeseburger, and instead, they bought one of those healthy options (i never go to Mickey d's anymore so i actually have no idea what i'm talking about). But, you may ask, why get the healthy option when the fat one is so much more delicious? Because....the healthy option was redeemable with your food stamp card!
So heres the idea. Local and state governments should partner with restaurants and other dining establishments, hold them to a "healthy dining option" standard, and for restaurant items that live up to that standard, allow food stamps consumers to use their food stamps to purchase that item. For example -- a whole foods salad would be redeemable on food stamps (kind of absurd, since whole foods salads are insanely expensive). Or the McDonalds' fresh fruits and yogurts would be redeemable, or their healthy sandwich options. Like Arby's fresh sandwiches.
Eating healthy is expensive. I've been there. I am quite aware of how expensive it is to eat a)organic and b) enough healthy food to fill me up. Essentially, one ends up eating beans every single day of their life, and who in their right mind wants to do that? We weren't on food stamps, because we were intentionally trying to be poor (and who in their right mind wants to do that? yeah. right. www.jesuitvolunteercorps.org, thats who.), but IF we DID have food stamps, it certainly would have been nice if we could have gotten some prepared, healthy food on those stamps. As it was, we couldn't afford anything except beans and rice.
Right now, states and local govts should take advantage of this opportunity to combat childhood obesity and bring some revenue to restaurants offering healthy food items. This not only benefits food stamps users, but the population as a whole; as more restaurants started offering more healthy options, consumers (non-food stamp users) would have more healthy options to choose from.
(man, my dog is cute)
Sooo what to do, what to do.....
ooooh pick me! pick me!
okay, yes, you, go ahead.
Alter the food stamps program to encourage consumption of healthier, low fat foods. People on food stamps do not get all of their food from the grocery store; rather, they get free food from the grocery store so now they can spend that money on something else (like, perhaps...McDonalds). But what if you could make it so that they didn't buy a McDonald's cheeseburger, and instead, they bought one of those healthy options (i never go to Mickey d's anymore so i actually have no idea what i'm talking about). But, you may ask, why get the healthy option when the fat one is so much more delicious? Because....the healthy option was redeemable with your food stamp card!
So heres the idea. Local and state governments should partner with restaurants and other dining establishments, hold them to a "healthy dining option" standard, and for restaurant items that live up to that standard, allow food stamps consumers to use their food stamps to purchase that item. For example -- a whole foods salad would be redeemable on food stamps (kind of absurd, since whole foods salads are insanely expensive). Or the McDonalds' fresh fruits and yogurts would be redeemable, or their healthy sandwich options. Like Arby's fresh sandwiches.
Eating healthy is expensive. I've been there. I am quite aware of how expensive it is to eat a)organic and b) enough healthy food to fill me up. Essentially, one ends up eating beans every single day of their life, and who in their right mind wants to do that? We weren't on food stamps, because we were intentionally trying to be poor (and who in their right mind wants to do that? yeah. right. www.jesuitvolunteercorps.org, thats who.), but IF we DID have food stamps, it certainly would have been nice if we could have gotten some prepared, healthy food on those stamps. As it was, we couldn't afford anything except beans and rice.
Right now, states and local govts should take advantage of this opportunity to combat childhood obesity and bring some revenue to restaurants offering healthy food items. This not only benefits food stamps users, but the population as a whole; as more restaurants started offering more healthy options, consumers (non-food stamp users) would have more healthy options to choose from.
Friday, September 26, 2008
einstein's quest
Tom Friedman came to Duke last week and talked about his answer to everything. Essentially, he believes, there are five or six major problems in the world, and energy independence (cheap, renewable, plentiful electrons, he calls them) is the solution that will make them all go away. Some problems that he labeled were petrodictatorship (the idea that oil enhances powerful dictatorships and reduces freedom), climate change (duh), overpopulation, ( see climate change), and biodiversity. He had many problems, and a single solution that would take care of all of them. Killing six birds with one stone, you might say.
Well, it seems to me that that this six birds one stone idea should apply in many different areas. And it seems that there should be an overarching solution to the many problems ... infinite problems, one solution. Free trade purists have latched on to free trade as the solution that will cure all of the worlds evils - unfortunately, they are wrong, as free trade has proven itself over and over again to be a tool for the rich and powerful, exploiting the poor. Religious zealots have proclaimed that if everyone would just recognize jesus/allah/buddha/whatever other deity, as their lord and savior, then we would have heaven on earth. This is probably true. If everyone was just like Jesus, we would live in a pretty sweet (although sometimes very confusing) world. Unfortunately, nobody is just like Jesus, because nobody is God. We're all human, and we're greedy, we have trouble valuing anothers life as much as we value our own, we're xenophobic, we want many things, etc. And, you know, a lot of people don't believe in Jesus. Its illogical, makes no sense, its unanalytical idealism, and its vaguely southern.
Okay, so whats the solution to the problems?
it appears that the biggest problem is the distribution of wealth, and inequality. We have six billion minds on this earth. but only about 20% of them are actively participating in solution finding, because the other 80% of them have crappy educations, are females in an oppressed world, have underdeveloped brains because of severe malnutrition as a child, or have to spend their time working to survive instead of working to help others survive. But redistributing wealth is silly because it would just get unequally distributed again in the future, or it would piss a lot of people off, or it wouldnt work the same way communism didnt work.
So, what if money just didnt exist? What if everything were free? What if...robots did all the labor, and all humans had to do was consume responsibly, be educated, and every once in a while go update the system?
I guess you would have the problem of overconsumption. But we could just discriminate against fat people, and people who had ginormous houses and lavish things -- bc if money didnt exist, it would mean you didn't earn it -- it would mean you'd taken it away from the common good. It would be socially valuable to live responsibly. People could spend most of their time having fun, or working out, or reading, or watching movies, or whatever. They could still produce, for the social value of fame, they just wouldn't get paid to do it.
this all sounds like an economist's worst nightmare, i'm sure, but eventually we'll get to the point where robots do most of the work, and the person who owns those robots reaps most of the benefits while the workers who were replaced by the robots gets nothing. Taxing the shit out of that capital and redistributing it the poor is one way of dealing with the issue, but that makes people feel worthless and pisses off the robot owners. Lets just eliminate money.
Einstein spent his life on a quest to find the answer to everything. Douglas Adams, in a Hitchikers Guide, said the answer to everything was 42. Adams is one of the only people who has proposed a real solution. I say we take 42, we run with it, and we call it the elimination of money (only after, of course, we can automatize everything, and robots could legitimately produce and make everything we needed sustainably).
Well, it seems to me that that this six birds one stone idea should apply in many different areas. And it seems that there should be an overarching solution to the many problems ... infinite problems, one solution. Free trade purists have latched on to free trade as the solution that will cure all of the worlds evils - unfortunately, they are wrong, as free trade has proven itself over and over again to be a tool for the rich and powerful, exploiting the poor. Religious zealots have proclaimed that if everyone would just recognize jesus/allah/buddha/whatever other deity, as their lord and savior, then we would have heaven on earth. This is probably true. If everyone was just like Jesus, we would live in a pretty sweet (although sometimes very confusing) world. Unfortunately, nobody is just like Jesus, because nobody is God. We're all human, and we're greedy, we have trouble valuing anothers life as much as we value our own, we're xenophobic, we want many things, etc. And, you know, a lot of people don't believe in Jesus. Its illogical, makes no sense, its unanalytical idealism, and its vaguely southern.
Okay, so whats the solution to the problems?
it appears that the biggest problem is the distribution of wealth, and inequality. We have six billion minds on this earth. but only about 20% of them are actively participating in solution finding, because the other 80% of them have crappy educations, are females in an oppressed world, have underdeveloped brains because of severe malnutrition as a child, or have to spend their time working to survive instead of working to help others survive. But redistributing wealth is silly because it would just get unequally distributed again in the future, or it would piss a lot of people off, or it wouldnt work the same way communism didnt work.
So, what if money just didnt exist? What if everything were free? What if...robots did all the labor, and all humans had to do was consume responsibly, be educated, and every once in a while go update the system?
I guess you would have the problem of overconsumption. But we could just discriminate against fat people, and people who had ginormous houses and lavish things -- bc if money didnt exist, it would mean you didn't earn it -- it would mean you'd taken it away from the common good. It would be socially valuable to live responsibly. People could spend most of their time having fun, or working out, or reading, or watching movies, or whatever. They could still produce, for the social value of fame, they just wouldn't get paid to do it.
this all sounds like an economist's worst nightmare, i'm sure, but eventually we'll get to the point where robots do most of the work, and the person who owns those robots reaps most of the benefits while the workers who were replaced by the robots gets nothing. Taxing the shit out of that capital and redistributing it the poor is one way of dealing with the issue, but that makes people feel worthless and pisses off the robot owners. Lets just eliminate money.
Einstein spent his life on a quest to find the answer to everything. Douglas Adams, in a Hitchikers Guide, said the answer to everything was 42. Adams is one of the only people who has proposed a real solution. I say we take 42, we run with it, and we call it the elimination of money (only after, of course, we can automatize everything, and robots could legitimately produce and make everything we needed sustainably).
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
