The lead article in today's New York Times, "F.D.A. Offers Broad New Rules to Fight Food Contamination," discussed requirements the federal agency may impose on food producers across the country. As I read about how the FDA may require producers to ensure that contaminated food not come into contact with other food or how farm workers may be mandated to wash their hands after going to the bathroom, all I could think was, "You mean this isn't required ALREADY?!?"
And the Tea Party thinks there's too MUCH government regulation?!?
According to the article, the FDA estimates that these new rules will prevent about 1.75 million illnesses each year--which sounds impressive, until you notice that the article also says that, each year, one in six Americans becomes ill as a result of food contamination. That's 50 million people! Seems to me that maybe the FDA needs to consider some other strategy.
Also, these rules--many of which focus on the need to keep food away from what we might call human "leavings" would primarily focus on fruits and vegetables that tend to be eaten raw. "Vegetables that are much more likely to be consumed cooked, like potatoes and artichokes, would be exempt from the rules." In other words, when you check out those big, juicy Idaho browns at the supermarket, just remember: The FDA has said you're on your own.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
That Inanimate Carbon Rod Looks Better All the Time
In a classic episode of "The Simpsons" (are there any other kind?), Homer takes umbrage when passed over for employee-of-the-month at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. Adding insult to injury, Homer loses the title to an inanimate carbon rod. So, really, John Boehner (R-Lachrymosia) shouldn't feel too bad.
Boehner was re-elected Speaker of the House by a relatively narrow margin, receiving 220 votes to Nancy Pelosi's (D-SodomandGomorrah) 192. Interestingly, a number of votes went neither to Boehner nor to the Democratic leader Pelosi. Votes were cast for other, more conservative Republicans, such as Eric Cantor (R-Rasputinia)and Raul Labrador (R-Who'sagoodboy?), as well as--on the Democratic side--civil rights icon John Lewis (D-I'dratherbemarchingonWashington). Additionally, some congressmen voted for such non-members as Colin Powell and Allen West, the latter having just lost his re-election battle in Florida. This raises the obvious question: Can ANYBODY be elected Speaker of the House?
Well, actually, the answer may be "Yes": Absolutely anybody--or any THING--may qualify to serve as Speaaker of the House. The Constitution simply states that the "House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers." (Spelling and capitalization apparently don't count.) Most commentators assume, in keeping with the rules for the Senate, as well as for the British Parliament on which much of our governmental structure was based, that the House is meant to choose from among its own members. As we see, though, this was not clearly stated.
(DIGRESSION: What was it with the Founding Fathers and ambiguous phrasing? Speaker elections, gun ownership. . . .Couldn't these guys ever just come right out and SAY stuff? EOD)
And here I thought the papacy had lax standards! To be elected Pope, though, one does have to be Catholic--and a man. Even Supreme Court Justices have to be nominated by the President, which is why we've never had unqualified people in that august body! (Now, now. If Clarence Thomas ever opens his mouth, I'm sure we'll be amazed by the scintillating display of jurisprudential reasoning.)
An interesting sidebar: In the British Parliament, the newly-elected Speaker is actually dragged by the other members to the Speaker's chair. Far from being the unambiguous (?) honor that it is today, the speakership actually involved a certain amount of risk: If a monarch didn't like what the speaker spake, a swift and often lethal demotion could follow. While I hesitate to endorse such a medieval tradition today, I think we might all enjoy watching a nice Boehner-drag--possibly through a bramble patch.
Boehner was re-elected Speaker of the House by a relatively narrow margin, receiving 220 votes to Nancy Pelosi's (D-SodomandGomorrah) 192. Interestingly, a number of votes went neither to Boehner nor to the Democratic leader Pelosi. Votes were cast for other, more conservative Republicans, such as Eric Cantor (R-Rasputinia)and Raul Labrador (R-Who'sagoodboy?), as well as--on the Democratic side--civil rights icon John Lewis (D-I'dratherbemarchingonWashington). Additionally, some congressmen voted for such non-members as Colin Powell and Allen West, the latter having just lost his re-election battle in Florida. This raises the obvious question: Can ANYBODY be elected Speaker of the House?
Well, actually, the answer may be "Yes": Absolutely anybody--or any THING--may qualify to serve as Speaaker of the House. The Constitution simply states that the "House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers." (Spelling and capitalization apparently don't count.) Most commentators assume, in keeping with the rules for the Senate, as well as for the British Parliament on which much of our governmental structure was based, that the House is meant to choose from among its own members. As we see, though, this was not clearly stated.
(DIGRESSION: What was it with the Founding Fathers and ambiguous phrasing? Speaker elections, gun ownership. . . .Couldn't these guys ever just come right out and SAY stuff? EOD)
And here I thought the papacy had lax standards! To be elected Pope, though, one does have to be Catholic--and a man. Even Supreme Court Justices have to be nominated by the President, which is why we've never had unqualified people in that august body! (Now, now. If Clarence Thomas ever opens his mouth, I'm sure we'll be amazed by the scintillating display of jurisprudential reasoning.)
An interesting sidebar: In the British Parliament, the newly-elected Speaker is actually dragged by the other members to the Speaker's chair. Far from being the unambiguous (?) honor that it is today, the speakership actually involved a certain amount of risk: If a monarch didn't like what the speaker spake, a swift and often lethal demotion could follow. While I hesitate to endorse such a medieval tradition today, I think we might all enjoy watching a nice Boehner-drag--possibly through a bramble patch.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
I May Have to Rethink My Opposition to the NRA
Today has been filled with prep-work for the upcoming semester, so, in the spirit of laziness leavened with a dose of public service, I present you with a link to a disturbing story from the United Kingdom. If you see an Oompa-Loompa coming down the sidewalk, consider crossing to the other side. Stay safe, Nation.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Congressional Testimony on Energy Drink Marketing
"Energy drink companies have promoted their products not as caffeine-fueled concoctions but as specially engineered blends that provide something more. For example, producers claim that 'Red Bull gives you wings,' that Rockstar Energy is 'scientifically formulated' and Monster Energy is a 'killer energy brew.' Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, has asked the government to investigate the industry’s marketing claims."
--"Energy Drinks Promise Edge, but Experts Say Proof Is Scant" (New York Times, January 2, 2013)
"Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. At the request of Congressman Markey, I led a panel of scientists and nutrition experts to assess the accuracy of marketing claims asserted by makers of so-called 'energy drinks.' I come before you today to present our findings.
"To begin with, I am pleased to report that our panel finds the claim by the makers of Rockstar Energy--that this drink is 'scientifically formulated'--to be largely accurate. Rockstar Energy drinks are composed largely of molecules--on average, Rockstar drinks are 96.4% molecules by volume. The remaining 3-4% of each can of Rockstar consists of some unknown material, which we can only assume to be supernatural in essence. At any rate, given the overwhelming preponderance of molecules in the drink's composition, and since nothing is more 'science-y' than molecules, we are comfortable endorsing the company's claims to scientific formulation.
"Somewhat more difficult to assess were the claims of Monster Energy. Monster claims to be a 'killer energy brew.' Obviously, the testing of this claim presents thorny ethical issues. In a strictly literal sense, we confirmed the accuracy of the claim: After ingesting significant amounts of Monster Energy, a number of mice, rabbits, and a small pig quickly succumbed to what our medical experts diagnosed as 'Exploding Heart Syndrome.' Nevertheless, we were unable to confirm or debunk the claims as they pertain to human, which we assume to be Monster's primary target audience.
Numerous requests to experiment on prisoners were denied. In short, this claim remains unproven.
"Finally, with regard to perhaps the most famous marketing claim of any of these drinks, I must report that Red Bull does not, in fact, 'give you wings.' We tested the drink on numerous experimental subjects, and in only one case did Red Bull 'give wings': Further review, however, revealed that this particular test subject--a snowy egret--actually had wings to begin with. Furthermore, we are sorely disappointed with the makers of Red Bull for their attempt to deceive our panel by presenting as proof of wing-acquisition one Mr. Hans Bieberkopf of Salzburg, whose wings had clearly been stapled on. While we did conclude that drinking more than three times the recommended serving size of Red Bull may cause certain people to sprout feathers, we cannot endorse the overall accuracy of Red Bull's claims.
"I thank the committee for their time."
--"Energy Drinks Promise Edge, but Experts Say Proof Is Scant" (New York Times, January 2, 2013)
"Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. At the request of Congressman Markey, I led a panel of scientists and nutrition experts to assess the accuracy of marketing claims asserted by makers of so-called 'energy drinks.' I come before you today to present our findings.
"To begin with, I am pleased to report that our panel finds the claim by the makers of Rockstar Energy--that this drink is 'scientifically formulated'--to be largely accurate. Rockstar Energy drinks are composed largely of molecules--on average, Rockstar drinks are 96.4% molecules by volume. The remaining 3-4% of each can of Rockstar consists of some unknown material, which we can only assume to be supernatural in essence. At any rate, given the overwhelming preponderance of molecules in the drink's composition, and since nothing is more 'science-y' than molecules, we are comfortable endorsing the company's claims to scientific formulation.
"Somewhat more difficult to assess were the claims of Monster Energy. Monster claims to be a 'killer energy brew.' Obviously, the testing of this claim presents thorny ethical issues. In a strictly literal sense, we confirmed the accuracy of the claim: After ingesting significant amounts of Monster Energy, a number of mice, rabbits, and a small pig quickly succumbed to what our medical experts diagnosed as 'Exploding Heart Syndrome.' Nevertheless, we were unable to confirm or debunk the claims as they pertain to human, which we assume to be Monster's primary target audience.
Numerous requests to experiment on prisoners were denied. In short, this claim remains unproven.
"Finally, with regard to perhaps the most famous marketing claim of any of these drinks, I must report that Red Bull does not, in fact, 'give you wings.' We tested the drink on numerous experimental subjects, and in only one case did Red Bull 'give wings': Further review, however, revealed that this particular test subject--a snowy egret--actually had wings to begin with. Furthermore, we are sorely disappointed with the makers of Red Bull for their attempt to deceive our panel by presenting as proof of wing-acquisition one Mr. Hans Bieberkopf of Salzburg, whose wings had clearly been stapled on. While we did conclude that drinking more than three times the recommended serving size of Red Bull may cause certain people to sprout feathers, we cannot endorse the overall accuracy of Red Bull's claims.
"I thank the committee for their time."
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Sharkjump Alert: "Dexter"
I just finished watching the most recent season of "Dexter" (season 7), and it pains me to report that this once-great show has officially and irreversibly jumped the shark. For those of you who watch the show and have not yet caught up, you may want to skip today's spoiler-filled post. Or read it: It will save you a lot of time and misplaced energy.
"Dexter" maintained exceptional quality for many seasons. For years, we thrilled to the exploits of Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), a seemingly mild-mannered blood-spatter analyst for Miami Metro Homicide, who lives a secret life as a serial killer. What makes Dexter sympathetic, in addition to his acute intelligence and his compassion for friends and family, is the fact that he abides by a code: He preys only on those who deserve to die, mainly killers who have escaped justice.
The series itself improved year by year, reaching a high-point in season four, which featured John LIthgow as the "special guest killer," Trinity. Lithgow was perfectly cast as the "Claudius" figure to Dexter's "Hamlet," in a storyline that revolved around Dexter's inability to decide whether or when to kill his antagonist. The season ended with one of the great shock images in recent television history: Dexter's wife Rita (Julie Benz)--his "Ophelia"--dead in a blood-filled bathtub, Trinity's final victim.
That would have been a good place to end the series. Season five, though, managed to maintain a fairly high-degree of quality. The main storyline of that season featured Dexter helping Lumen Pierce (Julia Stiles) exact vengeance on a group of men who had raped and tortured her (as well as having killed several other women). Dexter falls in love with Lumen, the first woman who accepts Dexter for what he truly is (Rita never having known about Dexter's murderous tendencies). After finishing off the last of her tormentors, though, Lumen leaves Dexter, hoping to reclaim some semblance of her normal life.
Season six was relatively unremarkable, revolving around the hunt for a pair of religiously motivated psychopaths who see themselves as divine messengers. Indeed, the entire point of season six, in retrospect, was simply to get us to the season's final moment: Dexter's adoptive sister, Deb (Jennifer Carpenter)--a lieutenant at Miami Metro--having resolved to tell Dexter of her feelings for him, walks in on Dexter just as he is putting the coup de grace to his latest victim.
How will he ever get out of this one?
Which brings us to season seven. As the season begins, Dexter attempts to explain away what Deb has just seen him do. "What me, serial killer?" Thankfully, the writers remembered that Deb is not an idiot, so she quickly figures out what Dexter is. She is torn between her love for Dexter (familial or otherwise) and her sworn duty to uphold the law. Deb resolves, uneasily, to accept the fact that Dexter kills only the worst of the worst and to do her best to protect him accordingly. So far, so good, but then things get complicated.
One of the strengths of "Dexter" has always been the focused nature of the storytelling. Each of the preceding six seasons clearly revolves around one central storyline: Dexter and the Trinity killer, Dexter and Lumen, Dexter and the hunt for the Doomsday killers. This season, though seemed to bounce among too many storylines: Dexter and Deb; Dexter and Isaak Sirko, a Ukrainian mobster seeking to avenge Dexter's murder of his (Isaak's) lover; Dexter and Hannah (Yvonne Strahovski), a beautiful serial killer with whom Dexter falls in love. Additionally, this season featured a subplot wherein Dexter's and Deb's boss, Capt. Maria LaGuerta (Lauren Velez), discovers Dexter's secret. While every season has featured an entertaining number of plotlines, the lack of a clear overall storyline for this season weakened the show tremendously. And then came the finale.
In the final episode, Dexter realizes that LaGuerta has figured out not only the truth about him, but
also that Deb has been helping him. What is to be done? Well, Dexter decides he has no choice but to kill LaGuerta.
Look out, Shark!
Remember that the whole point of "Dexter"--the thing that makes Dexter Morgan sympathetic--is that he ONLY kills people who deserve it, primarily those who have gotten away with murder. Even when he has broken from his code in the past, he has still generally killed criminals, if not always murderers. For him to decide to kill someone who is not only innocent but who is, indeed, a police officer and a friend goes against everything we have come to expect from this character: The Dexter we know and love just wouldn't do that! He would run.
As if this weren't bad enough, here's how the season ends: Dexter lures LaGuerta to the Miami docks. He plans to make her death look like the result of a shootout with a known criminal. He drugs LaGuerta so that he can properly prepare the scene. And then Deb shows up. She pulls her gun on Dexter. She tells him not to kill LaGuerta. LaGuerta wakes up. She implores Deb to shoot Dexter. Dexter himself tells Deb it's OK: She's a good person, she SHOULD shoot him. AND THEN SHE SHOOTS LAGUERTA!!!!
Even if we accept that Dexter, an experienced killer, would choose--despite everything he believes in--to kill an innocent, there is NO WAY that Deb would shoot an unarmed, helpless woman. None. She would have shot Dexter first or, more likely, would have convinced him to run away with her.
A cardinal rule of storytelling is that you shouldn't fuck with the basic nature of the main character. ("Breaking Bad" is one of the few shows that successfully breaks that rule. Then again, the whole plot of that show is ABOUT the central character's transformation.) "Dexter" has now asked us to continue liking TWO main characters who have now compromised everything that made them likable. That may be just too much to ask.
"Dexter" maintained exceptional quality for many seasons. For years, we thrilled to the exploits of Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), a seemingly mild-mannered blood-spatter analyst for Miami Metro Homicide, who lives a secret life as a serial killer. What makes Dexter sympathetic, in addition to his acute intelligence and his compassion for friends and family, is the fact that he abides by a code: He preys only on those who deserve to die, mainly killers who have escaped justice.
The series itself improved year by year, reaching a high-point in season four, which featured John LIthgow as the "special guest killer," Trinity. Lithgow was perfectly cast as the "Claudius" figure to Dexter's "Hamlet," in a storyline that revolved around Dexter's inability to decide whether or when to kill his antagonist. The season ended with one of the great shock images in recent television history: Dexter's wife Rita (Julie Benz)--his "Ophelia"--dead in a blood-filled bathtub, Trinity's final victim.
That would have been a good place to end the series. Season five, though, managed to maintain a fairly high-degree of quality. The main storyline of that season featured Dexter helping Lumen Pierce (Julia Stiles) exact vengeance on a group of men who had raped and tortured her (as well as having killed several other women). Dexter falls in love with Lumen, the first woman who accepts Dexter for what he truly is (Rita never having known about Dexter's murderous tendencies). After finishing off the last of her tormentors, though, Lumen leaves Dexter, hoping to reclaim some semblance of her normal life.
Season six was relatively unremarkable, revolving around the hunt for a pair of religiously motivated psychopaths who see themselves as divine messengers. Indeed, the entire point of season six, in retrospect, was simply to get us to the season's final moment: Dexter's adoptive sister, Deb (Jennifer Carpenter)--a lieutenant at Miami Metro--having resolved to tell Dexter of her feelings for him, walks in on Dexter just as he is putting the coup de grace to his latest victim.
How will he ever get out of this one?
Which brings us to season seven. As the season begins, Dexter attempts to explain away what Deb has just seen him do. "What me, serial killer?" Thankfully, the writers remembered that Deb is not an idiot, so she quickly figures out what Dexter is. She is torn between her love for Dexter (familial or otherwise) and her sworn duty to uphold the law. Deb resolves, uneasily, to accept the fact that Dexter kills only the worst of the worst and to do her best to protect him accordingly. So far, so good, but then things get complicated.
One of the strengths of "Dexter" has always been the focused nature of the storytelling. Each of the preceding six seasons clearly revolves around one central storyline: Dexter and the Trinity killer, Dexter and Lumen, Dexter and the hunt for the Doomsday killers. This season, though seemed to bounce among too many storylines: Dexter and Deb; Dexter and Isaak Sirko, a Ukrainian mobster seeking to avenge Dexter's murder of his (Isaak's) lover; Dexter and Hannah (Yvonne Strahovski), a beautiful serial killer with whom Dexter falls in love. Additionally, this season featured a subplot wherein Dexter's and Deb's boss, Capt. Maria LaGuerta (Lauren Velez), discovers Dexter's secret. While every season has featured an entertaining number of plotlines, the lack of a clear overall storyline for this season weakened the show tremendously. And then came the finale.
In the final episode, Dexter realizes that LaGuerta has figured out not only the truth about him, but
also that Deb has been helping him. What is to be done? Well, Dexter decides he has no choice but to kill LaGuerta.
Look out, Shark!
Remember that the whole point of "Dexter"--the thing that makes Dexter Morgan sympathetic--is that he ONLY kills people who deserve it, primarily those who have gotten away with murder. Even when he has broken from his code in the past, he has still generally killed criminals, if not always murderers. For him to decide to kill someone who is not only innocent but who is, indeed, a police officer and a friend goes against everything we have come to expect from this character: The Dexter we know and love just wouldn't do that! He would run.
As if this weren't bad enough, here's how the season ends: Dexter lures LaGuerta to the Miami docks. He plans to make her death look like the result of a shootout with a known criminal. He drugs LaGuerta so that he can properly prepare the scene. And then Deb shows up. She pulls her gun on Dexter. She tells him not to kill LaGuerta. LaGuerta wakes up. She implores Deb to shoot Dexter. Dexter himself tells Deb it's OK: She's a good person, she SHOULD shoot him. AND THEN SHE SHOOTS LAGUERTA!!!!
Even if we accept that Dexter, an experienced killer, would choose--despite everything he believes in--to kill an innocent, there is NO WAY that Deb would shoot an unarmed, helpless woman. None. She would have shot Dexter first or, more likely, would have convinced him to run away with her.
A cardinal rule of storytelling is that you shouldn't fuck with the basic nature of the main character. ("Breaking Bad" is one of the few shows that successfully breaks that rule. Then again, the whole plot of that show is ABOUT the central character's transformation.) "Dexter" has now asked us to continue liking TWO main characters who have now compromised everything that made them likable. That may be just too much to ask.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Clarification
Yesterday's post, about "Stars in Danger: The High Dive," received a comment from the ever-perceptive "Anonymous," who pointed out that, according to Entertainment Weekly, the name of the show is actually "Celebrity Diving." Allow me to clarify: "Celebrity Diving" is an ABC show, premiering in March, in which B-list celebrities will learn the basics of Olympic-style diving; "Stars in Danger: The High Dive" is a Fox show, premiering in February, in which B-list celebrities will learn the basics of Olympic-style diving no I am not making this up. Because you can never have too many programs about has-beens and never-weres falling into water, that's why.
Hope that clears things up. Happy New Year, everyone!
Hope that clears things up. Happy New Year, everyone!
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Goin' Down
I'm a little worn out from yesterday's post, so I just thought I would bring this to everyone's attention. In early 2013, Fox will present a show wherein non-Olympians will learn the proper techniques for going off the 10-meter diving board. The cast will feature such semi-famous people as Antonio Sabato, Jr., football player Terrell Owens, and assorted other real housewives and Jersey Shore denizens. The show is called "Stars in Danger: The High Dive," which sounds a touch hyperbolic to me. I don't see how any of these people qualifies as a "star."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)