My husband came home from Costco the Saturday before Easter- telling me what a mad house it was with everyone buying a last minute ham...because the blue laws in Minnesota mean that (for some reason) EVERYTHING is closed on Easter.
It's freakin' amazing. You will only find some gas stations, the movies, and the 24-hour pharmacy open here. Coming from California, it still amazes me how life screeches to a halt because of some religious holiday that a decreasing number of people celebrate (that is from studies done by Thrivent Financial showing that church attendance is down to about 60% of the volume that went in the 80s).
I find that I am growing increasingly more comfortable with the fact that I am not a Xian and I don't need to pretend to be one....especially since a decreasing number of people care about it...and the majority of those (90+%) are over the age of 60.
But, regardless, life in Minnesota stops on Easter.
As we've been approaching the Easter holiday this year, I've been pondering a few things:
1. Why is Easter on the Hebrew calendar? They don't believe that Jesus was the son of god. This puzzles me.
2. Why is ham eaten on Easter? Jews don't eat ham - a point which my LA-born mother was always quick to point out when my sister refused to eat ham as proof that we really must be Jewish.
This last item really baffles me, though. I wondered if perhaps ham was eaten on Easter by Xians just to piss off the Jews. I kept coming back to this item as a real possibility...so I had to look up the origin of the Easter ham.
Well:
It turns out it's PAGAN! HA!
Now, pagan is just "non-Judeo-Christian", which means that Buddhists, Muslims, Ba'hai, and Wiccans- they're all pagans. It's become a near swear word for Xians because they don't know what it means.
So, I find this tidbit of information EVEN MORE hillarious. It turns out that there's some myth/story about a queen named Ishtar (which several Xian sites incorrectly claim is the source of the word "Easter". It's not- it's actually a bastardization of the ancient Germanic word "Oster"). Anyhoo, Ishtar had a son that was killed by a boar and so she got sad for about 40 days- didn't eat, this became the source of Lent, and then she celebrated by eating the pig that killed her son.
That's it.
That's the source of the Easter ham.
Aren't you glad you asked?
I just wish I had actually bought one. I guess I will from now on!
LOL
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Spargel Zeit
I went to the store today and saw that they had asparagus on sale. I was looking it over and was overjoyed to see that the stems were all less than the diameter of my pinky finger...but then not so overjoyed at the fact that the leaf buds on top were already opening. There was a woman there about my mother's age that approached the asparagus that I was mulling over. She said, "Oh, no, they're all tiny."
o_O
Obviously this woman is uneducated about spargel (that's German for "asparagus").
Now, it's spring, so it IS the best time to find good asparagus. The best asparagus is white asparagus....
Well, let me back up.
Asparagus is a shoot- in other words, a stem. Since we're not beavers, it's (I would think) pretty obvious that we'd want the younger, greener stems, not the harder, larger, wooden ones. Since spring is when the plants awaken from their winter slumber, spring is the best time to find good, tender, small asparagus. The delicacy version of asparagus is white asparagus; this is "created" when spargel farmers continue to pile dirt up over the stems as they break through the soil. The lack of sunlight keeps these white; the moisture, support, and nutrients from the soil keep the stem soft, small, and full of flavor.
Now, I mention that the woman was my mother's age. I remember my mother telling me that she always thought that she hated asparagus because, when she was young, she got served the hard, wooden parts.
While I find it hard to believe that anyone would PREFER the old stems to the younger, tender ones, I suppose you can't predict likes and dislikes...though I'm betting it's more that this woman grew up with the hard stuff, like my mother, and she doesn't know any better.
o_O
Obviously this woman is uneducated about spargel (that's German for "asparagus").
Now, it's spring, so it IS the best time to find good asparagus. The best asparagus is white asparagus....
Well, let me back up.
Asparagus is a shoot- in other words, a stem. Since we're not beavers, it's (I would think) pretty obvious that we'd want the younger, greener stems, not the harder, larger, wooden ones. Since spring is when the plants awaken from their winter slumber, spring is the best time to find good, tender, small asparagus. The delicacy version of asparagus is white asparagus; this is "created" when spargel farmers continue to pile dirt up over the stems as they break through the soil. The lack of sunlight keeps these white; the moisture, support, and nutrients from the soil keep the stem soft, small, and full of flavor.
Now, I mention that the woman was my mother's age. I remember my mother telling me that she always thought that she hated asparagus because, when she was young, she got served the hard, wooden parts.
While I find it hard to believe that anyone would PREFER the old stems to the younger, tender ones, I suppose you can't predict likes and dislikes...though I'm betting it's more that this woman grew up with the hard stuff, like my mother, and she doesn't know any better.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Willie Wonka
This time of year, I am always reminded of Willie Wonka- chocolate and golden eggs for Easter...all of that. I guess it must have been shown during this time when I was growing up, which I find ironic since the movie specifically says it's after Easter.
ahh, well
I have found that in my old age, I really:
1. Miss the egg hunt- my dad and mom got really into the hiding aspect when we were growing up, including hiding eggs inside of furniture and whatnot. It was a great challenge that prepared me for video gaming later in life (i.e the "Easter Eggs")
2. I really don't like chocolate. I find this also interesting and wonder if I'm broke somehow because I am a woman who really doesn't like chocolate. I was making almond bark for my husband out of dark chocolate and found the smell so intense that it nearly made me gag.
Does this mean that I have enough stimulation of those neural receptors that the chocolate-brain response is just too much? It makes one wonder.
But you'd think that this time of year I would just choose another sweet treat. I used to really love chickie peeps. But I'm definitely one of the many that feel that they need to be "cured"-
in other words, you stab the plastic wrap with a knife or fork (fork is definitely best for even air distribution) and you let them sit and basically dry out for about 1-2 weeks, depending on taste and the local relative humidity (in California, this was overnight, but in Minnesota, this is definitely longer).
But I find now, to my sadness, that even chickie peeps are too sweet for me now. Perhaps it was the flirtation with campfire chickie peeps that turned me off from them (hey, a hot sugar burn on your finger can be a real deterrent). Perhaps it's just my old age since science has shown a decrease for liking sugary foods as you age and an increase in liking bitter things (which I find disturbing since most bitter foods are rotten...).
Either way, I find that I'm at a perdicament with candy and eggs for Easter Sunday this year. My daughter is 1, so technically old enough for an egg hunt. We've even let her practice opening the plastic eggs for the past month (to her glee).
But I think that 1 is too young for candy.
I KNOW. And I'm an American- what am I thinking? My mother tells me (horror) stories about how my paternal grandmother used to feed me M&Ms at my daughter's age.
o_O
Even if I wanted to break down and put some candy in the eggs, you can't just buy a handful of candy- you have to buy a bag- which means that the candy is pretty much just sitting in your kitchen waiting for someone to come along and eat it.
But what do you put in the eggs for a 1 year old if you don't put in candy? I can see small change for older kids, but what for younger kids?
I guess I'll let you know when I find out. It is kind of shame, though, because I was SO looking forward to the Willie Wonka experience for my daughter.
ahh, well
I have found that in my old age, I really:
1. Miss the egg hunt- my dad and mom got really into the hiding aspect when we were growing up, including hiding eggs inside of furniture and whatnot. It was a great challenge that prepared me for video gaming later in life (i.e the "Easter Eggs")
2. I really don't like chocolate. I find this also interesting and wonder if I'm broke somehow because I am a woman who really doesn't like chocolate. I was making almond bark for my husband out of dark chocolate and found the smell so intense that it nearly made me gag.
Does this mean that I have enough stimulation of those neural receptors that the chocolate-brain response is just too much? It makes one wonder.
But you'd think that this time of year I would just choose another sweet treat. I used to really love chickie peeps. But I'm definitely one of the many that feel that they need to be "cured"-
in other words, you stab the plastic wrap with a knife or fork (fork is definitely best for even air distribution) and you let them sit and basically dry out for about 1-2 weeks, depending on taste and the local relative humidity (in California, this was overnight, but in Minnesota, this is definitely longer).
But I find now, to my sadness, that even chickie peeps are too sweet for me now. Perhaps it was the flirtation with campfire chickie peeps that turned me off from them (hey, a hot sugar burn on your finger can be a real deterrent). Perhaps it's just my old age since science has shown a decrease for liking sugary foods as you age and an increase in liking bitter things (which I find disturbing since most bitter foods are rotten...).
Either way, I find that I'm at a perdicament with candy and eggs for Easter Sunday this year. My daughter is 1, so technically old enough for an egg hunt. We've even let her practice opening the plastic eggs for the past month (to her glee).
But I think that 1 is too young for candy.
I KNOW. And I'm an American- what am I thinking? My mother tells me (horror) stories about how my paternal grandmother used to feed me M&Ms at my daughter's age.
o_O
Even if I wanted to break down and put some candy in the eggs, you can't just buy a handful of candy- you have to buy a bag- which means that the candy is pretty much just sitting in your kitchen waiting for someone to come along and eat it.
But what do you put in the eggs for a 1 year old if you don't put in candy? I can see small change for older kids, but what for younger kids?
I guess I'll let you know when I find out. It is kind of shame, though, because I was SO looking forward to the Willie Wonka experience for my daughter.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Box of 14 Colored Wax Sticks
Yeah, 14...
The box of Crayons says that there are 16 in colored crayons in the box, but there are really only 14.
And a black one
That's not really A color. It's a shade
And a white one.
That's the ABSENCE of color.
Who does Crayola think they're kidding?
Obviously, the black crayon comes in handy with making panda bears and tigers on white paper.
But what do you do with the worthless white crayon!?
Yes, you could use the white crayon on colored paper, but interestingly enough, colored construction paper is not sold everywhere like crayons; Target, for example does not have construction paper. I did find a rather large stack of construction paper at Costco (though it wasn't called construction paper).
If you're not going to have colored paper available at the same locations that you buy crayons, what's the point of the white crayon?
My daughter has solved this problem: she takes another crayon and colors the white crayon. I think that's ingenius (though a bit funny) to watch.
I did find a "recipe" for melting together old crayons in the oven. Unsurprisingly, most of the new crayon discs have white in them. I doubt that the white actually colors any better in a disc shape than it did in stick shape, but at least it is a good base fro the other colors.
You'd just think that the company that changed (finally) got rid of "flesh" colored crayons because of public outcry would do the same with the useless "white".
...
or perhaps....
Crayola is training our children to be in the spy business with the idea of invisible ink! (cue the music)
The box of Crayons says that there are 16 in colored crayons in the box, but there are really only 14.
And a black one
That's not really A color. It's a shade
And a white one.
That's the ABSENCE of color.
Who does Crayola think they're kidding?
Obviously, the black crayon comes in handy with making panda bears and tigers on white paper.
But what do you do with the worthless white crayon!?
Yes, you could use the white crayon on colored paper, but interestingly enough, colored construction paper is not sold everywhere like crayons; Target, for example does not have construction paper. I did find a rather large stack of construction paper at Costco (though it wasn't called construction paper).
If you're not going to have colored paper available at the same locations that you buy crayons, what's the point of the white crayon?
My daughter has solved this problem: she takes another crayon and colors the white crayon. I think that's ingenius (though a bit funny) to watch.
I did find a "recipe" for melting together old crayons in the oven. Unsurprisingly, most of the new crayon discs have white in them. I doubt that the white actually colors any better in a disc shape than it did in stick shape, but at least it is a good base fro the other colors.
You'd just think that the company that changed (finally) got rid of "flesh" colored crayons because of public outcry would do the same with the useless "white".
...
or perhaps....
Crayola is training our children to be in the spy business with the idea of invisible ink! (cue the music)
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Doctor Nonsense
Why is it than when you need to see a specialist because YOUR DOCTOR referred you, that the standard wait time is 3 weeks?
What is it about 3 weeks that makes doctors think (or rather, doctor offices think), "oh, that patient who's being referred to me...they can wait about a month to get in. Just because they're referred to me, doesn't mean that I actually need to see them any time soon."
Now, you can raise all hell with your own referring doctor and get them to pressure the specialist to get you in earlier, because, SHOCKING, they actually have plenty of appointments in the next few weeks- it's just that you weren't viewed as "important" enough to warrant one of those closer appointment times.
But why should you have to?
Some things, like hormones, for example, will be completely different in three weeks! So, what happens is that, after getting the appointment, and then taking the time off from work, and then going for the ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS "I'm a specialist" appointment, you go to have some blood work done or an x-ray or some other test....
...and they don't see anything.
BECAUSE THEY WAITED TOO LONG!
Now you have to wait for the problem to happen AGAIN and go back in AGAIN and hopefully get another appointment when it's your illness is actually happening!
It's an absolute crock of poo!
Frankly, what surprises me the most is that the HMOs are ok with this approach. They're really rolling the dice when it comes to increasing disease severity with increased wait times. I'm actually, also, shocked that they don't mandate that you have all of the blood work and tests done BEFORE going to see the specialist so that you don't have to have the stupid, "I'm a specialist, isn't that nice?" appointment for twice the regular co-pay. When you get to the specialist, you should actually be seen for, heaven-forbid, the illness that you have with the full compliment of test results so that the specialist can look at what the diagnostician said is the matter with you and console you with the result.
People of the US: START MANDATING SMARTER HEALTHCARE!
What is it about 3 weeks that makes doctors think (or rather, doctor offices think), "oh, that patient who's being referred to me...they can wait about a month to get in. Just because they're referred to me, doesn't mean that I actually need to see them any time soon."
Now, you can raise all hell with your own referring doctor and get them to pressure the specialist to get you in earlier, because, SHOCKING, they actually have plenty of appointments in the next few weeks- it's just that you weren't viewed as "important" enough to warrant one of those closer appointment times.
But why should you have to?
Some things, like hormones, for example, will be completely different in three weeks! So, what happens is that, after getting the appointment, and then taking the time off from work, and then going for the ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS "I'm a specialist" appointment, you go to have some blood work done or an x-ray or some other test....
...and they don't see anything.
BECAUSE THEY WAITED TOO LONG!
Now you have to wait for the problem to happen AGAIN and go back in AGAIN and hopefully get another appointment when it's your illness is actually happening!
It's an absolute crock of poo!
Frankly, what surprises me the most is that the HMOs are ok with this approach. They're really rolling the dice when it comes to increasing disease severity with increased wait times. I'm actually, also, shocked that they don't mandate that you have all of the blood work and tests done BEFORE going to see the specialist so that you don't have to have the stupid, "I'm a specialist, isn't that nice?" appointment for twice the regular co-pay. When you get to the specialist, you should actually be seen for, heaven-forbid, the illness that you have with the full compliment of test results so that the specialist can look at what the diagnostician said is the matter with you and console you with the result.
People of the US: START MANDATING SMARTER HEALTHCARE!
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
The Mysteries of Shea Butter
Well, it turns out it's completely herbal lore.
There are no studies that I could find of any scientific nature showing that shea butter has ANY of the following traits:
1. Skin renewing properties
2. Absorbs quickly
3. Good for joints
4. That no one has an allergy to it.
5. (my favorite) non-greasy.
I find that shea butter is, in fact, VERY greasy and it NEVER absorbs into your skin. It just covers it like a greasy glove. Unlike other lotions, whenever manufacturers add this ingredient, you can immediately tell from the fact that it DOES NOT absorb into your skin- that if you try to open a door knob right after using it on your hands, the door knob just spins because the lotion didn't absorb at all. If you go to type after using it, it leaves little greasy fingerprints behind.
(hmm....perhaps the reason that it's become so popular with manufacturers is that it's actually being subsidized by the American government to make fingerprinting on coarse surfaces easier...hmmmm)
The very idea, also, that people are not allergic to shea butter is absolutely ludicrous. People can be allergic to anything.
Why am I so opposed to shea butter?
Well, my favorite lotion manufacturer, St. Ives, recently decided to reformulate (AGAIN!) their entire line of lotions. I used to get the Collagen and Elastin. It was a great lotion- thin enough to wear under makeup, but still lasted all day.
Now, they have not only put shea butter in it, they've changed the fragrance- it's OVERPOWERINGLY PERFUMEY!
You can't use the lotion under makeup because the shea butter prevents and even coverage of your foundation and eye shadow.
You can't use it on your body because it leaves greasy stains on your black clothes when you use it.
It's simply awful!
So, why don't I just find another lotion?
Well, St. Ives has decided, in its terribly shortsighted wisdom, to use shea butter in all but one of its lotions- the one without has gluten in it, so I can't use it anyway.
I've tried just about every lotion on the market and they all either have shea butter or gluten in them. It's a NIGHTMARE!
I've taken to trying to find the old UPC of lotion that St. Ives produced before reformulating- I think I've just about found the last of it, so my days of using it are numbered. I have tried using Udder Cream, but you can't use it on your face (it's comedogenic - clogs pores) and if you're prone to acne other places, you can't use it there, either. It does not use shea butter or gluten- it's lanolin-based, just to let you know.
Now, interestingly, St. Ives has recently released a "new" lotion for your face. It only comes in a 4 or 10oz container and it costs the same as the big bottles, so basically, it's twice as expensive. It does not have shea butter or gluten. When I decided to try it out, I released that it's actually the OLD Collagen Elastin formula from about 6 years ago- when I started using St. Ives....but now they call is face cream and charge twice as much.
It's what you call "business".
I'ts what I call a rip-off.
Please, everyone, stop buying lotion with shea butter (or gluten) in it and send the manufacturers the message that it doesn't need to be in EVERYTHING.
There are no studies that I could find of any scientific nature showing that shea butter has ANY of the following traits:
1. Skin renewing properties
2. Absorbs quickly
3. Good for joints
4. That no one has an allergy to it.
5. (my favorite) non-greasy.
I find that shea butter is, in fact, VERY greasy and it NEVER absorbs into your skin. It just covers it like a greasy glove. Unlike other lotions, whenever manufacturers add this ingredient, you can immediately tell from the fact that it DOES NOT absorb into your skin- that if you try to open a door knob right after using it on your hands, the door knob just spins because the lotion didn't absorb at all. If you go to type after using it, it leaves little greasy fingerprints behind.
(hmm....perhaps the reason that it's become so popular with manufacturers is that it's actually being subsidized by the American government to make fingerprinting on coarse surfaces easier...hmmmm)
The very idea, also, that people are not allergic to shea butter is absolutely ludicrous. People can be allergic to anything.
Why am I so opposed to shea butter?
Well, my favorite lotion manufacturer, St. Ives, recently decided to reformulate (AGAIN!) their entire line of lotions. I used to get the Collagen and Elastin. It was a great lotion- thin enough to wear under makeup, but still lasted all day.
Now, they have not only put shea butter in it, they've changed the fragrance- it's OVERPOWERINGLY PERFUMEY!
You can't use the lotion under makeup because the shea butter prevents and even coverage of your foundation and eye shadow.
You can't use it on your body because it leaves greasy stains on your black clothes when you use it.
It's simply awful!
So, why don't I just find another lotion?
Well, St. Ives has decided, in its terribly shortsighted wisdom, to use shea butter in all but one of its lotions- the one without has gluten in it, so I can't use it anyway.
I've tried just about every lotion on the market and they all either have shea butter or gluten in them. It's a NIGHTMARE!
I've taken to trying to find the old UPC of lotion that St. Ives produced before reformulating- I think I've just about found the last of it, so my days of using it are numbered. I have tried using Udder Cream, but you can't use it on your face (it's comedogenic - clogs pores) and if you're prone to acne other places, you can't use it there, either. It does not use shea butter or gluten- it's lanolin-based, just to let you know.
Now, interestingly, St. Ives has recently released a "new" lotion for your face. It only comes in a 4 or 10oz container and it costs the same as the big bottles, so basically, it's twice as expensive. It does not have shea butter or gluten. When I decided to try it out, I released that it's actually the OLD Collagen Elastin formula from about 6 years ago- when I started using St. Ives....but now they call is face cream and charge twice as much.
It's what you call "business".
I'ts what I call a rip-off.
Please, everyone, stop buying lotion with shea butter (or gluten) in it and send the manufacturers the message that it doesn't need to be in EVERYTHING.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Spray on Lotion?
I saw the a coupon for Spray-on Lotion today in the newspaper.
It's new.
It's from Vaseline.
It's ridiculous.
Now, I think that the point of the new product is to spray lotion on your back because it's difficult to reach if you don't have a handsome hubbie to rub it on there for you.
My solution?
1. Unscrew the cap of the lotion.
2. Stir the lotion with the pump straw
3. Rub the pump straw on your back.
Done: you now have lotion on your back.
It's no more environmentally damaging than buying the lotion to begin with and it doesn't cost any more than the bottle, either.
I honestly thought that we were beyond creating new products with CFCs (propellants), but this is brand new. Evidently, people have forgotten about CFCs because of the BPA (it's a type of plastic) and mineral oil (also a type of petroleum) scares.
Well, if you're worried about any of these, don't buy Vaseline lotions.
They are full of BPAs.
They use mineral oil.
And now they use CFCs.
I can only imagine how great that is to spray all over your dry skin:
"Hey, great absorbing quality for the lotion...AND the CFCs."
So, dangerous and environmentally irresponsible.
Who freakin' thinks of these things?
It's new.
It's from Vaseline.
It's ridiculous.
Now, I think that the point of the new product is to spray lotion on your back because it's difficult to reach if you don't have a handsome hubbie to rub it on there for you.
My solution?
1. Unscrew the cap of the lotion.
2. Stir the lotion with the pump straw
3. Rub the pump straw on your back.
Done: you now have lotion on your back.
It's no more environmentally damaging than buying the lotion to begin with and it doesn't cost any more than the bottle, either.
I honestly thought that we were beyond creating new products with CFCs (propellants), but this is brand new. Evidently, people have forgotten about CFCs because of the BPA (it's a type of plastic) and mineral oil (also a type of petroleum) scares.
Well, if you're worried about any of these, don't buy Vaseline lotions.
They are full of BPAs.
They use mineral oil.
And now they use CFCs.
I can only imagine how great that is to spray all over your dry skin:
"Hey, great absorbing quality for the lotion...AND the CFCs."
So, dangerous and environmentally irresponsible.
Who freakin' thinks of these things?
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Target Plays a Sick Joke on the Elderly
So, I was in Target the other day looking for vitamins that were on sale. There was a senior citizen (probably an octagenarian) looking for aspirin in the vitamin aisle.
First off, Target, perhaps make the signs for the elderly a bit more obvious? you know what they shop for: Ensure, Depends, Aspirin, and Fiber supplements.
Honestly, the signs could be a bit more helpful.
But this poor lady was lost and looking for aspirin. I offered to help her look. We found the Aleve and Advil products in the next aisle, so she wasn't too far off.
But what i find very sick is that Target put the aspirin (the Bayer, etc) all on the BOTTOM shelf. This poor, osteoporetic lady had to bend down, without falling over, just to pick up the box!
And then, the signs- all of the signs are UNDER the product- the bottom shelf price signs are not angled upward. They're not in bigger print.
Who designs these shelves?
Target, you ought to be ashamed for your lack of consideration for one of your primary consumers.
First off, Target, perhaps make the signs for the elderly a bit more obvious? you know what they shop for: Ensure, Depends, Aspirin, and Fiber supplements.
Honestly, the signs could be a bit more helpful.
But this poor lady was lost and looking for aspirin. I offered to help her look. We found the Aleve and Advil products in the next aisle, so she wasn't too far off.
But what i find very sick is that Target put the aspirin (the Bayer, etc) all on the BOTTOM shelf. This poor, osteoporetic lady had to bend down, without falling over, just to pick up the box!
And then, the signs- all of the signs are UNDER the product- the bottom shelf price signs are not angled upward. They're not in bigger print.
Who designs these shelves?
Target, you ought to be ashamed for your lack of consideration for one of your primary consumers.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Mall of America(n Fashion)
In walking through the Mall of America recently, I noticed, again, the sad trend that I see in malls nowadays:
It's all clothing.
I do understand why. Heck, I'm one of the best examples of why it's all clothing. It's because it's cheaper to buy most things online than in a store, but clothing, well, clothing you have to try on.
And there you go, Amazon and Ebay can be blamed for the demise of the American mall
It's quite sad, though, that our lives have become so uniform and prepackaged that there isn't anything worth purchasing in person.
Well, I should say that anything that is worth purchasing in person because it's new or artistic cannot afford the store fees for a front at the mall.
Again, quite sad.
I think that American mall owners are going to soon realize that they own decaying pieces of the late American 20th century history, and not cash cows like they think they are. They can continue to raise prices for shopkeepers, but no one is going to buy their products, so, why rent the store front to being with?
I find it sad because I have such fond memories of going to the local mall as a child and walking to the two different bookstores: B.Dalton's and Waldon Books. Oh, and the Sanrio store.
Hello Kitty!
So, it's quite sad that this entity called the American mall (which, by the way, is a complete fascination to other cultures around the world), is decaying.
It's not dying.
It's already dead. It's just taking awhile to realize it.
It's all clothing.
I do understand why. Heck, I'm one of the best examples of why it's all clothing. It's because it's cheaper to buy most things online than in a store, but clothing, well, clothing you have to try on.
And there you go, Amazon and Ebay can be blamed for the demise of the American mall
It's quite sad, though, that our lives have become so uniform and prepackaged that there isn't anything worth purchasing in person.
Well, I should say that anything that is worth purchasing in person because it's new or artistic cannot afford the store fees for a front at the mall.
Again, quite sad.
I think that American mall owners are going to soon realize that they own decaying pieces of the late American 20th century history, and not cash cows like they think they are. They can continue to raise prices for shopkeepers, but no one is going to buy their products, so, why rent the store front to being with?
I find it sad because I have such fond memories of going to the local mall as a child and walking to the two different bookstores: B.Dalton's and Waldon Books. Oh, and the Sanrio store.
Hello Kitty!
So, it's quite sad that this entity called the American mall (which, by the way, is a complete fascination to other cultures around the world), is decaying.
It's not dying.
It's already dead. It's just taking awhile to realize it.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Makes Me Grouchy
It's been awhile since I've read the Grouchy Ladybug.
I remember truly loving this book with the different sized pages and the whale tail that hits the ladybug.
Since then, I've had a bit of cetacean biology (that's the study of whales, dolphins, and porpoises), and here are some basic characteristics of cetaceans:
1. Mammalian (bear live young, breastfeed, breathe air, have hair)
2. They play
3. They talk
4. Their tales are horizontal, not vertical.
Now, I bring this up because after reading through the Grouchy Ladybug today with my daughter, I am afraid I will never feel the same about this book.
In fact, I've kind of lost a lot of respect for the author/artist.
Why?
The whale tale is vertical.
Vertical like a fish tail.
Vertical.
sigh.
I'm afraid I will always cling to the fact that the author didn't know the difference between a fish and a whale when I read the book.
And so another childhood special memory is burned to a crisp.
I remember truly loving this book with the different sized pages and the whale tail that hits the ladybug.
Since then, I've had a bit of cetacean biology (that's the study of whales, dolphins, and porpoises), and here are some basic characteristics of cetaceans:
1. Mammalian (bear live young, breastfeed, breathe air, have hair)
2. They play
3. They talk
4. Their tales are horizontal, not vertical.
Now, I bring this up because after reading through the Grouchy Ladybug today with my daughter, I am afraid I will never feel the same about this book.
In fact, I've kind of lost a lot of respect for the author/artist.
Why?
The whale tale is vertical.
Vertical like a fish tail.
Vertical.
sigh.
I'm afraid I will always cling to the fact that the author didn't know the difference between a fish and a whale when I read the book.
And so another childhood special memory is burned to a crisp.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Pathology
I was a science professor in one of my careers.
Yeah, the whole frog disection thing. It still amazes me how when someone says "Science Class", that's the first thing that pops into people's heads- even mine. I did teach General Biology for a couple of semesters. We dissected rats, jellyfish, worms...
....no frogs.
I hate frogs.
In fact, growing up, I thought I hated dissection because I hated frogs. Turns out, dissection is interesting for learning anatomy - just, why use frogs? There's no homology (likeness) with humans. Rats are so much closer- it's scary. No, fetal pigs are less like humans than rats, I'm afraid.
Doesn't say much for humans, does it?
Well, anyway....
"Science" Class.
I have taken quite a few in my lifetime now. Botany classes, Animal Biology classes (the kingdom, phylum, class... thing), Human biologies, Medical biologies, microbiologies (studies of germs), and lots of genetics. Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry...So, it's weird that the first thing that pops into my head is a frog dissection (which I never did- I refused on grounds it was against my religion- man, was I a handful).
But what I find sad is that I am probably not the only person who got turned off from science classes because it is associated with frogs. I think we probably need to rethink how we're teaching science classes, particularly biology, to make it more meaningful to the students in the class.
How do we do that?
Stop teaching "biology" and start teaching "pathology" - the study of diseases.
Now, the high school I went to did have a mandatory "health" class - it was a semester long and focused on why you should wear a condom or abstain from sex.
That's NOT what I'm talking about when I talk about pathology.
I mean that we need to be teaching people how to take care of themselves. Like "what do you do when you have a fever?" "What does it mean to have a low neutrophil count?" "what does it mean to be taking a cytotoxin?" These are things that people are usually very interested in because they have some relation somewhere that is dying of something. They'd actually USE the information in their lifetimes.
I guess it's kind of the morbid side of biology, but, then, when have you known a teenager who wasn't focused on the morbid who wasn't on acid?
Yeah, the whole frog disection thing. It still amazes me how when someone says "Science Class", that's the first thing that pops into people's heads- even mine. I did teach General Biology for a couple of semesters. We dissected rats, jellyfish, worms...
....no frogs.
I hate frogs.
In fact, growing up, I thought I hated dissection because I hated frogs. Turns out, dissection is interesting for learning anatomy - just, why use frogs? There's no homology (likeness) with humans. Rats are so much closer- it's scary. No, fetal pigs are less like humans than rats, I'm afraid.
Doesn't say much for humans, does it?
Well, anyway....
"Science" Class.
I have taken quite a few in my lifetime now. Botany classes, Animal Biology classes (the kingdom, phylum, class... thing), Human biologies, Medical biologies, microbiologies (studies of germs), and lots of genetics. Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry...So, it's weird that the first thing that pops into my head is a frog dissection (which I never did- I refused on grounds it was against my religion- man, was I a handful).
But what I find sad is that I am probably not the only person who got turned off from science classes because it is associated with frogs. I think we probably need to rethink how we're teaching science classes, particularly biology, to make it more meaningful to the students in the class.
How do we do that?
Stop teaching "biology" and start teaching "pathology" - the study of diseases.
Now, the high school I went to did have a mandatory "health" class - it was a semester long and focused on why you should wear a condom or abstain from sex.
That's NOT what I'm talking about when I talk about pathology.
I mean that we need to be teaching people how to take care of themselves. Like "what do you do when you have a fever?" "What does it mean to have a low neutrophil count?" "what does it mean to be taking a cytotoxin?" These are things that people are usually very interested in because they have some relation somewhere that is dying of something. They'd actually USE the information in their lifetimes.
I guess it's kind of the morbid side of biology, but, then, when have you known a teenager who wasn't focused on the morbid who wasn't on acid?
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The Dirty Little Secrets
So, after my complaint about dishwashers not being designed for the modern family, I got to thinking about the other dirty little secret- the one that lurks in every kitchen, but no one will admit to:
The reused, non-usable zip bag.
You all know what I'm talking about. I remember when they came out- they were so expensive that I remember looking longingly at the rich kids' lunch during school lunch time - all the multigrain PB&J sandwiches all Zipped up....and my poor little bologna rolls mashed at the bottom of my bag in a regular sandwich bag.
(ok, honestly I would never put bologna rolls in a ZipLock, anyway- there are toothpicks involved and that would definitely ensure that the ZipLock was a one-use only kind of bag.)
But I do remember the excitement of getting my first ZipLock bag, though I can't remember quite what was in it. I do remember the house we lived at. Funny, isn't it?
But I digress.
Every family I know- rich or poor- now reuses those zip bags. So the question becomes:
How do you really get them clean?
Evidently, it's socially unacceptable to admit that you reuse the zip bags, or there would be a ton of zip bag washers and dryers on the market.
But there's aren't.
Have you ever heard of a zip bag attachment for your washing machine?
I actually did find one...kind of. It's made by some green group that hasn't thoroughly considered the implications of using the entire dishwasher cycle to clean a couple of plastic bags. Yes, you save the plastic, but you've just wasted 20 gallons of fresh water cleaning them, plus the electricity to heat the water and (possibly) for the dry cycle.
But it does amaze me that there aren't more solutions for cleaning the suckers- even by the manufacturers. It's like the manufacturers aren't getting on-board with the actual truth of the baggage- which is that we reuse them and attempt to wash them and attempt to string them over a variety of different obstacles to get them to stand up and open while they dry.
Wouldn't it be nice if we actually had cleaning methods that we as modern as the lives we live?
The reused, non-usable zip bag.
You all know what I'm talking about. I remember when they came out- they were so expensive that I remember looking longingly at the rich kids' lunch during school lunch time - all the multigrain PB&J sandwiches all Zipped up....and my poor little bologna rolls mashed at the bottom of my bag in a regular sandwich bag.
(ok, honestly I would never put bologna rolls in a ZipLock, anyway- there are toothpicks involved and that would definitely ensure that the ZipLock was a one-use only kind of bag.)
But I do remember the excitement of getting my first ZipLock bag, though I can't remember quite what was in it. I do remember the house we lived at. Funny, isn't it?
But I digress.
Every family I know- rich or poor- now reuses those zip bags. So the question becomes:
How do you really get them clean?
Evidently, it's socially unacceptable to admit that you reuse the zip bags, or there would be a ton of zip bag washers and dryers on the market.
But there's aren't.
Have you ever heard of a zip bag attachment for your washing machine?
I actually did find one...kind of. It's made by some green group that hasn't thoroughly considered the implications of using the entire dishwasher cycle to clean a couple of plastic bags. Yes, you save the plastic, but you've just wasted 20 gallons of fresh water cleaning them, plus the electricity to heat the water and (possibly) for the dry cycle.
But it does amaze me that there aren't more solutions for cleaning the suckers- even by the manufacturers. It's like the manufacturers aren't getting on-board with the actual truth of the baggage- which is that we reuse them and attempt to wash them and attempt to string them over a variety of different obstacles to get them to stand up and open while they dry.
Wouldn't it be nice if we actually had cleaning methods that we as modern as the lives we live?
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Pragmatic Chaos
I've known my husband now for over 7 years and without fail, he can tell me exactly what type of movie I'm going to be interested in watching (and likewise avoiding), and I'd have to say that I'm about as good for him.
And we've been doing that for years.
What I don't understand is what is it that we're seeing in each other's viewing habits that Netflix can't learn with it's Pragmatic Chaos prediction programming? It's certainly not based on the viewing history- we've entered that for all the movies that we've ever seen into the ratings.
Netflix, in turn, continues to amaze me by making recommendations that are either 1 or 1.5 stars on our expected pleasure scale (out of 5...5's the best). It just doesn't seem to have the programming to learn that if we're not interested and ignore it all together- that means that the prediction program failed.
Or, the one that really makes me shake my head, are the recommendations in the " New Recommendations for you!" category...and it's all stuff that we've already seen- AND RATED! Though, I have to say, at least they only make recommendations back to us in the "new" category that were things that we marked down that we liked.
These seems more like hindsight and prediction, to me.
And I have a hypothesis about why their algorithm doesn't work: They're only asking one dimension of the films or only letting you rate an entire show as a whole. For example, with Murder, She Wrote, that's 13 seasons of 26 episodes each...how can you make an great prediction on what I'm going to like based on a flat star rating of over 300 shows? You can't honestly expect that people like each episode the same amount. And one of the first rules in statistics is that means (average divided by the number of parts) are COMPLETELY inaccurate ways to measure anything except a very tight bell curve.
What they really need to do is allow the user to rate different aspects of the shows- like "Costumes 1-5" or "Music 1-5" or "Plot 1-5" or "special effects 1-5". This would dramatically improve the reporting accuracy and consequently improve the predictive accuracy moving forward.
I know that this means a lot more space in their servers to store the extra ratings, but, honestly, their current method is about as accurate as asking someone, "on a scale from 1-5, how would you rate your entire childhood?"
And we've been doing that for years.
What I don't understand is what is it that we're seeing in each other's viewing habits that Netflix can't learn with it's Pragmatic Chaos prediction programming? It's certainly not based on the viewing history- we've entered that for all the movies that we've ever seen into the ratings.
Netflix, in turn, continues to amaze me by making recommendations that are either 1 or 1.5 stars on our expected pleasure scale (out of 5...5's the best). It just doesn't seem to have the programming to learn that if we're not interested and ignore it all together- that means that the prediction program failed.
Or, the one that really makes me shake my head, are the recommendations in the " New Recommendations for you!" category...and it's all stuff that we've already seen- AND RATED! Though, I have to say, at least they only make recommendations back to us in the "new" category that were things that we marked down that we liked.
These seems more like hindsight and prediction, to me.
And I have a hypothesis about why their algorithm doesn't work: They're only asking one dimension of the films or only letting you rate an entire show as a whole. For example, with Murder, She Wrote, that's 13 seasons of 26 episodes each...how can you make an great prediction on what I'm going to like based on a flat star rating of over 300 shows? You can't honestly expect that people like each episode the same amount. And one of the first rules in statistics is that means (average divided by the number of parts) are COMPLETELY inaccurate ways to measure anything except a very tight bell curve.
What they really need to do is allow the user to rate different aspects of the shows- like "Costumes 1-5" or "Music 1-5" or "Plot 1-5" or "special effects 1-5". This would dramatically improve the reporting accuracy and consequently improve the predictive accuracy moving forward.
I know that this means a lot more space in their servers to store the extra ratings, but, honestly, their current method is about as accurate as asking someone, "on a scale from 1-5, how would you rate your entire childhood?"
Monday, March 18, 2013
Handwashing and Food Prep
Ok, this really grossed me out when I realized it, but think about this:
We're taught to wash our hands before we eat, after we touch raw meat, and after we go to the bathroom. Having had my fair share of experiences in the ladies' room watching women walk out after taking care of business without washing their hands, it definitely made me a bit of a germ-phobe. And then there's the back-of-the-hand snot wipe (men do that a lot)...and then the same guy is stacking the butter at the supermarket.
If I were to extrapolate and estimate that the same percentage of people in every line of work, in every place in the US (won't guess on other countries) have the same washing practices, it makes you take a look at the contents of your house a bit differently.
whoa, what?
Yeah, the contents of your own house.
I don't mean after a party. I'm wiping down every doorknob and light switch after a party. I'm talking more about something much, much worse: your kitchen.
Now, I've got dust, but I would say I'm pretty clean overall. There aren't dirty dishes filling the counters like other people's houses I've been to. The toilets are clean. We're about "average" (well, hopefully cleaner than than, but you get my meaning).
So, when I grabbed the milk jug out of the frig this morning and realized that I never washed that off- ever- it really grossed me out....because then I started thinking of ALL the food boxes and jars and containers that we don't wash - ever- but handle like they're clean. Spice containers, PB jars, jam- bags of cheese...everything in your frig and pantry. If you think of all those people that have touched those things before you...or just spilled milk that's soured all over the outside of the milk jug- or set it in those completely clean grocery shelves...well, it just makes you think that perhaps we're washing our hands at the wrong time. You wash your hands, and then handle the box of cereal- well, why did you bother washing your hands?!
Or that we need germicidal lights in the kitchen.
Perhaps the "24 hour flu" that people get (which is really food poisoning) is really due to handling dirty food containers.
Just makes you think, doesn't it?
We're taught to wash our hands before we eat, after we touch raw meat, and after we go to the bathroom. Having had my fair share of experiences in the ladies' room watching women walk out after taking care of business without washing their hands, it definitely made me a bit of a germ-phobe. And then there's the back-of-the-hand snot wipe (men do that a lot)...and then the same guy is stacking the butter at the supermarket.
If I were to extrapolate and estimate that the same percentage of people in every line of work, in every place in the US (won't guess on other countries) have the same washing practices, it makes you take a look at the contents of your house a bit differently.
whoa, what?
Yeah, the contents of your own house.
I don't mean after a party. I'm wiping down every doorknob and light switch after a party. I'm talking more about something much, much worse: your kitchen.
Now, I've got dust, but I would say I'm pretty clean overall. There aren't dirty dishes filling the counters like other people's houses I've been to. The toilets are clean. We're about "average" (well, hopefully cleaner than than, but you get my meaning).
So, when I grabbed the milk jug out of the frig this morning and realized that I never washed that off- ever- it really grossed me out....because then I started thinking of ALL the food boxes and jars and containers that we don't wash - ever- but handle like they're clean. Spice containers, PB jars, jam- bags of cheese...everything in your frig and pantry. If you think of all those people that have touched those things before you...or just spilled milk that's soured all over the outside of the milk jug- or set it in those completely clean grocery shelves...well, it just makes you think that perhaps we're washing our hands at the wrong time. You wash your hands, and then handle the box of cereal- well, why did you bother washing your hands?!
Or that we need germicidal lights in the kitchen.
Perhaps the "24 hour flu" that people get (which is really food poisoning) is really due to handling dirty food containers.
Just makes you think, doesn't it?
Sunday, March 17, 2013
The Pricing of Being Irish
Evidently, it's about $4/lb for the cheapest cut of cow (corned beef), that has to be boiled for hours because the amount of connective tissue it it...and you you can only get in March in the United States.
Oh, wait, I get ahead of myself:
It's $4/lb on sale. But, if you've ever cooked corned beef, you know that it shrinks up to about 1/2 the size (which is pretty ironic, if you think about it- usually putting something in water causes it to swell). So, the price per cooked lb is almost $8/ lb- that's steak pricing! Wouldn't you rather spend the money on a steak instead of a piece of meat so grisly that you have to boil it to make it edible?
Then there's the ubiquitous potato.
They're on sale for $2 per 4lb bag.
POTATOES!
Honestly, I think that the total cost for an Irish dinner is more than the cost of a Guinness.
Guess we're having green eggs and ham this year.
(...except that the cost of food coloring is also at an all time high)
hmmm....
Where's that pot of gold when you need it?
Oh, wait, I get ahead of myself:
It's $4/lb on sale. But, if you've ever cooked corned beef, you know that it shrinks up to about 1/2 the size (which is pretty ironic, if you think about it- usually putting something in water causes it to swell). So, the price per cooked lb is almost $8/ lb- that's steak pricing! Wouldn't you rather spend the money on a steak instead of a piece of meat so grisly that you have to boil it to make it edible?
Then there's the ubiquitous potato.
They're on sale for $2 per 4lb bag.
POTATOES!
Honestly, I think that the total cost for an Irish dinner is more than the cost of a Guinness.
Guess we're having green eggs and ham this year.
(...except that the cost of food coloring is also at an all time high)
hmmm....
Where's that pot of gold when you need it?
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Curbing Creativity
I just finished watching a presentation that James Cameron (yes, the Titanic director) gave about being a science fiction nut. He specifically called out how much he read sci-fi books as a youth and how that inspired him to be interested in science and exploration because the books he read described situations and encounters that he could only imagine- that no one had ever seen before- and that this lack of a visual inspired his creativity throughout his life.
Now, why do I care?
I don't know him.
Titanic was a good movie, but I'm not a die-hard for it.
Well, I care because he's become a bit of a hypocrite.
You see, he didn't become a scientist.
He didn't become a writer.
He became a movie producer, who produces big, special effect-ridden blockbusters, filled with Computer-Generated effects that rob minds of the bliss of imagining things themselves.
I find it so shocking that he hasn't realized this incongruity and, in fact, continues to speak about science and creativity, while his work actually creates limits of what can be imagined. I mean, once you've seen a water-creature, that's it. That's what it must look like. You saw it on the movie screen. You're brain has fixed on that image or function or whatever and it immediately creates a box around your ability to imagine what could be.
This is precisely why neurological pediatricians recommend no TV for children under the age of 2 and very limited TV and computer for children under the age of 6.
So, I guess if you want to have an imagination, continue to read books, avoid movies with lots of special effects, and challenge yourself to imagine outside of the (silver) box....and especially avoid Baby Einstein video babysitting for your children.
Now, why do I care?
I don't know him.
Titanic was a good movie, but I'm not a die-hard for it.
Well, I care because he's become a bit of a hypocrite.
You see, he didn't become a scientist.
He didn't become a writer.
He became a movie producer, who produces big, special effect-ridden blockbusters, filled with Computer-Generated effects that rob minds of the bliss of imagining things themselves.
I find it so shocking that he hasn't realized this incongruity and, in fact, continues to speak about science and creativity, while his work actually creates limits of what can be imagined. I mean, once you've seen a water-creature, that's it. That's what it must look like. You saw it on the movie screen. You're brain has fixed on that image or function or whatever and it immediately creates a box around your ability to imagine what could be.
This is precisely why neurological pediatricians recommend no TV for children under the age of 2 and very limited TV and computer for children under the age of 6.
So, I guess if you want to have an imagination, continue to read books, avoid movies with lots of special effects, and challenge yourself to imagine outside of the (silver) box....and especially avoid Baby Einstein video babysitting for your children.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Just for fun for Friday
I saw the leader (creator, insighter?) of this group on a TED talk: Improv Everywhere.
I was most tickled by the Best Buy stunt...mostly because, having worked there, I find their suffering to be quite comical.
I was most tickled by the Best Buy stunt...mostly because, having worked there, I find their suffering to be quite comical.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Meterless Monkey
I thought I loved this book:
Pat-a-Cake Curious George
OOOOh, was I suckered in by the cute little 1/2 monkey puppet popping longingly out from the book.
So I was most joyful when my daughter received this book for her birthday....
...until I read it.
Has no one studied meter in school?
No, I don't mean the metric system. I mean speech rhythm. Like iambic pentameter (oh, would Mrs. Chamberlain be impressed now) that Shakespeare used (if he existed). You'll know exactly what I mean when you read this book- you start reading it and the emphasis on the syllables in the sentences should have a rhythm (duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh).
But whoever wrote this had NO CLUE. I can't even read it properly! And it's PAT-A-CAKE! It's SUPPOSED TO TEACH METER!
What a nightmare.
Pass on the book and just get the puppet.
Pat-a-Cake Curious George
OOOOh, was I suckered in by the cute little 1/2 monkey puppet popping longingly out from the book.
So I was most joyful when my daughter received this book for her birthday....
...until I read it.
Has no one studied meter in school?
No, I don't mean the metric system. I mean speech rhythm. Like iambic pentameter (oh, would Mrs. Chamberlain be impressed now) that Shakespeare used (if he existed). You'll know exactly what I mean when you read this book- you start reading it and the emphasis on the syllables in the sentences should have a rhythm (duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh, a, duh).
But whoever wrote this had NO CLUE. I can't even read it properly! And it's PAT-A-CAKE! It's SUPPOSED TO TEACH METER!
What a nightmare.
Pass on the book and just get the puppet.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
New See n' Say Sucks
When I was a very tiny girl, I remember having a See n' Say. I know that the girl across the street from me that I used to play with (though it would be a stretch to ever have called her my friend), had the other one, but for the life of me, I can't remember which I had and which she had. I know that one had the alphabet and one had animals.
And I know predictably I wanted hers and not mine.
After finding the picture, I want to say I had the spelling one. It was difficult to use because the letters were so close together...Regardless, I remember hours of fun pulling the string...on my sister's.
So, when I saw a used one in good condition, I snapped it up.
But it's not the same thing.
For one thing, the new ones use a lever instead of a pull string. Yes, it is more durable, but it's a lot more difficult to pull than a pull string. So, my daughter needs my help to pull the lever and make it go.
But the biggest problem is that they've replaced all the said onomatopoeic animal sounds with recordings of real animal sounds.
How is that a See n' SAY?
It's not. It's a See n' Sound.
To make matters worse, the recordings that they've picked are barely recognizable to me, a biologist. They have the specific cry of a specific owl- not the "hooooo-hooo-hooooooo" that we're all used to hearing mean "owl".
So, in other words, they've taken a great, educational toy and turned it into an appeasement toy. There's no way for a child to make the sounds that are on the recording- how are they supposed to learn how to read the animal sounds? Or in Old MacDonald, they can't say the sounds because you CAN'T say the animal sounds on the recording.
The most irritating sound, though, is the bunny. Evidently bunnies go "Boing, Boing".
Funny, I never learned that one in Animal Behavior class.
What a waste of my money.
And I know predictably I wanted hers and not mine.
After finding the picture, I want to say I had the spelling one. It was difficult to use because the letters were so close together...Regardless, I remember hours of fun pulling the string...on my sister's.
So, when I saw a used one in good condition, I snapped it up.
But it's not the same thing.
For one thing, the new ones use a lever instead of a pull string. Yes, it is more durable, but it's a lot more difficult to pull than a pull string. So, my daughter needs my help to pull the lever and make it go.
But the biggest problem is that they've replaced all the said onomatopoeic animal sounds with recordings of real animal sounds.
How is that a See n' SAY?
It's not. It's a See n' Sound.
To make matters worse, the recordings that they've picked are barely recognizable to me, a biologist. They have the specific cry of a specific owl- not the "hooooo-hooo-hooooooo" that we're all used to hearing mean "owl".
So, in other words, they've taken a great, educational toy and turned it into an appeasement toy. There's no way for a child to make the sounds that are on the recording- how are they supposed to learn how to read the animal sounds? Or in Old MacDonald, they can't say the sounds because you CAN'T say the animal sounds on the recording.
The most irritating sound, though, is the bunny. Evidently bunnies go "Boing, Boing".
Funny, I never learned that one in Animal Behavior class.
What a waste of my money.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Disturbing Food Products
I like to look through the coupons on Sunday. I have fond memories of sitting around the kitchen table with my family, all of us drinking coffee and having some special bakery item, each of us reading the Sunday news paper. My mom used to have this little Zipper Clipper- some sort of automatic scissors for clipping coupons.
So, every Sunday, it's a special event that I've continued with my family.
Most Sundays, I find some sort of coupon to clip. However, I'm growing more and more concerned by the disturbing trend in food products being advertised.
Now, I don't have TV, so I miss out on some of these ads on TV, so I guess it's all that much more disturbing when you come across the advertisement in the paper. Things like:
Quaker Perfect Portions Instant Oatmeal.
Quite simply, this is the baby food, metal/plastic packet packaging of the same instant oatmeal that I grew up tearing out of a paper packet and eating out of a mug. I don't know why this product is necessary. It really sickens me that we need another non-recyclable, single-use container for oatmeal.
And on top of that, how are you supposed to make lumps in this type of container?!
Then there's the New Honey Bunches of Oats GREEK!
WHOA! Made with real Greek yogurt.
My question is: why would you want to put your milk on your cereal before you put the milk on your cereal? It doesn't make any sense. If you're using the cereal as a granola topping for Greek yogurt, then you don't want the cereal to taste like the yogurt- you want it to taste like granola. And, now that you've preloaded your product with a dairy product, you've lost a portion of the people who still eat cereal, but eat it with Rice Drink or Soy Milk.
A bit short sighted on the product development, aren't we? Or maybe it's just desperate.
I think that food manufacturers have a lack of understanding on how people buy food. They buy the food that their parents bought- what they were raised on. If they just maintained the great products, then we would all be much happier and we wouldn't be barraged with these poorly conceived products.
So, every Sunday, it's a special event that I've continued with my family.
Most Sundays, I find some sort of coupon to clip. However, I'm growing more and more concerned by the disturbing trend in food products being advertised.
Now, I don't have TV, so I miss out on some of these ads on TV, so I guess it's all that much more disturbing when you come across the advertisement in the paper. Things like:
Quaker Perfect Portions Instant Oatmeal.
Quite simply, this is the baby food, metal/plastic packet packaging of the same instant oatmeal that I grew up tearing out of a paper packet and eating out of a mug. I don't know why this product is necessary. It really sickens me that we need another non-recyclable, single-use container for oatmeal.
And on top of that, how are you supposed to make lumps in this type of container?!
Then there's the New Honey Bunches of Oats GREEK!
WHOA! Made with real Greek yogurt.
My question is: why would you want to put your milk on your cereal before you put the milk on your cereal? It doesn't make any sense. If you're using the cereal as a granola topping for Greek yogurt, then you don't want the cereal to taste like the yogurt- you want it to taste like granola. And, now that you've preloaded your product with a dairy product, you've lost a portion of the people who still eat cereal, but eat it with Rice Drink or Soy Milk.
A bit short sighted on the product development, aren't we? Or maybe it's just desperate.
I think that food manufacturers have a lack of understanding on how people buy food. They buy the food that their parents bought- what they were raised on. If they just maintained the great products, then we would all be much happier and we wouldn't be barraged with these poorly conceived products.
Monday, March 11, 2013
What's in Your Dishwasher?
As I was pulling the dishes out of my dishwasher last night, it struck me that most of them were Tupperware-type containers and not plates, bowls, or glasses.
Why is it that dishwasher design has not changed since their introduction to the public in 1830?
By design, I don't mean the automation, which has been around since the 1940s. I'm talking about the fact that there are two drawers for plates, glasses, bowls, and silverware.
Where does the Tupperware go?
I know that my family is no different than any others- we somehow manage to cram our containers into the top rack that is designed to hold dessert plates and drinking glasses, at which point, they always end up somehow overlapping each other, and we then pray that they get clean when we run the dishwasher.
How many families use more plates than Tupperware on a daily basis? I mean, I have slots for 16 plates and 6 little slots for flatware.
Where is the rack for Tupperware?
Unless you're anorexic, you probably take at least two containers in your lunch- one the main course and one for your fruit. Honestly it's probably more like one for the main course and one for cookies, but I'm not pointing fingers.
But my point is that I only use one dinner plate.
I have flatware for all meals.
I have 2-3 plastic containers PER DAY PER PERSON for lunch.
Somehow I doubt that I'm alone in this predicament. Why, then don't dishwasher manufacturers design a dishwasher that has truly interchangeable/modular racks for holding either plates or that ton of Tupperware? It seems that we waste so much vertical space with the current designs that it would be truly energy and water conservative to mandate a dishwasher redesign.
Why is it that dishwasher design has not changed since their introduction to the public in 1830?
By design, I don't mean the automation, which has been around since the 1940s. I'm talking about the fact that there are two drawers for plates, glasses, bowls, and silverware.
Where does the Tupperware go?
I know that my family is no different than any others- we somehow manage to cram our containers into the top rack that is designed to hold dessert plates and drinking glasses, at which point, they always end up somehow overlapping each other, and we then pray that they get clean when we run the dishwasher.
How many families use more plates than Tupperware on a daily basis? I mean, I have slots for 16 plates and 6 little slots for flatware.
Where is the rack for Tupperware?
Unless you're anorexic, you probably take at least two containers in your lunch- one the main course and one for your fruit. Honestly it's probably more like one for the main course and one for cookies, but I'm not pointing fingers.
But my point is that I only use one dinner plate.
I have flatware for all meals.
I have 2-3 plastic containers PER DAY PER PERSON for lunch.
Somehow I doubt that I'm alone in this predicament. Why, then don't dishwasher manufacturers design a dishwasher that has truly interchangeable/modular racks for holding either plates or that ton of Tupperware? It seems that we waste so much vertical space with the current designs that it would be truly energy and water conservative to mandate a dishwasher redesign.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
HTC and Windows
This is a short tirade against the use of Windows Mobile OS for your phone.
Every single time the time changes, my mobile phone (and HTC Touch Pro 2) trips an alert to let me know that the time has changed and the time is being set forward or set back accordingly.
This alert happens at 2am - when the time officially changes. How many of you get up at 2am to adjust your clocks?!?
This alert has a mandatory acknowledgement before it will ACTUALLY change the time. So, the time on the clock (as read from behind the alert message) is the old time. The alarms are on the old time.
Now, it didn't used to matter to me, but I used to use an alarm clock- now I use my cell phone because it has more alarm slots, which come in handy with the breastfeeding schedule.
I have to say that this is the stupidest notification I've ever experienced. I actually have to set my alarm clock to make sure I wake up on time because my phone is too dumb to just utilize the time from the Sprint network.
Make sure you get an Android phone to avoid the lovely experience of the mandatory 2am time shift.
Every single time the time changes, my mobile phone (and HTC Touch Pro 2) trips an alert to let me know that the time has changed and the time is being set forward or set back accordingly.
This alert happens at 2am - when the time officially changes. How many of you get up at 2am to adjust your clocks?!?
This alert has a mandatory acknowledgement before it will ACTUALLY change the time. So, the time on the clock (as read from behind the alert message) is the old time. The alarms are on the old time.
Now, it didn't used to matter to me, but I used to use an alarm clock- now I use my cell phone because it has more alarm slots, which come in handy with the breastfeeding schedule.
I have to say that this is the stupidest notification I've ever experienced. I actually have to set my alarm clock to make sure I wake up on time because my phone is too dumb to just utilize the time from the Sprint network.
Make sure you get an Android phone to avoid the lovely experience of the mandatory 2am time shift.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Calling the Kettle Pink
My daughter received this annoying toy for her birthday- it's a little pink Laugh & Learn Say Please Tea Set
ugughguhgughgughguhgugh!!!
This is one of the worst excuses an appeasement toy attempting to pass itself off as educational. The teapot sings. It sings and speaks in a fake British accent.
It's quite amazing to me that FP couldn't just a British voice actor to record the content on this travesty of a toy.
The toy has the standard FP selector switch to select whether you want to learn, listen to music, or "play" (which just means that the teapot makes sounds without any voice content- like a pouring sound when you tip the pot). Now, here's the tirade:
So, I would recommend, if you're looking for a tea set of your child (a girl OR a boy- my husband drinks more tea than I do), that you get a different one. Get one that actually works and you can teach your child songs to sing while s/he is playing. They'd actually learn how a teapot works (go figure!) and you'd save yourself the frustration of listening to garbly, faux-British singing.
ugughguhgughgughguhgugh!!!
This is one of the worst excuses an appeasement toy attempting to pass itself off as educational. The teapot sings. It sings and speaks in a fake British accent.
It's quite amazing to me that FP couldn't just a British voice actor to record the content on this travesty of a toy.
The toy has the standard FP selector switch to select whether you want to learn, listen to music, or "play" (which just means that the teapot makes sounds without any voice content- like a pouring sound when you tip the pot). Now, here's the tirade:
- The music setting only has two songs (which feels like of like a rip off when you look at the other appeasement toys that come with at least 5). Because the singing is an American trying to sing in some sort of Essex or Surrey accent, they're really difficult to understand. And one of the songs is NOT "I'm a little tea pot"- kind of an obvious miss there, wouldn't you say?
- The pot is supposed to teach manners and how to say Please and Thank you. At least on the ABC setting, it says each of those once. One of the songs also says Thank you once. With that frequency, I'm not sure I would have called this the "Say Please" tea set.
- There is NO volume switch and the freaking thing is LOUD (but difficult to understand so it really just pisses you off to listen to it).
- The lid is difficult to open and close- it seems to catch a bit.
- "Inside" the teapot, there is a little compartment that shows the poorly painted outline of a teabag floating in water. You'd think that they could have at least made the compartment big enough to hold water- or- whoa, actually made the tea kettle functional with the water going in the top and out the spout, but NOOOOOO. It doesn't do anything. My 1 year old daughter has solved this design flaw by putting her sock in it. It's the most entertainment she gets out it.
- Finally, the purpose of the tea cakes- uhm, this seems the sad effort to make the teapot not a 5 minute appeasement toy, but have some sort of "educational" value. The three cakes are different shapes and sit in three different shaped lipped 'holes' on the plastic doily.
So, I would recommend, if you're looking for a tea set of your child (a girl OR a boy- my husband drinks more tea than I do), that you get a different one. Get one that actually works and you can teach your child songs to sing while s/he is playing. They'd actually learn how a teapot works (go figure!) and you'd save yourself the frustration of listening to garbly, faux-British singing.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Where Are You?
First off, I don't have a Twitter account. I think that they're really dumb. I don't want to know what people I know are doing or thinking in 255 characters, minute-by-minute unless I'm with them.
However...
THIS LOOKS COOL!
It's called the Magic Clock (www.themagicclock.com). And it's the Weaseley- style clock to tell where your family members are based on their Twitter feeds.
What will people bring to life next?
(Though it seems kind of like something that companies will eventually get to spy on their employees)
However...
THIS LOOKS COOL!
It's called the Magic Clock (www.themagicclock.com). And it's the Weaseley- style clock to tell where your family members are based on their Twitter feeds.
What will people bring to life next?
(Though it seems kind of like something that companies will eventually get to spy on their employees)
Interesting Timing
After involving the Better Business Bureau of California to motivate Plum Organics with my unanswered complaint about rotten food, I finally got a handful of coupons in the mail.
Not sure what to say about it.
Not sure if I even want them because of the last experience with their food.
But I wanted everyone to know that they did finally acknowledge the problem.
Not sure what to say about it.
Not sure if I even want them because of the last experience with their food.
But I wanted everyone to know that they did finally acknowledge the problem.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Another Cup?
Well, it turns out that "researchers" (don't you just love that generalization?) are now finding that caffeinated coffee isn't all bad for you, but they can't tell you why.
The findings of this latest study by Janet Hildebrand and team show some sort of correlation between drinking 4 or more cups (that's 6oz) of caffeinated coffee per day and a decreased risk of throat cancer...though the claim being made is that there is causation effect from the coffee (in other words, drinking the coffee decreases your risk of throat cancer).
Now, as a scientist, I have lots of experience going to the library and reviewing other people's research. In fact, as a scientist, you do that about 75% of your day (20% of your day is doing the actual lab science, and 5% of your day is sleeping). So, as a scientist, I'm reviewing this work and asking myself these questions:
I mean, perhaps there's something to this, but perhaps, just MAYBE this is not a causation relationship at all. Perhaps the lifestyles of people who drink 4+ cups of coffee per day are actually what prevent throat cancer.
The findings of this latest study by Janet Hildebrand and team show some sort of correlation between drinking 4 or more cups (that's 6oz) of caffeinated coffee per day and a decreased risk of throat cancer...though the claim being made is that there is causation effect from the coffee (in other words, drinking the coffee decreases your risk of throat cancer).
Now, as a scientist, I have lots of experience going to the library and reviewing other people's research. In fact, as a scientist, you do that about 75% of your day (20% of your day is doing the actual lab science, and 5% of your day is sleeping). So, as a scientist, I'm reviewing this work and asking myself these questions:
- How common is throat cancer that you'd need to seek out a specific cure?
- How likely is it that people who drink A LOT of coffee are doing other things to would really be the prevention of throat cancer?
- Is the coffee nowadays the same coffee as what has been consume for the past 30 years? You can't tell me that the actual processing or the growing is the same with all the pesticides and whatnot.
What I guess pisses me off about these studies is that they only look at one little correlation and they miss the big picture.
For example, drinking 4+ cups of coffee per day may help lower your risk of getting throat cancer, but it significantly increases your hypertension- not the RISK of hypertension, it GIVES you hypertension (that's high blood pressure). There's also a very strong causation relationship between drinking a lot of caffeine and having insomnia, lack of creativity, anger problems...
The list goes on and on.
So, I guess my point about this study is: who cares. You shouldn't.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
x...phobia
Well, I actually have good news for all of you! I have a new, 100% telecommuting job.
Yup, I know, it's a beast I thought didn't exist in real life, but it turns out that there are a couple of dream jobs out there. My Atychiphobia wouldn't let me settle for anything else (that would be the fear of failure).
What makes me so happy about the telecommuting job is mostly a pandering to several self-diagnosed conditions:
Mysophobia- yup, the fear of GERMS. When working in an office, I found it difficult to touch even chairs in the conference rooms, much less handshakes and white board markers without running to the bathroom afterwards to wash my hands. I could have taken stock in instant hand sanitizer.
Ochlophobia- the fear of crowds. This is different from Agoraphobia, which is the fear of open plans (agora being plains and whatnot). Agoraphobia is pretty much the opposite from Claustrophobia, if you want to think about it that way, while Ocholophobia is more of a different flavor of claustrophobia. I don't like crowds. Traffic makes me crazy. These are symptoms of this condition. I used to go into work at 4:30 in the morning just to avoid the traffic on the roads. I'm serious about not wanting to be around crowds. Part of it is the invasion of my space, but then when it comes to crowded places like the supermarket on a Saturday, I actually have a panic attack - so many people getting so close to me...their germs!
Yeah, ok, it might feed back to the mysophobia, but when you've been in hospitals as often as I have, you kind of look for reasons to AVOID getting sick.
I honestly had so much fun writing this because of this Phobia List that I found. I doubt some of them are genuine, but then again, what else do psychiatrists do that conventions?
My favorites include:
Arachibutyrophobia- Fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of the mouth.
Omphalophobia- Fear of belly buttons.
Zemmiphobia- Fear of the great mole rat.
and
Onomatophobia- Fear of hearing a certain word or of names, which makes me think of Monty Python's Holy Grail and the Knights Who Say "Ni".
arGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Yup, I know, it's a beast I thought didn't exist in real life, but it turns out that there are a couple of dream jobs out there. My Atychiphobia wouldn't let me settle for anything else (that would be the fear of failure).
What makes me so happy about the telecommuting job is mostly a pandering to several self-diagnosed conditions:
Mysophobia- yup, the fear of GERMS. When working in an office, I found it difficult to touch even chairs in the conference rooms, much less handshakes and white board markers without running to the bathroom afterwards to wash my hands. I could have taken stock in instant hand sanitizer.
Ochlophobia- the fear of crowds. This is different from Agoraphobia, which is the fear of open plans (agora being plains and whatnot). Agoraphobia is pretty much the opposite from Claustrophobia, if you want to think about it that way, while Ocholophobia is more of a different flavor of claustrophobia. I don't like crowds. Traffic makes me crazy. These are symptoms of this condition. I used to go into work at 4:30 in the morning just to avoid the traffic on the roads. I'm serious about not wanting to be around crowds. Part of it is the invasion of my space, but then when it comes to crowded places like the supermarket on a Saturday, I actually have a panic attack - so many people getting so close to me...their germs!
Yeah, ok, it might feed back to the mysophobia, but when you've been in hospitals as often as I have, you kind of look for reasons to AVOID getting sick.
I honestly had so much fun writing this because of this Phobia List that I found. I doubt some of them are genuine, but then again, what else do psychiatrists do that conventions?
My favorites include:
Arachibutyrophobia- Fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of the mouth.
Omphalophobia- Fear of belly buttons.
Zemmiphobia- Fear of the great mole rat.
and
Onomatophobia- Fear of hearing a certain word or of names, which makes me think of Monty Python's Holy Grail and the Knights Who Say "Ni".
arGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Bbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
So, I haven't had a land line for almost 10 years now. It was a scary change when I did it. I moved over to Sprint, who had a paltry coverage area and I just relied on no one really needing to get a hold of me.
I remember how I used to dial a land line- you pick up the phone and there's a dial tone- bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu. Evidently, it's "F" note (F above middle C). Anyway, once you got the dial tone, you'd dial the number.
But nowadays with all the pre-programmed numbers and change in dialing, you don't need to listen for the dial tone. Often you go pick the number from your contact list and dial it. Or you say "Call Mom" or you pick up your handset, enter the numbers, then click the "Dial" button. You skip needing the dial tone at all.
Granted, there are lots of different types of dial tones: the call waiting dial tone, the line-busy dial tone, the exchange transfer dial tone (well, that's more of a click, but you get the idea), the call-disconnected dial tone, etc.
In fact, the satellite phones (GSM) that are used in Europe don't even have a dial tone at all.
It's quite strange.
But it made me stop to think: how much longer will we even have dial tones? The original purpose was to give the caller the signal that the line was connected and a call could be made once they replaced operator-connected calls. But is that needed now?
I think that the only time I ever check to make sure there's a dial tone, is when I move into a new house or a new office and I want to make sure that the phone works- the first time.
But since the lines are more digital than analog now, why send the tone? Why not just have a "Ping" button on your phone if you're curious if there's a connection- just like you'd ping the server on your computer?
It just makes you wonder.
I remember how I used to dial a land line- you pick up the phone and there's a dial tone- bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu. Evidently, it's "F" note (F above middle C). Anyway, once you got the dial tone, you'd dial the number.
But nowadays with all the pre-programmed numbers and change in dialing, you don't need to listen for the dial tone. Often you go pick the number from your contact list and dial it. Or you say "Call Mom" or you pick up your handset, enter the numbers, then click the "Dial" button. You skip needing the dial tone at all.
Granted, there are lots of different types of dial tones: the call waiting dial tone, the line-busy dial tone, the exchange transfer dial tone (well, that's more of a click, but you get the idea), the call-disconnected dial tone, etc.
In fact, the satellite phones (GSM) that are used in Europe don't even have a dial tone at all.
It's quite strange.
But it made me stop to think: how much longer will we even have dial tones? The original purpose was to give the caller the signal that the line was connected and a call could be made once they replaced operator-connected calls. But is that needed now?
I think that the only time I ever check to make sure there's a dial tone, is when I move into a new house or a new office and I want to make sure that the phone works- the first time.
But since the lines are more digital than analog now, why send the tone? Why not just have a "Ping" button on your phone if you're curious if there's a connection- just like you'd ping the server on your computer?
It just makes you wonder.
Monday, March 4, 2013
"Fruit" at The Bottom
So, Greek yogurt was on sale at the grocery store last week and I needed to round out my purchases to get the extra $5 off, so I decided why not try that yogurt again?
As a kid, I remember when Yoplait was introduced and how the funny shaped container and expensive price seemed to make all the difference in flavor. I only got it a handful of special times and it was always the blueberry flavored one.
I honestly don't know if there was any real difference in the flavor at all. Perhaps it was thicker than the store brand. It seemed like it was.
That's because it has corn starch in it.
Yeah.
That'll thicken up yogurt. Yup. Not doing so much for the healthy quality or the flavor, though, but it sure makes it stick to your spoon in a larger clump, thereby making you eat it faster...there by making you wish you had another (?)
hmm
A conspiracy.
Why am I not surprised.
Nor was I surprised when I looked at the yogurts that I purchased from the store this week. Each claimed to be Greek yogurt. Two were Yoplait- one was Chobani.
Now, I don't each yogurt on a regular basis. I find it has a very strange, disturbing, gurgling affect on my intestines and generally makes everything else taste bad for the rest of the day. But since my pregnancy, I've noticed a growing desire for more bitter fare, so I thought I'd try this Greek stuff again.
Turns out that one of the Yoplait was the "100 Calorie" Yoplait. I thought that meant that it was portioned to only be 100 Calories.
No, I was wrong. It has this disgusting Sucralose in it- artificial sweetener. It was absolutely disgusting. My husband restrained his laughter as I sucked it down as if it were canned spinach.
So, don't buy that one is my advice.
The other Yoplait was a fruit-at-the-bottom blueberry. While I was stirring it, I was very disappointed to note that the "fruit" was more like "fruit preserves"- there's more sugary filler than actual blueberries.
How is that healthier than the fruit stirred in versions?
There's also other "fillers".
There's also no goat or sheep milk in it. This was supposed to be GREEK yogurt- sheep or goat milk yogurt strained to a thin cheese. Greek yogurt is supposed to be closer to Paneer than yogurt. I was frankly quite shocked that the labeling didn't say "Greek style yogurt" since it clearly was NOT Greek yogurt. It's just cow yogurt with lemon juice in it to make it a little more tart. Check the package yourself.
Perhaps there just aren't enough Greeks in the FDA to require the correct labeling of their own ethnic products. I don't know. I do know that when I buy feta, it's not cow cheese with feta flavoring, it's goat's milk cheese.
I guess after watching all the TED talks on food I shouldn't be surprised that the American public just doesn't care what kinds of crap are in the food that we eat. Or that what they think they're eating, they're not.
moooo
As a kid, I remember when Yoplait was introduced and how the funny shaped container and expensive price seemed to make all the difference in flavor. I only got it a handful of special times and it was always the blueberry flavored one.
I honestly don't know if there was any real difference in the flavor at all. Perhaps it was thicker than the store brand. It seemed like it was.
That's because it has corn starch in it.
Yeah.
That'll thicken up yogurt. Yup. Not doing so much for the healthy quality or the flavor, though, but it sure makes it stick to your spoon in a larger clump, thereby making you eat it faster...there by making you wish you had another (?)
hmm
A conspiracy.
Why am I not surprised.
Nor was I surprised when I looked at the yogurts that I purchased from the store this week. Each claimed to be Greek yogurt. Two were Yoplait- one was Chobani.
Now, I don't each yogurt on a regular basis. I find it has a very strange, disturbing, gurgling affect on my intestines and generally makes everything else taste bad for the rest of the day. But since my pregnancy, I've noticed a growing desire for more bitter fare, so I thought I'd try this Greek stuff again.
Turns out that one of the Yoplait was the "100 Calorie" Yoplait. I thought that meant that it was portioned to only be 100 Calories.
No, I was wrong. It has this disgusting Sucralose in it- artificial sweetener. It was absolutely disgusting. My husband restrained his laughter as I sucked it down as if it were canned spinach.
So, don't buy that one is my advice.
The other Yoplait was a fruit-at-the-bottom blueberry. While I was stirring it, I was very disappointed to note that the "fruit" was more like "fruit preserves"- there's more sugary filler than actual blueberries.
How is that healthier than the fruit stirred in versions?
There's also other "fillers".
There's also no goat or sheep milk in it. This was supposed to be GREEK yogurt- sheep or goat milk yogurt strained to a thin cheese. Greek yogurt is supposed to be closer to Paneer than yogurt. I was frankly quite shocked that the labeling didn't say "Greek style yogurt" since it clearly was NOT Greek yogurt. It's just cow yogurt with lemon juice in it to make it a little more tart. Check the package yourself.
Perhaps there just aren't enough Greeks in the FDA to require the correct labeling of their own ethnic products. I don't know. I do know that when I buy feta, it's not cow cheese with feta flavoring, it's goat's milk cheese.
I guess after watching all the TED talks on food I shouldn't be surprised that the American public just doesn't care what kinds of crap are in the food that we eat. Or that what they think they're eating, they're not.
moooo
Sunday, March 3, 2013
MacNoise
In the Twin Cities area, there is an organization- well, it's a .com, so I don't think it's a real organization- that collects noise complaints about the air traffic in the area. It's called MacNoise.
What I find sad about this is that there's a need for this service at all. If the FAA would mandate that airplanes fly at an altitude that would keep the planes away from the houses, then it the houses would rattle and shake when the airplanes fly over head (except for those morons that purchased houses right next to the airport).
Well, this is a truly stupid service. I've made numerous complaints about air traffic since the FAA lowered the flight ceiling (meaning that airplanes can fly at a lower altitude, which means we get to listen to them deafeningly buzz our house now). The online forms asks for this type of information:
1. Your address
2. The date and type of the incident
3. Select the checkboxes next to the noise complaint
4. Select the airport for which the complaint is about
5. Select which runway for which the complaint is about
6. Select whether or not the airplane you heard is arriving or departing.
Now, the first three- yeah, I get it. All necessary to triage the problem.
The last three- what!?
How am I supposed to know which airport the plane is connected to as part of the noise problem!?
How am I supposed to know which runway!? I mean, airports are pretty tightly controlled for that kind of thing, especially since 9/11.
How am I supposed to know if the flight is arrive or departing, or frankly, just in a holding pattern!?
I'm only HEARING the airplane!
Now, since I have skylights, I do see some of the smaller planes when they decide to buzz the house at a frighteningly height that I can almost see the hair color of the pilot from my living room. But otherwise, I don't know anything about this airplane other than the pilot is an asshole who is buzzing my house!
But it turns out that it doesn't really matter.
The service doesn't do anything but send a letter asking the pilots not to do that.
How nice of them.
I hope karma gets them on this one.
What I find sad about this is that there's a need for this service at all. If the FAA would mandate that airplanes fly at an altitude that would keep the planes away from the houses, then it the houses would rattle and shake when the airplanes fly over head (except for those morons that purchased houses right next to the airport).
Well, this is a truly stupid service. I've made numerous complaints about air traffic since the FAA lowered the flight ceiling (meaning that airplanes can fly at a lower altitude, which means we get to listen to them deafeningly buzz our house now). The online forms asks for this type of information:
1. Your address
2. The date and type of the incident
3. Select the checkboxes next to the noise complaint
4. Select the airport for which the complaint is about
5. Select which runway for which the complaint is about
6. Select whether or not the airplane you heard is arriving or departing.
Now, the first three- yeah, I get it. All necessary to triage the problem.
The last three- what!?
How am I supposed to know which airport the plane is connected to as part of the noise problem!?
How am I supposed to know which runway!? I mean, airports are pretty tightly controlled for that kind of thing, especially since 9/11.
How am I supposed to know if the flight is arrive or departing, or frankly, just in a holding pattern!?
I'm only HEARING the airplane!
Now, since I have skylights, I do see some of the smaller planes when they decide to buzz the house at a frighteningly height that I can almost see the hair color of the pilot from my living room. But otherwise, I don't know anything about this airplane other than the pilot is an asshole who is buzzing my house!
But it turns out that it doesn't really matter.
The service doesn't do anything but send a letter asking the pilots not to do that.
How nice of them.
I hope karma gets them on this one.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Hallucinations or Ghosts
I'm continuing with my TED Talks on Netflix. The batch of talks I'm watching now is on psychology. Specifically, I watched the talk given by Dr. Oliver Sacks about Charles Bonnet Syndrome.
This is a syndrome where people who are losing their sight or hearing start "hallucinating" sights or sounds- whichever sense they're losing.
While I have a lot of scientific background and I completely believe all of the functional MRI studies that show that different parts of the brain are firing during these "hallucinations", I think that science might be drawing an incorrect conclusion about what is going on.
Has it ever occurred to these doctors that perhaps these are not hallucinations, but that people are really seeing these things?
Has it ever occurred to these doctors that perhaps there's more to be seen that what can be seen in the visual spectrum or heard through the common decibel range with the ears and that just MAYBE the aging changes in these organs allows other sensations to come through to the brain THAT ARE COMPLETELY REAL?
Perhaps there are "ghosts" or at least different entities around us that we can't see with "normal functioning" eyes, but that we can see when they lose their ability to function "normally".
I think it's pretty short-sighted (ha ha) of these doctors and scientists to that that the items aren't there. With all of the discovers in dark matter and subatomic particles and non-Newtonian physics, why would you EVER assume that we know everything there is to know about sight? or about the world that we can "see"?
There's so much that we CAN'T see, that perhaps we ought to pay these people more heed about what they do see- perhaps they're seeing what's in spaces we can't.
This is a syndrome where people who are losing their sight or hearing start "hallucinating" sights or sounds- whichever sense they're losing.
While I have a lot of scientific background and I completely believe all of the functional MRI studies that show that different parts of the brain are firing during these "hallucinations", I think that science might be drawing an incorrect conclusion about what is going on.
Has it ever occurred to these doctors that perhaps these are not hallucinations, but that people are really seeing these things?
Has it ever occurred to these doctors that perhaps there's more to be seen that what can be seen in the visual spectrum or heard through the common decibel range with the ears and that just MAYBE the aging changes in these organs allows other sensations to come through to the brain THAT ARE COMPLETELY REAL?
Perhaps there are "ghosts" or at least different entities around us that we can't see with "normal functioning" eyes, but that we can see when they lose their ability to function "normally".
I think it's pretty short-sighted (ha ha) of these doctors and scientists to that that the items aren't there. With all of the discovers in dark matter and subatomic particles and non-Newtonian physics, why would you EVER assume that we know everything there is to know about sight? or about the world that we can "see"?
There's so much that we CAN'T see, that perhaps we ought to pay these people more heed about what they do see- perhaps they're seeing what's in spaces we can't.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Eating Local
I've been watching the TED Talks about Food and Eating lately- well, the ones that are available streaming through Netflix, anyway. It's generally a bunch of chefs standing up and talking about food and how obese America is and how we ought to eat local and how we need to eat more whole grains...and that everything needs to be sustainable.
I have mixed feelings about these talks because the people standing up there are not environmentalists, but chefs, and while they can have a strong (perhaps even educated) opinion of the environmental impacts of our current global food strategy, they are not environmentalists. That's not what they spent their life doing. They don't study the varying levels of gases over biomes and the affects of using a particular fertilizer. They just read about it.
And this means they it's all hearsay.
Sorry, but true.
They haven't studied it.
Even the scientists that do study Ecology have dramatically differing opinions of the impact of various modern forces on the environment and how changing any one of them might lead to positive (or negative) changes. So, hearing someone's colored opinion of the current state of environment and how to make changes- well, that's just propaganda.
This is the same force that got Germans in trouble in the 1930s and 40s.
This is the same force that got slavery going in the US.
If you don't get the information yourself, you're just repeating what you've heard.
If you don't get both sides of the story, what you're hearing is propaganda.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a tree-hugger. I'm very much into "Do no harm to the world" and "Live in Harmony with the Natural World".
But I'm also a realist.
Nothing I am doing is going to affect the world as whole. It might make changes locally. It will definitely make changes for my family. But it won't make any difference to the destruction of the Amazon. It won't make any difference to the Argentinian beef market. Those decisions rest in the laps of a few rich and powerful that are completely removed from public opinion. They want money and until the time comes where their current process doesn't make them money anymore, they won't change it.
That's a social implementation of Newton's Third Law: A body in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force.
So, things aren't going to change until there's no other option. The world is too far down the rabbit hole to start learning to fly. It's going to have to hit rock bottom before it learns that there is no return. A great example of this is the hypocrisy of the chefs standing up at the TED Talks mandating a change to eat locally and decrease the carbon footprint.
Yet, they will drive all over the country to spread this news.
How does that help the carbon footprint?
Do they give discounts to those walking or biking in to their restaurants? Do they charge a luxury tax for those arriving in Hummers and Limos?
I've also noticed that every chef that is advocating for eating locally is below a certain latitude line in the world. Of course it makes sense to eat locally when you're in the middle of the food belt! It's easy to go to the farmer's market and get anything you want, any day of the week in California. That's where all the vegetables come from! But living in Minnesota, it's completely illogical to eat locally unless you want some mercury-laden pond fish or dried feed corn...oooh, or lutefisk (that's fish that is "cured" in lye by burying it in the snow. It's Norwegian).
And there aren't any farms around most of the world's major cities. Eating locally is a joke.
Do you know how much energy and fertilizer would be required to grow orange trees in Minnesota? or Sweden? How's that better than getting them shipped in from Florida or California?
Oh, wait, you could can or dry some things for use during the winter months, but that puts a ton of sugar and salt into your food, not to mention that boiling leeching out all the nutrients.
How is that healthier that buying that fresh tomato from Chile during the winter?
Oh, and let's not forget the number one fresh fruit sold and readily eaten by youths and adults: the banana. How many banana trees do you see in Kansas? They don't even grow well in most of California because it's too cold- not enough sun- not wet enough.
So, listening to these short-sighted, propaganda-laden "solutions" just makes me sick.
I have mixed feelings about these talks because the people standing up there are not environmentalists, but chefs, and while they can have a strong (perhaps even educated) opinion of the environmental impacts of our current global food strategy, they are not environmentalists. That's not what they spent their life doing. They don't study the varying levels of gases over biomes and the affects of using a particular fertilizer. They just read about it.
And this means they it's all hearsay.
Sorry, but true.
They haven't studied it.
Even the scientists that do study Ecology have dramatically differing opinions of the impact of various modern forces on the environment and how changing any one of them might lead to positive (or negative) changes. So, hearing someone's colored opinion of the current state of environment and how to make changes- well, that's just propaganda.
This is the same force that got Germans in trouble in the 1930s and 40s.
This is the same force that got slavery going in the US.
If you don't get the information yourself, you're just repeating what you've heard.
If you don't get both sides of the story, what you're hearing is propaganda.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a tree-hugger. I'm very much into "Do no harm to the world" and "Live in Harmony with the Natural World".
But I'm also a realist.
Nothing I am doing is going to affect the world as whole. It might make changes locally. It will definitely make changes for my family. But it won't make any difference to the destruction of the Amazon. It won't make any difference to the Argentinian beef market. Those decisions rest in the laps of a few rich and powerful that are completely removed from public opinion. They want money and until the time comes where their current process doesn't make them money anymore, they won't change it.
That's a social implementation of Newton's Third Law: A body in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an equal and opposite force.
So, things aren't going to change until there's no other option. The world is too far down the rabbit hole to start learning to fly. It's going to have to hit rock bottom before it learns that there is no return. A great example of this is the hypocrisy of the chefs standing up at the TED Talks mandating a change to eat locally and decrease the carbon footprint.
Yet, they will drive all over the country to spread this news.
How does that help the carbon footprint?
Do they give discounts to those walking or biking in to their restaurants? Do they charge a luxury tax for those arriving in Hummers and Limos?
I've also noticed that every chef that is advocating for eating locally is below a certain latitude line in the world. Of course it makes sense to eat locally when you're in the middle of the food belt! It's easy to go to the farmer's market and get anything you want, any day of the week in California. That's where all the vegetables come from! But living in Minnesota, it's completely illogical to eat locally unless you want some mercury-laden pond fish or dried feed corn...oooh, or lutefisk (that's fish that is "cured" in lye by burying it in the snow. It's Norwegian).
And there aren't any farms around most of the world's major cities. Eating locally is a joke.
Do you know how much energy and fertilizer would be required to grow orange trees in Minnesota? or Sweden? How's that better than getting them shipped in from Florida or California?
Oh, wait, you could can or dry some things for use during the winter months, but that puts a ton of sugar and salt into your food, not to mention that boiling leeching out all the nutrients.
How is that healthier that buying that fresh tomato from Chile during the winter?
Oh, and let's not forget the number one fresh fruit sold and readily eaten by youths and adults: the banana. How many banana trees do you see in Kansas? They don't even grow well in most of California because it's too cold- not enough sun- not wet enough.
So, listening to these short-sighted, propaganda-laden "solutions" just makes me sick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)