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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)