Here there be monsters (socratic) wrote,
Here there be monsters
socratic

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Boring stuff about food and commerce.

I've been told that warning people away from entries I consider self-indulgent or poorly written is ineffective because of the effects of reverse-psychology, so I'm going to harness this powerful force for my own uses. Read this entry. It's fascinating beyond belief. It is not only hilarious but it just may improve your stamina in bed and teach you how to make $10,000 a week working from home only 2 hours a day with NO MONEY DOWN. It is the alpha and the omega. It's like a nuclear orgasm in textual form.

I've been eating too much recently. I'm still losing weight but not at the rate I'd like. It's mostly due to restaurant eating, which is mostly due to eating out with friends. One of the annoying things about restaurants is that, unless they are big chains, they don't have nutritional information on their menus. You don't know whether their balsamic vinagrette has 5 calories per serving or 50. It's hard to judge, and I'm not one to harass waitstaff with every little detail about what's in the meal. It makes it hard to judge what you're eating. The other problem with restaurants is that most of the time they have two menu sections open to adults. Fattening as hell, and if you're lucky, tastes like shit. Restaurant food designed to be healthy not only has to be healthy but it has to taste healthy. Cottage cheese and melba toast on a bed of lettuce?!? Wow, that'll be great when my friend across the table is enjoying a chicken-fried steak and a chocolate sundae. Maybe I'll splurge and get a grapefruit half!

It's possible to make baked french fries that are low in fat and decently high in taste. It's possible to do the same with most types of food. Restaurants don't. They either want food to be rich and fatty, or taste like something that an masochistic monk might choke down during Lent. It's very discouraging. It's possible to offer healthy alternatives without bludgeoning people over the tastebuds with them. Restaurants don't seem to get this. I think it comes from the times when Americans used to go out to eat once or twice a month, and it didn't really matter how much we ate then because of the rarity. Now we go out three or four times a week and the game needs to change, but they don't see it.

I'm conflicted about the slower weight loss. On the one hand I want to be thinner. and obviously sooner would be preferable to later. On the other hand, it's healthier to lose weight more slowly, and it also means that you are more likely to keep the weight off. Plus I've hit my first goal and the next while won't see any major changes. Plus there's the social and sensual pleasures of going out to eat and getting some stuff that actually tastes good, not to mention the fact that it increases sustainability of a diet (one of the reasons slower weight loss lasts longer is that it is usually done in a manner that's easier to maintain for the rest of your life, as opposed to those who lose eating cabbage soup or whatever.) I'd like to find a compromise, speed it up somewhat but not to the point it was before, and retain some of the eating out privaleges. It's all a balancing act anyway.

In other news, Wal-Mart saves lives. According to an advertisement of theirs one of their co-managers (uhhh?) saved a family from a burning van because he works at Wal-Mart. No, not because they gave him emergency training of some sort. Wal-Mart taught him to do the right thing. That's right, if it wasn't for the strong morality imbued into him by Wal-Mart he would have let those people burn to death in the car. I'm not sure what the commercial is supposed to do, but if you're naturally such a cold and horrible bastard that you'd let a family die except for your training at work, training that came from the same people who regularly bust unions and deny their workers a wage they can live on, I don't want to shop at your store. Wal-Mart should not be hiring these sociopaths in the first place, even if they do eventually get them to behave in a somewhat normal manner. Maybe it's just that he gets enough human misery at work that he doesn't need to see a baby burned to a crisp. I hate it when these corporations trot out a few workers of theirs who do good deeds and then exploit that to burnish the image of their companies. It's not like even those of us who hate Wal-Mart think that there are no good people working there. Most of the people who work there do so because they can't get better jobs, thanks to douches who shop there instead of at places that pay decent wages, not because they love being wage-slaves for evil. Who cares if your "associates" do volunteer work? That has nothing to do with you as a company. Let's talk about the owners, how much volunteer work do they do? Let's talk about health insurance and union busting. Let's talk about corporate policies that enforce unpaid work and fire people for unlocking a fire door to go to the hospital after they've shattered an ankle doing dangerous work for you. Fuckers.

P.S. Fox continues to outdo itself. They had a poll that says "Latourneau love, A-Ok or No way"

You know, I have a very easy time making cracks about various things, especially things I find politically reprehensible, but how do you parody that? It's so stupid, so utterly inappropriate for what Fox CLAIMS to be, and so...

People take this shit seriously?
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 2 comments