Nobody's Business

A Food Luddite's Brave New World

Slow-food proponent Carlo Petrini sounds off in the Nation:

"By producing, distributing, choosing and eating food of real quality we can save the world."

Mmm. 'Real quality' is surely in the eye of the beholder. Also, if a solution is at hand, Petrini is pretty vague about what it is.

And then, with some googling, I remembered in what context I'd heard of him before — and why he may not so keen on sharing his roadmap to a Brave New World. A few years ago, Petrini was on a food panel at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, where he distinguished himself by intoning:

"[There are] four engines that we cannot stop that are taking us directly into deaths [sic]. These four engines are made up of science, technology, industry, and profit."

Yes, before any of these things existed and we subsisted on grasses and raw meat and we lived in caves until the ripe old age of 28, life was paradise. Down with progress!

The Times Accepts U.K. Gag Order

MSNBC reports that the New York Times site has blocked some of its coverage to U.K. readers so as not to break a press-restriction law on yonder side of the pond.

The New York Times' Web site is blocking British readers from a news article detailing the investigation into the recent airline terror plot, turning its Internet ad-targeting technology into a means of complying with U.K. laws. "We had clear legal advice that publication in the U.K. might run afoul of their law," Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty said Tuesday. "It's a country that doesn't have the First Amendment, but it does have the free press. We felt we should respect their country's law."

I don't quite know why the Times would feel obligated to abide by the rules of a foreign judiciary. As far as I'm aware, the American Revolution ended well over two centuries ago, and, um, our side won. In any case, the paper's motto, "All the news that's fit to print," is incompatible with the act of suppressing news. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the exact opposite. And it sets a bad precedent.

Last year, a Canadian court ordered all media Up North to refrain from reporting any details in the Gomery government corruption trial, for the duration of the proceedings. Canadian media had no choice but to comply, but their U.S. counterparts, including blogs, rightly didn't consider themselves bound by a Canadian judge's orders. The particulars of the case were soon all over the Internet, where even Canadians were free to read them in all their juicy goodness.

So: Next time, if a foreign law, or a foreign judge, demands it, will the Times again refrain from publishing? Will the paper — meekly and ineffectively, as in the U.K. example above — try to prevent citizens of the country in question from reading Times articles online that the rest of the world is free to pore over?

If, say, a Chinese or Saudi-Arabian judge issues a gag order against the press, will the Times wave the white flag then, also?

Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty, in the quote above, seems to be saying that the paper will only honor don't-publish rules from countries that have a free press. Sounds like Newspeak to me; doesn't the fact that a foreign law can be used to issue a gag order in the first place signify that that country's press is not, in fact, free?

No Babies For Fatties

More Body Mass Index nuttery. The BBC reports that

The British Fertility Society is recommending women with a body mass index of 36 and over should not be allowed access to fertility treatment. Underweight women and those classed just as obese (BMI over 29) should be forced to address their weight before starting treatment, the society said.

This is all based on a quasi-scientific standard — the Body Mass Index — that (a) was cooked up more than 150 years ago, (b) has been thoroughly discredited by a team of researchers from the Mayo Clinic, and (c) is being arbitrarily applied, in this case and many others.

And what's next? No babies for people who are too tall, too short, too wired, too laid-back, too dumb, too smart? No babies for people who like gambling or beer or cigarettes ?

Ah, but some of the commenters on the BBC site believe that's a swell idea, actually:

I think there should be a fertility ban, to people who are obese and smokers until they can prove that they are making changes to there [sic] lifestyles.

All that said, I'm going to turn this argument around: I don't see why other people should pay for any couple's fertility treatments. Not being able to conceive the natural way does not affect one's health. It's not on a par with a broken arm, an inflamed appendix, or a cancerous colon. No one owes the world another baby, and the world doesn't owe you one, either. Insisting on continuing your genetic line is fine as far as it goes, but not when you dip into taxpayers' pockets to do it.

If you really want a child, there are millions of them waiting to be adopted. That's how my wife and I made our family. Our two kids were born to women halfway around the world who couldn't or wouldn't take care of them. The little rugrats look nothing like us (click here for pictures), and that's probably fortunate for them. As parents, we consider ourselves insanely lucky that they're ours, and anyone who thinks we're not a 'real' family can kiss my (moderately chubby) ass.

Kevin McCullough's "Absolute Truth"

Consider this recent statement from a Californian lawmaker: 

"The way you correct a wrong is you outlaw it." 

I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a relatively common sentiment in political circles. Most politicians, on the left and the right, believe that they were put on earth to outlaw behavior they don't like.

Now consider this variation:

"The way you correct a wrong (perspective) is you outlaw it." 

Different kettle of fish, isn't it? The legislator who said those words is itching to have people prosecuted for what they believe. For a point of view. For a thought crime.

The first sentence was spoken by Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Núñez, in defense of SB 1437, a bill that would ban California public schools from dispensing demeaning information about people of a different gender or sexual orientation.

The second sentence is Núñez's statement as filtered through the poison pen of talk show host and Townhall.com columnist Kevin McCullough.

The deceit is Coulteresque in its brazenness.

A little surprisingly perhaps, McCullough's bio states that he's not just "one of the most widely respected evangelical voices in the nation today," but also that he "advocates for such shocking things as absolute truth." A brave man, he. How does McCullough spread Jesus's love, and how does he buttress his truth-telling claim?

Let's look at his attack on Núñez again. Other than adding a word in order to distort what Núñez said, it turns out that McCullough also plays fast and loose with quotation marks. He writes that Núñez openly stated, on the floor of the Assembly,

"The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."

For any politician, it would be divisive and boneheaded to say such a thing, especially in public. And sure enough, I can't find any credible corroboration that Núñez uttered those words. The quote doesn't appear in the news archives of reputable local newspapers such as the Sacramento Bee or the Los Angeles Times. So where does it come from?

It seems to have originated in a press release from the Campaign for Children and Families (CCF). But even the hardline-conservative CCF didn't dress the words up as a quote. Theirs is merely a tendentious bit of editorializing, a fire-up-the-base paraphrase of what the CCF writer heard or thought Núñez had said.

McCullough then compounds the sleight of hand by putting quotation marks around the paraphrase.

Kevin McCullough is as much an advocate for the absolute truth as a butcher is an advocate for pigs.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

And now a pop quiz. See if you can guess which one of these headlines isn't the title of a McCullough column.

(a) Liberals Will Get Us All Killed
(b) Why Liberals Are Crushing Dissent
(c) The Lying Lies a Liberal Teacher Tells
(d) Why Liberals Love Pedophiles 

Give up? In fact, they're all McCullough headlines.

[thanks to Martin Owens for pointing me to the Townhall article] 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ADDENDUM: My defense of Núñez does not mean I think SB 1437 is a great piece of legislation. Sure, as an anti-discrimination measure, it strikes me as a decent and fair law. But if the recently amended bill still contains the provision that the accomplishments of gays must be enumerated in the state's school textbooks, I hope Governor Schwarzenegger vetoes it. As I wrote a few months ago,

It's one thing to say that the state may not discriminate against gays; it's quite another to deem it relevant — and mandatory for children to learn — with whom certain historical figures shared their beds. Really, no one cares.

Introducing Chandler Burr, Perfume Critic

I'd never heard of Chandler Burr until the New York Times announced it would hire him as a full-time perfume critic. Burr's task is to pen fancy-scent reviews the way a more pedestrian newspaper might critique an art exhibit or a fine wine.

And what a wicked delight he turns out to be. Even master satirists like Stephen Fry or Evelyn Waugh could hardly have conceived of anyone quite so unintentionally sidesplitting, so possessed of a doomed desire to turn an achingly exquisite phrase. The purple prose of scribbling wine connoisseurs notwithstanding, Burr is in a class by himself. His sentences resemble a high-wire act by a doped-up Marcel Proust wannabe; you know it will end badly, in a spectacular logorrheic splat, no less entertaining for being horrific.

And if you think that's a dreadful metaphor, well, you have no idea.

Enter Mr. Burr and his two articles in yesterday's Times:

Darkness, when it is crystalline and somewhat luminous, may be the most difficult quality to capture in a perfume. ... The result sweeps over you like the silent, massive shadow of an Airbus A340, a tactile component that makes you narrow your eyes. If it fades slightly faster than one might hope, the aesthetics are pitch-perfect. ...

Rose Barbare is a crepuscular, rose-inflected darkness suffused with a luminosity that floats on the skin. ... This is the scent of the darkness that inhabits a Rubens, a warm, rich, purple blackness; Pomegranate Noir is like a box of truffles with the lid on, sweet bits of darkness, waiting. ...

Bigarade smells like a person trapped in a complex weather system, the wonderful scent of a guy’s armpit and a woman’s humid skin washed in fresh rainwater and ozone. ... It is a masterful juxtaposition, and smelling Bigarade is like looking down into a well of cool, black water. Your retinas expand from the strange pleasure of this scent.

Also:

A good synthetic heliotropin is an olfactory marvel, as if a tonka bean had somehow been crossed with a cloud.

Clearly, if verbal frottage is an art form, Chandler Burr, a world-class onanist with a word processor, is its Rembrandt. Châpeau, mon ami; my retinas, when not darkened by the silent shadow of an Airbus A340, are still expanding from the strange pleasure of your prose!

Smoke Pouring From a Stone

Stones guitarist Keith Richards may be in trouble with the law for smoking a cigarette. On stage. In a stadium. I sure hope none of the 50,000 people present suffered ill effects from Richards' brutal assault on their health.

[hat tip: To the People]

The Times' John Tierney visits a marijuana café in Amsterdam and wonders where the drug-crazed zombies are:

[T]he patrons puffing on joints generally don't look any more zombielike than the crowd at an American bar — or, for that matter, a Congressional subcommittee listening to a lecture on the evils of marijuana. And if they talked to Peter Cohen, a Dutch researcher who has been studying drug use for a quarter-century, they would discover something even more disorienting. Even though marijuana has been widely available since the 1970's, enough to corrupt a couple of generations, the Netherlands has not succumbed to reefer madness.

The Dutch generally use drugs less than Americans do, according to national surveys in both countries (and these surveys might understate Americans' drug usage, since respondents are less likely to admit illegal behavior). More Americans than Dutch reported having tried marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Among teenagers who'd tried marijuana, Americans were more likely to be regular users.

Successive U.S. Drug Czars, instead of suppressing these facts or just plain lying about them, should go see the Dutch model for themselves, open their eyes, and, you know, chill a little.

[Hat tip: Reconsider]

Free Energy Forever?

These guys say they've turned the known laws of physics on their head with a device that puts out much more energy than goes into it. In other words, free, clean energy forever. Color me skeptical. Still, it's nice to dream about a world where oil barons become lumpen beggars, and where the U.S. government can extend a sincere if belated middle finger to its Middle Eastern masters.

Cat Fight

Cops have charged a 14-year-old boy in Jeanette, PA, with misdemeanor harassment — for imitating the sound of a cat.

Michael Loughner is accused of meowing whenever he sees his 78-year-old neighbor, Alexandria Carasia. The boy's family got rid of their cat after Carasia complained that it was using her flower garden as a litter box. Now, she said, the boy makes meowing sounds every time he sees her. He said he's only meowed at her twice.

No doubt: Children who make animal sounds must be stopped. I mean, if police don't nip it in the bud now, soon kindergartners all over the country will be singing Old MacDonald Had a Farm, and then think how sorry we will be!

Eau de Sulzberger

This should really help the New York Times shed its effete-elitist-snob image among Middle Americans:

The New York Times has announced the appointment of its first perfume critic, in what the paper describes as a breakthrough for olfactory journalism and a wake-up call for a secretive, hype-driven industry. There are a couple of websites devoted to fragrance and a scent columnist at a Swiss newspaper but, as far as the New York Times is aware, Chandler Burr, a journalist and author, will be the first full-time perfume critic for an English-language newspaper. "Perfume is an art form just like other art forms from theater to painting to music, so we're excited to be the first to cover perfume in this way," Diane McNulty, a Times spokeswoman, said.