It occurred to me that when Barack Obama pounded Michelle, and the Fox News fogeys wailed about it being a secret terrorist hand signal, that we’re at a big generational disconnect here.

Barack Obama is the first Generation X presidential candidate. Our generation (yes, I’m a member, although closer to the other end of the range than the Senator from Illinois) speaks a different language, interprets the world differently, and has completely different cultural references from the Baby Boomers and previous generations. And, as usual, each younger generation has to bear the withering assaults of the older generation that just doesn’t get them.

It also occurred to me that Obama’s opponent, John McCain, is not even a Baby Boomer, the generation that gave us both presidential candidates in both 2000 and 2004 (Kerry was born in 1943 but his Vietnam post-war experience suggests he represented the BB’s ideological zeitgeist at the time).

After a successful two-term Clinton presidency and not-so-successful two-term Bush Jr presidency, I don’t think we’re ready to turn back the hands of time and choose someone who most closely resembles the Cryptkeeper at this point.

No Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on June 10th, 2008 by JM

We went to a new restaurant yesterday for brunch. Like most brunch spots, the menu was familiar - the California omelette, the huevos rancheros, the home fries, etc. Unlike lunch or dinner, brunch seems to be oddly familiar from restaurant to restaurant.

However, taste can vary widely.

This place was just “meh”. It looked just as delicious as the same items a couple nearby places we frequent, but those places are markedly better. The California omelette at one place just tastes a lot better at one place than another.

I’m wondering, since, again, they looked the same, was it:

1. the quality of ingredients?

2. some missing “special sauce” ingredient in one place and not in the other?

3. some special technique for scrambling eggs or frying potatoes that makes them extra tasty?

I couldn’t discern any lack of quality or omission but maybe there’s something more subtle at work.

My suspicion is that #1 is the case for at least the pancakes (which we didn’t have); we walked past a huge box of Bisquik on our way out.

No Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on June 9th, 2008 by JM

A great article in the New Yorker, on why conservatism is dying. Not a hit-piece by Democrats; almost all of the people the author quotes are Republicans, and ones that we’ve heard of (Pat Robertson, David Frum, David Brooks). The consensus? The Republicans are “fucked” (their words, not mine).

Why? The Republicans don’t have any ideas to stand on. During the Cold War, conservatives opposed the spread of communism/socialism. (That work is done) They opposed government intrusion on people’s lives (completely and utterly abandoned when they sought the support of evangelicals). They supported limited government (which people don’t want anymore - most want the government to fix healthcare, immigration, etc - something that GW Bush, strangely enough, advocated - his non-defense spending was record-breaking too)

Sure, they are opposed to the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, but so are the Democrats - they differ only in their “how”. And most would agree today that the latter’s carrot-and-stick, diplomacy-heavy approach would be more successful and less expensive than conservatives’ tendency to drop bombs and ask questions later.

So, recently, the Republicans have become an easily ridiculed caricature of a party - one that’s obsessed with “protecting Christian rights” (as if they were an oppressed minority) and bashing the Democrats - not with ideas of their own, mind you, but with childish scoffs and meaningless taunts that they hate America (while they support actions that recall North Korea more than the Land of the Free).

Despite the manipulative prowess of Republican operatives like Karl Rove, the fact that the emperor has no clothes is finally spreading. Republicans are being asked to put forth their own policy ideas to fix the problems of our country, or shut up. And guess what? They’re empty-handed and unoriginal.

We might be headed for a long Republican winter. A good thing, too, because if we think we’re fucked now, imagine another four years of rudderless navigation through increasingly stormy waters.

One question: how far into an Obama presidency can we expect McCain to start doing commercials for Viagra?

2 Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on June 6th, 2008 by JM

John McCain, with his advanced oldness and avuncular creaky voice, is clearly trying to evoke the only Republican not completely loathed by Americans right now: the Gipper. But, unfortunately, he’s reminding us of a certain type of Ronald Reagan, one that might be described as “late stage”:

No Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on June 5th, 2008 by JM

My cynical mind at work…

I read that Hillary is “open” to being Obama’s running mate. My question: If Obama won the presidency and Hillary then became his VP, would Hillary, on January 21, 2009, gun him down?

I just have this mental picture of her wearing a trenchcoat and a derby, with smoke coming out of a revolver carried limply in her hand, saying with a drawn face, “I did it for the good of this country…”

Now I know that’s awful. I hope y’all know I’m joking. (I actually still have a soft spot for her, even though I voted for Obama and support him fully.) No comment from Republican candidate John McCain.

2 Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on June 4th, 2008 by JM

I’m looking down at a handful of Kirkland (read: Costco) trail mix, and amidst the 28-year-old raisins and broken peanuts from China there are actual M&Ms - you know, the kind with the actual little m’s or w’s on them.

Costco, which blends the absolute lowest-cost ingredients, often to the detriment of their customers’ health (relax! just kidding), wouldn’t dare put in little candy-covered chocolate pastilles with little a’s, p’s or z’s on them. Maybe they don’t even exist - but that begs the question, why not?

I think no one dares fuck with the little guys.

No Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on June 3rd, 2008 by JM

Short answer: not particularly. Certainly not any healthier than sugar or the vilified high-fructose corn syrup, which, incidentally is almost its equivalent with respect to its composition.

Agave Nectar (also more prosaically, and more correctly, called Agave Syrup) is made from the processed nectar of the agave plant, that wondrous Central American plant that gave us tequila, which is made of fermented agave nectar. Agave nectar has become enormously popular among vegans and, strangely (I’ll explain in a bit), raw foodists.

So why is agave touted as “good for you”, “healthier”, and “gentle on the body” (all taken from product labels I saw in my local natural grocer)? Because usually those making those claims have absolutely no understanding of science, and invent quackery on the fly. Remember, these are the same folks who told us that chocolate/cocoa was deadly, for decades, and that we should eat assy-tasting carob instead, when it turns out chocolate is actually quite good for you. There are plenty of reasons to be more than a little skeptical.

Let’s take a look at what agave nectar really is, before we think it’s healthy just because it came from a plant (as do sugar and HFCS.):

• agave nectar is primarily composed of inulin, a polysaccharide that acts like fiber in the system
• inulin is not really sweet so it must be processed (usually by heat) to convert it into fructose, primarily, which is sweet
• it must be boiled down, regardless of how the inulin is converted to fructose, in order to reduce a thin nectar into a thicker syrup (so it is most certainly not a “raw”/”live” food product)
• agave nectar is 56-92% fructose, with the rest mostly glucose
• HFCS, vilified as much as agave nectar is worshipped, is 55% fructose, the rest glucose. Yes, almost the same exact composition as some agave syrup.

But HFCS is processed! So is agave nectar. But agave nectar has a lower glycemic index than sugar! So does HFCS. I mean, they’re pretty much the exact same thing, except agave is made from a Mayan polysaccharide feedstock, and HFCS is made from an American one.

So, the biggest difference, except for the fact that agave nectar is imported from a much longer distance so as to incur a much larger carbon footprint, is that agave can have a higher percentage of fructose than glucose.

If you’re a diabetic, that’s good, because that means its glycemic index is lower.

If you’re not a diabetic, its lower glycemic index is not nearly as important, and there’s even greater cause for concern than with HFCS or table sugar. Fructose has a few problems over glucose:

• it doesn’t induce the same level of satiety as glucose, so people drink/eat more of foods that are sweetened with fructose
• fructose creates more than double the advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs), harmful chemical species that age (no pun intended) the human body, in the bloodstream than glucose
• fructose raises blood triglyceride levels, a marker for heart disease, higher than glucose does
• in mice, fructose induced obesity, and it has been suspected to do the same in humans, in addition to increasing the likelihood of metabolic syndrome

More here on the health effects of fructose.

What’s more, sucrose, rebranded recently as “evaporated cane juice” (to somehow hide the fact that it’s the same C&H stuff we’ve been consuming for decades), is almost identical to both the supposedly deadly HFCS and the purportedly salubrious agave nectar: it’s a disaccharide (made of two sugars), composed of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Sound familiar?

What all this boils down to is that these 3 sugars - sucrose, HFCS, and agave - are almost identical from a health perspective. The fact that Mayans cultivate the agave does not make it a magically healthy alternative to table sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, it’s produced almost identically to the latter.

If you want something sweet, go ahead - just don’t try to delude yourself that Mexican processed sugar is any healthier than the American variety, regardless of whether that American sugar comes from cane or corn.

3 Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on June 2nd, 2008 by JM

Google Video & Hulu have allowed us to relive some of the finest moments from TV. One of my favorite characters from SNL was Debbie Downer (played by a morbid Rachel Dratch). These two were my favorite clips, mostly because the cast couldn’t stay in character (if you can’t see these below via RSS, visit the corresponding blog post directly):

No Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on May 31st, 2008 by JM

One thing that has vexed me for years is the fact that poorer, relatively unskilled people across the country tend to vote Republican, even though Republican economic policies tend to favor the rich. I’m not the first to wonder why many relatively poor people vote against their own economic interests. A good friend of mine speculated that some of them imagine that they’ll eventually be rich, so they might as well try to vote in the folks that will serve them well in the future.

I’m skeptical of that. I don’t think most blue-collar conservatives imagine that they’ll ever be millionaires. They seem to be far too interested in illegal immigrants stealing their low-wage menial jobs to have much higher aspirations.

What recently occurred to me, however, is that I myself am guilty of voting against my own economic interests, although in the opposite direction. Let me explain.

I’m fairly well-off (more by measure of my net worth than my income). I make a considerable amount of my income through investments. Republicans would be more likely to push for lower capital gains tax than Democrats, and lower income tax altogether for my tax bracket. And yet I vote Democratic.

Sure, it’s easy to vote Dem when you’re gay and atheist, as I am; it’s hard to imagine casting a vote for the party that has come to be dominated by bible-beating homophobes. But even if Republicans were to come broadly in line with Democrats with respect to issues such as gay marriage and the separation of church and state, I think I’d still vote Democratic.

Why? I see it as a quality of life issue. Republicans are likely to make the lot for poor people much worse. I live in an urban area that seems to be sensitive to economic vicissitudes, with crime and despair reigning the streets I walk every day when hopelessness abounds. I have absolutely no interest in living in a barricaded closed community. I want to be able to enjoy living in a city without feeling like I could be a victim of it, and that fellow residents are able to enjoy life too and not just struggling to scrape by.

To poor conservatives, something similar could be true. Assuming they truly understand what they’re voting for, they could reason that they’d be willing to trade some of their job security and income in favor of a world where they wouldn’t have to see gay couples getting married, recent immigrants speaking Spanish on the street, and where politicians aren’t so educated as to seem way above them. It’s a quality of life issue for them too (although what constitutes a high quality of life to them is obviously very different).

It’s sad to imagine people trading in some of their own welfare in order to maintain a homophobic and culturally-monochromatic neighborhood for themselves, but I suppose I’m willing to do the same thing for the exact opposite.

No Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on May 31st, 2008 by JM

After reading the rousing words of ADF legal counsel Brian Raum, I felt moved enough to write the ADF and commend them for their efforts:

Thank you for supporting bigotry.
Bigots all around this great country of ours have had a hard time lately making their views the law of the land.
Constantly harangued by equality-obsessed radicals, the proud bigots of this country have had their core beliefs, that some people are truly better than others and deserve greater rights, come into question time and time again.
For thousands of years, human civilization has enjoyed a longstanding tradition of bigotry, as racism, sexism and, yes, homophobia have been universally practiced and often enshrined in law.
As activist politicians, activist judges, and activist activists keep on selectively interpreting the Constitution on behalf of who weren’t born white, male, Christian and heterosexual, it’s high time that the “silent (and selfish) majority” speak out as their rights are eroded to the same level as everyone else’s.
Thank you, ADF, for fighting on behalf of those who already have the most rights.
Thank you, ADF, for working tirelessly to protect the privileges of those born with them.
And thank you, ADF, for knowing that our system of checks and balances can always be railed upon if it turns out a decision not to our liking.
Thank you for circumventing the democratic process for the rights, wishes and whims of American bigots!

No Comments » | Filed under: Uncategorized
Posted on May 29th, 2008 by JM