highlights from daniel klein's article: are chipotle and trader joe's really selling food with integrity?
"Beyond helping them [immigrant farm laborers] to know their rights, CIW also created the Campaign for Fair Food asking the major tomato purchasers in this country (fast food chains, grocery stores) to pay a penny more per pound for tomatoes, and asking farmers to put that penny towards the workers... Taco Bell has agreed to join the plight for farm workers, as have 9 other major corporations including McDonald's, Subway, Burger King, and Whole Foods. But guess who wont: Chipotle and Trader Joe's.
"Yep, the two corporations whom you would assume would be at the forefront of workers rights issues, are distancing themselves... And that Chipotle -- the company who promotes the integrity of their food and practices more than anyone -- wont partner with CIW in adopting the Fair Food Principles is especially baffling.
"Both have written statements about their uninterest in partnering with CIW... These actions seem very at odds with the Trader Joe's and Chipotle image. They both claim to be doing it their own way, but as Eric Schlosser was quoted as saying: "Claiming you support farm-worker rights but refusing to work with CIW is like someone in the '60s saying they support civil rights but they won't work with Martin Luther King, Jr. or the NAACP.""
btw, if you're for gay rights, here's some more food for thought. chick-fil-a donated nearly $2 million in 2009 to groups that have anti-gay agendas (source).
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
role models
 |
| source |
...tho that's not to say that she's a good role model. and even if you could argue that, she's certainly not a great one!!
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
side effects
an unanticipated "side effect" of me getting a smart phone is that i'm becoming a bit of a news junkie. and it's more than that i'm subscribed to eight news feeds which i check every day, i've also subscribed to a number of twitter feeds that frequently post articles on science stuff. amazing!
the above video is from scientific american "the best video of earth from space ever made". Earth | Time Lapse View from Space, Fly Over | NASA, ISS from Michael König on Vimeo.
the above video is from scientific american "the best video of earth from space ever made". Earth | Time Lapse View from Space, Fly Over | NASA, ISS from Michael König on Vimeo.
Monday, November 21, 2011
lasting marriage
The Fine Line Between Marriage and Divorce
"3 common factors in lasting marriages: "The happiest wives have a sense of purpose and passion in work and causes outside of the home. Wives who counted on a spouse for fulfillment and sustenance were often angry and lonely. And the happiest wives don't spend a whole lot of time with their husbands... Couples who allow each other to grow separately are the ones with the best chance of growing together and staying together.
"Finally, the wives with the highest marital satisfaction have a tight circle of wild women friends with whom to drink, travel and vent about their husbands"
"But most women told me they stay married simply because they like their marriages more than they dislike them, even if much of the time it's 51 percent "like" to 49 percent "dislike.""
i'm very much starting to believe that all it really takes in a normal marriage (so no major problems like domestic abuse, addiction, repetitive cheating, frequent lying about money...) is commitment. don't expect to be happy all the time, don't expect your spouse to give you reason to live, just... don't let divorce be an option.
i recently told this to someone and she said her professor once said something like "the key to a successful marriage is not falling out of love at the same time." which is i think is pretty good. but even if you are both no longer in love with each other, that doesn't automatically mean you should get divorced. i think people today weigh love much too heavily. there's more to marriage (and life!), you know? like companionship, acceptance, respect, affection...
Saturday, November 19, 2011
sounds salty
from time.com
"Experimenting with how sound affects taste, chef Heston Blumenthal found that playing a recording of breaking waves makes an oyster taste 30% saltier than the same food eaten to the noise of barnyard animals. At the Fat Duck, a restaurant in Bray, England, his Sound of the Sea dish comes with an unusual side: an iPod loaded with sea sounds."
for more interesting stuff about heston you can read this, there's a video about making egg and bacon ice cream!
"Experimenting with how sound affects taste, chef Heston Blumenthal found that playing a recording of breaking waves makes an oyster taste 30% saltier than the same food eaten to the noise of barnyard animals. At the Fat Duck, a restaurant in Bray, England, his Sound of the Sea dish comes with an unusual side: an iPod loaded with sea sounds."
for more interesting stuff about heston you can read this, there's a video about making egg and bacon ice cream!
Thursday, November 17, 2011
the "list"
jillian straus - unhooked generation: the truth about why we're still single was a pretty good read. something interesting she brings up is 'letting go of your list'. a lot of people have a list of qualities they want their significant other to have, which sounds like a pretty good idea. but for some, this list is an absolute, if their date is missing even one item, they are automatically taken out of contention. no more dates! which can be pretty dangerous, especially if your list describes the perfect man or woman, cause there is no such person.
when i was a kid, i had a list: born in america, can sing, taller than me, older than me. and it's funny, but i have yet to date anyone with all the qualities. a few years ago i came up with another list. i don't remember what was on the list, but i know there were three items, and one of them was: able to hold a conversation.
in the book, some of the people interviewed have much more specific lists. this is one guy's 25 item list: loves children; hard working; has the ability to listen and communicate; poised; a team player; looks good / sexy; balance--the ability to keep things in perspective; enthusiastic / love of life; shows initiative; knows how to be a friend; patience; has religious conviction; determined and persistent; considerate of others; has self-control, has faith that things will work out; loyal; ambitious; loves sports; loves music; loves to travel; good mental, physical, emotional condition; sense of humor; alert; the ability to be herself.
honestly, this does sound like a good list. i probably wouldn't want to date someone who didn't have most of these qualities. but when you actually have a list, you'll be so focused on it that you'll lose whatever else comes up. and i don't think anyone is looking to date someone who isn't considerate of others, but you'll naturally come to notice their selfishness so there's no need for a checklist. or what if on the first date you find that this person is perfectly content with their current job as a grade school teacher. not ambitious enough you say!! but what if this was their life-long dream? and what if they're more ambitious when it comes to fitness or something? but you'll never discover that because you'll already have written her off.
my old boss didn't want to date his current girlfriend because she's not chinese (not that he's truly racist, but his mom doesn't speak good english so a chinese speaking person from the same background as him would just make a long-term relationship easier). other than that one thing tho, she seemed really great. i encouraged him to date her and just see what happened. two years later, they're still together and he plans to propose by the end of the year.
anyway, if you're one of those looking for long lasting love but are also holding onto a really long and detailed list, maybe let a go a little and see who comes your way.
...btw, i asked rip about his list. and he said that his new list (if we broke up) would have some opposite things of me, like, not a feminist and someone who doesn't care about the environment. i made a joke about it, but honestly, i was pretty hurt by his comment. i think that being a feminist and an environmentalist shows that i care about much more than myself. i care about global issues, i worry about future generations (even tho i don't plan to have children), i am not a selfish dimwit. but hey, if he wants to date someone who prefers to think only of her very small circle of influence, then that's hardly something i can control. it does bother me though, that he might prefer someone who chooses to be so unaware because what does that say about him? i do think he's not terribly empathetic or even particularly conscientious. but maybe the real problem is that he prefers to self-absorbed. which leads to the question of "will he ever love me the way i want to be loved?"
when i was a kid, i had a list: born in america, can sing, taller than me, older than me. and it's funny, but i have yet to date anyone with all the qualities. a few years ago i came up with another list. i don't remember what was on the list, but i know there were three items, and one of them was: able to hold a conversation.
in the book, some of the people interviewed have much more specific lists. this is one guy's 25 item list: loves children; hard working; has the ability to listen and communicate; poised; a team player; looks good / sexy; balance--the ability to keep things in perspective; enthusiastic / love of life; shows initiative; knows how to be a friend; patience; has religious conviction; determined and persistent; considerate of others; has self-control, has faith that things will work out; loyal; ambitious; loves sports; loves music; loves to travel; good mental, physical, emotional condition; sense of humor; alert; the ability to be herself.
honestly, this does sound like a good list. i probably wouldn't want to date someone who didn't have most of these qualities. but when you actually have a list, you'll be so focused on it that you'll lose whatever else comes up. and i don't think anyone is looking to date someone who isn't considerate of others, but you'll naturally come to notice their selfishness so there's no need for a checklist. or what if on the first date you find that this person is perfectly content with their current job as a grade school teacher. not ambitious enough you say!! but what if this was their life-long dream? and what if they're more ambitious when it comes to fitness or something? but you'll never discover that because you'll already have written her off.
my old boss didn't want to date his current girlfriend because she's not chinese (not that he's truly racist, but his mom doesn't speak good english so a chinese speaking person from the same background as him would just make a long-term relationship easier). other than that one thing tho, she seemed really great. i encouraged him to date her and just see what happened. two years later, they're still together and he plans to propose by the end of the year.
anyway, if you're one of those looking for long lasting love but are also holding onto a really long and detailed list, maybe let a go a little and see who comes your way.
...btw, i asked rip about his list. and he said that his new list (if we broke up) would have some opposite things of me, like, not a feminist and someone who doesn't care about the environment. i made a joke about it, but honestly, i was pretty hurt by his comment. i think that being a feminist and an environmentalist shows that i care about much more than myself. i care about global issues, i worry about future generations (even tho i don't plan to have children), i am not a selfish dimwit. but hey, if he wants to date someone who prefers to think only of her very small circle of influence, then that's hardly something i can control. it does bother me though, that he might prefer someone who chooses to be so unaware because what does that say about him? i do think he's not terribly empathetic or even particularly conscientious. but maybe the real problem is that he prefers to self-absorbed. which leads to the question of "will he ever love me the way i want to be loved?"
Sunday, November 13, 2011
last meal
i think that kind of sucks. i agree that the dude in this article took advantage but to deny everyone in the future the privilege is not nice. the article says that "some states require the meal within a specific time period, allow multiple 'final' meals, restrict it to one or impose 'a vast number of conditions'..." which i do think is a good policy. maybe we can allow a person three special last meals, and if they don't eat the first one, or if they do crappy stuff with it, they don't get any of their remaining two.
i get that we only execute really bad people (well, we try to anyway). and usually the crimes have to be pretty gruesome of us to kill them for it. violent crimes, nothing like tax evasion or theft or anything like that. so of course you can argue that we shouldn't give them any privileges at all, not even a request of a last meal. but just cause they're messed up doesn't mean we have to be also.
the last meals project features some interesting last meals. very simple and sad. actually, they're pathetic because they are so simple. all john r thompson wanted was a glass of fresh squeezed oj. doesn't that kind of make you want to cry? gerald lee mitchell wanted one bag of assorted jolly ranchers. i don't know why he wanted them, and i can think of some really twisted reasons, but maybe those were his favorite candies as a child and as he sucked on each one in the hours leading up to his death, he thought about that one time he was so was so scared by that rabid dog that he peed his pants. and his dad, rather than getting mad like he always did, hugged his son, said that it was okay, and slipped him a jolly rancher or two. maybe he thought about the last halloween with his mom. he wanted to be a barnyard animal, but all they had was his brother's old green sweatshirt so his mom made him a frog costume. gerald was so mad; who wants to be a frog?! he made such a fuss about it but his mom dragged him door to door anyway. and the next day she ran away with their neighbor's husband. at seven years old, all gerald could think was that if only he hadn't told his mom he hated that costume she wouldn't have left him.
...i mean, who knows?
Friday, November 11, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
steve jobs and giving
for the last couple months, the occupy movement has been all over the news. and for a few weeks, so was steve jobs' death. what i find interesting about the occupy movement is that no individuals in the 1% have really been called out. and seeing how i just mentioned steve jobs, i think you know where this is going...
jobs had an estimated net worth of over $7billion at the time of this death. but did you know that "there is no public record of Mr. Jobs giving money to charity" (source)?
did you also know that apple has more cash holdings than the u.s. government? and what are they doing with that money? not giving back to investors, that's for sure. nor, under jobs, were they giving to charities. within weeks of jobs returning to the helm at apple, he cut all philanthropic giving. the justification at the time was to save money since apple wasn't terribly profitable. but how come he never reinstated them? they're certainly profitable now. (tho tim cook did reinstate charitable giving at apple just a short time after taking over ::applause::)
i think it's incredibly weird that certain billionaires (gates, buffett, zuckerberg, walton...) get tons of flack for lack of generosity. yet, for whatever reason, society has given jobs a pass.
a lot of people say that jobs has already given a lot back to society in the form of technology and jobs (as in, work, not his name). and that's great, but just because you've done some great stuff for technology and job creation, that doesn't mean you can't go help others. tons of the extremely rich have manged to run their empires and think about others at the same time: rockefeller, gates, carnegie, winfrey, buffett, bloomberg, knight, koch... and these people have also contributed to society in general in no way less than jobs. to say jobs has already given back enough through his work trivializes what others have done.
also, if jobs' big concern was making great tech stuff for the general public, why didn't he price stuff cheaper? istuff aside, most mac stuff is really expensive! more people would then be able to buy his products and apple still would have been able to make a profit.
jacobs brings up a good point in her article for forbes that maybe jobs did donate, just anonymously. people donate anonymously for a ton of reasons, a major one being that they don't want to be badgered for more money later. and as one of the richest people on the planet, i can see why jobs would already be a target! another problem with donating, especially if you're giving away a lot, if that you want to make sure the receivers are actually worthy. otherwise you could be giving it to someone else who can enact more positive change. but how do you even decide who's going to do a better job? (tho lots of people create their own charities to make sure their money gets allocated to their liking) and some people just don't want the recognition. ...but how come jobs didn't reinstate apple's philanthropy?
(btw, i totally get why people don't want the credit. i do my drives and post about the results and my locks of love stuff, but i have declined to be put in the organization newsletters and stuff. i find that stuff embarrassing. [i realize that i more and more dislike being the center of attention. i won't shy away from doing things because of the attention, but i certainly never do anything for the sake of recognition.] but for all the lack of wanting credit, i still do stuff!)
the rich are certainly entitled to do what they want with their own money. but we, as consumers, are also entitled to our decision on where to spend our money. camping out and protesting the 1% is great and all, but maybe we should also look at how they became so rich -- we made them that way.
jobs said in a 1993 interview with the wall street journal that “being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me … going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful … that’s what matters to me." well, steve, you definitely did do something wonderful, but you could've been someone really wonderful too.
jobs had an estimated net worth of over $7billion at the time of this death. but did you know that "there is no public record of Mr. Jobs giving money to charity" (source)?
did you also know that apple has more cash holdings than the u.s. government? and what are they doing with that money? not giving back to investors, that's for sure. nor, under jobs, were they giving to charities. within weeks of jobs returning to the helm at apple, he cut all philanthropic giving. the justification at the time was to save money since apple wasn't terribly profitable. but how come he never reinstated them? they're certainly profitable now. (tho tim cook did reinstate charitable giving at apple just a short time after taking over ::applause::)
i think it's incredibly weird that certain billionaires (gates, buffett, zuckerberg, walton...) get tons of flack for lack of generosity. yet, for whatever reason, society has given jobs a pass.
a lot of people say that jobs has already given a lot back to society in the form of technology and jobs (as in, work, not his name). and that's great, but just because you've done some great stuff for technology and job creation, that doesn't mean you can't go help others. tons of the extremely rich have manged to run their empires and think about others at the same time: rockefeller, gates, carnegie, winfrey, buffett, bloomberg, knight, koch... and these people have also contributed to society in general in no way less than jobs. to say jobs has already given back enough through his work trivializes what others have done.
also, if jobs' big concern was making great tech stuff for the general public, why didn't he price stuff cheaper? istuff aside, most mac stuff is really expensive! more people would then be able to buy his products and apple still would have been able to make a profit.
jacobs brings up a good point in her article for forbes that maybe jobs did donate, just anonymously. people donate anonymously for a ton of reasons, a major one being that they don't want to be badgered for more money later. and as one of the richest people on the planet, i can see why jobs would already be a target! another problem with donating, especially if you're giving away a lot, if that you want to make sure the receivers are actually worthy. otherwise you could be giving it to someone else who can enact more positive change. but how do you even decide who's going to do a better job? (tho lots of people create their own charities to make sure their money gets allocated to their liking) and some people just don't want the recognition. ...but how come jobs didn't reinstate apple's philanthropy?
(btw, i totally get why people don't want the credit. i do my drives and post about the results and my locks of love stuff, but i have declined to be put in the organization newsletters and stuff. i find that stuff embarrassing. [i realize that i more and more dislike being the center of attention. i won't shy away from doing things because of the attention, but i certainly never do anything for the sake of recognition.] but for all the lack of wanting credit, i still do stuff!)
the rich are certainly entitled to do what they want with their own money. but we, as consumers, are also entitled to our decision on where to spend our money. camping out and protesting the 1% is great and all, but maybe we should also look at how they became so rich -- we made them that way.
jobs said in a 1993 interview with the wall street journal that “being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me … going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful … that’s what matters to me." well, steve, you definitely did do something wonderful, but you could've been someone really wonderful too.
Monday, November 7, 2011
the f word!
i know this is several years old, but i only just discovered this... have you heard of chef gordon ramsay's f word? it was a tv from a few years ago in the uk. i haven't watched enough episodes, but gordon talks about food, eats some, cooks, meets celebrities and sometimes challenges them.
the funniest one i've seen so far is with him and james may from top gear (the british version of course, since the american version flipping sucks).
the funniest one i've seen so far is with him and james may from top gear (the british version of course, since the american version flipping sucks).
Saturday, November 5, 2011
occupy
 |
| sourc |
i asked a few people what they think of the occupy movement and they all said that they don't see the point because the protesters don't seem to have a very clear plan of action. as in, when does this end? what change do you need to see happen in order to stop protesting?
i don't think it's pointless at all. this isn't like a union strike where you're protesting for something. the occupy movement is against something. and everyone, including the protesters, know that this something cannot be easily be changed. but that's fine, because the movement is to bring attention to the issue: the unfairness of massive financial inequality.
this reminds me of the sit-ins and the rallies of the 60's for desegregation and 70's against the war. did the protesters think that by sitting in a diner suddenly there would be change? of course not. they were looking for media attention (and not in a stupid kardashian way), and they got it. which led to others around the country also starting protest movements. and eventually there was change.
with the occupy movement, there may not be drastic change, who knows? those in charge are generally in, if not the upper 1%, at least the top 5%. but this movement is about money and unemployment. and since a lot of those occupiers don't have jobs to go to anyway (largely thanks, in their mind, to the upper 1%), theoretically, they could sit there forever. part of the occupy movement is to shame the fat cats. remind them of the 99% many of them don't seem to give a shit about even though we power the world they hold temporarily hold power over.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
sexy music
i think she looks cheap. i hate the haircut and i think the dress is tacky / too revealing. but! i think she can wear what she wants. classical music has a bad rap for being stuffy, but that doesn't have to be. wang is only 24 and she has a decent body, so she if doesn't want to cover up, she shouldn't have to. even though her dress reveals more than i'd like to see, her outfit isn't at all indecent, so i don't see what the problem is. besides, her most recent cd is titled "transformation". maybe she's using fashion to help transform the image of classical music to something more hip, even sexy.
(ps, why are her shoes so big? does she have to pick a size too large because of piano playing stuff? cause i don't think that's the case...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)