Truly the worst
Saturday, January 24, 2009
No. 581 - Hole Phoo'ds
Maybe they're not aware of how loosely the term "organic" really applies to some of the food that they purchase. Being organically grown is seemingly in the best interest of our foods and our bodies, but is it really worth the extra costs associated with it, which some estimate is up to 50 percent more than standard non-organic fare?
Organic benefits: Ideally, organic crops are grown without synthetic pesticides, artificial fertilizers and bacteria-killing radiation, and animals on organic farms are not injected with growth hormones and they're not contained throughout their entire waking day. Who could argue with this criteria?
Unfortunately, when the Department of Agriculture was charged with defining "organic" and what could be labeled as organic, these distinctions became as clear as a fertilizer smoothie. The government decided to allow genetically engineered organisms, radiation and even organic compost that contains chemicals with municipal sludge and toxic waste.
And the rub? The same rules enable organic food producers to only print the label "organic" on their goods without any other details about how that food is produced. So, yes, yet another notion of goodness subverted by our trusted leaders.
Eating right should be on the top of everyone's list, but what is right may not always agree with what we're told is right. When grown properly, organic food serves innumerable health benefits, but it also takes a larger toll on the planet.
It's estimated that switching to locally sourced food would produce many more local "food miles" due to more frequent delivery of smaller amounts of food. In essence, this could lead to a dramatic increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases. This does not follow the "green" example which so many organic enthusiasts tout.
Additionally, if everyone on this planet ate food that was truly organically grown, the amount of available fertile soil would quickly dwindle. It's an uncomfortable fact that genetic engineering and industrial farming help produce food on the scale that the masses require, all by using much less collective farmland, which is unfortunately offset by growth hormones, pesticides and other chemicals that seep into the earth, leading to fish in nearby streams with ripped biceps.
Beyond the food, the manner in which organic edibles are distributed throughout most of the country serves only those who can afford to pay more to eat better. Lower income consumers have a less diverse array to choose from, to put it mildly, and it usually involves enormous amounts of sodium and high fructose corn syrup, which some studies reveal now can contain high levels of mercury.
We don't know about you, but it makes us hungry for a peanut butter, jelly and mercury sandwich just thinking about it.
Surmounting the annoyance of health food nuts are the co-operatives of which many are a part; instead of shareholders, they consider themselves more on the lines of a semi-corporate crusty hippie drum circle, all part of this mystical overpriced, hypermarketed communal experience.
One of the chief reasons for "going organic" is the concern over carcinogens found in pesticides. Many tests that have been conducted on known pesticides are the result of extremely high doses being given to animals. Leading scientists from a national soil association admit we typically do not consumer anywhere near the level of toxins that are used in a research environment.
But what we need to bear in mind is that even those things we pull from God's green earth contain their own natural pesticides, and their own carcinogens to offer an icing on the cake of pestilent death.
Some of the most ass-kicking of pesticides are creations of nature, and she doesn't seem to be too keen on pests, from what we're told. According to a report in a leading English newspaper, "Everyday foods are full of natural pesticides. That’s hardly a surprise, since we tend to choose as crops things that seem resistant to pests and disease. The world-famous biochemist Bruce Ames makes the point clear: ‘The natural chemicals that are known rodent carcinogens in a single cup of coffee are about equal in weight to a year’s worth of ingested synthetic pesticide residues that are rodent carcinogens.’"
Now, the article goes on to disclose that this level of natural rodent carcinogens is not exactly harmful to consume either, so please do not be alarmed over your rat-tail soy lattes.
There is no crime in trying to do the healthy thing, but to wear your self-righteousness like a badge of courage is an uncouth practice. We know you're a vegan, but please don't throw this in our faces as if you were awarded the Purple Heart. And nutrition shouldn't be treated as a fashion trend or status symbol.
We want not only a more even distribution of wealth, but a more even distribution of health. A proper chemical-free diet should not just be a dream of the well-off.
Friday, January 2, 2009
No. 423 - Mickey Louse
On the surface, the culture spawned from the Happiest Place on Earth is sunshine and rainbows, a utopian playland where everyone lives happily ever after, but the drivel spewed from this company's sundry TV stations, music label, movie production company, and all of the other pawns in its multi-media empire, is nothing short of toxic.
Disney Corp. is a prime example of a far-reaching enterprise gone awry, one that places a stranglehold on childrens' psyches at a time when their reality is still being shaped. The company's eponymous founder has long since passed, but his ideals live on in a mutated manner that was likely never intended by the Walt-astic forebear of all that is mouse; that aside, it's only fitting that Disney's current iteration, which has always been touted as "kid friendly," actually plays a large part in the deterioration of pre-teen culture.
Children are essentially instructed who to worship as the next tween celebrity -- Hannah, Jonas, Cody, Zach or Cheetah, or whoever else is instantly thrust into the kleig lights with shaggy hair and a winning smile.
This enterprise takes advantage of young minds during their most susceptible years, and that alone is not necessarily a vile act, although this demographic should be developing their imaginations throughout these years, not staring into the TV screen like zombies as they're spoon-fed pop culture junk food. They'll have their adult lives to indulge in mindless entertainment.
The real transgression lies in the way these pre-teen stars are hyper-sexualized and thrown into adult situations. Many of the current celeb icons are trust fund kids or silver spoon adolescents with stage parents, most of them with nothing better to do than answer their hormonal whims and party like it's 2099. And the message to pre-teenagers is to be innocent yet look like tarts, to consume but be moderate, to pursue intellect but villify the geeks of the world.
And parents worldwide are in turn subject to horribly written jokes and plot lines that couldn't even live up to the quality of a Mad Lib. Current Disney sitcoms reveal a theatrical and literary mastery that only Shakespeare himself could have created -- if Shakespeare had a full frontal lobotomy, that is.
Then there are the movies, revisionist propaganda at its finest, along with the historical dark skeletons that the Mouse Mafia itself can't even spin into profits, so they remain locked away like a bad drug habit. (Song of the South, anyone? How about the black handmaiden centaur in Fantasia? Get the blackface ready for the Disney on Ice rendition of these and other cultural embarrassments.)
Princesses and frail women weaken at the knees until the uber-male heroes come to their aid. Animals give life to the most deplorable of racial stereotypes, whether it's rasta lobsters, jive crows, Asian cats or derelict hyenas. Generations of bigotry, chauvenism and repressed dreams rolled up into one cute, castrato-esque, pants-less mouse.
This mouse must be stopped, or at least ignored into irrelevance. Might we suggest a lollipop laced with rat poison, sprinkled with a tad of pixie dust and arsenic?