Today, I did something I couldn't bring myself to do for three years.
I picked up a copy of Ann Coulter's book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. And I held it in my hands. And I resisted the urge to seize it from the corners of the opposing pages and rip until it fell apart in a flurry of pages tainted with hatred, hypocrisy, and poor fact-checking.
Furthermore, I actually took it to my table at Barnes and Noble and allowed myself to be seen reading it. I suppose I could have done that three years ago, when it was published, but come on! People know me at my local bookstore; I was much too embarrassed to be seen reading such unadulterated nonsense.
Finally, after three whole years of itching to write a scathing blog post about the garbage that is contained within the covers of this book, I decided to risk possible humiliation and association with Coulter's nauseating conservative views and managed to get through about fourteen pages of Godless.
To begin my series of incredulous musings, I had to look no further than the front cover of the book, which proudly identified it as "the incendiary New York Times #1 Best-Seller!" This begs the question: if you are one of the many who exchanged your hard-earned money for this steaming block of shit, what does it feel like to be a walking, talking, brain-less Droid? And what's it like to be so blind to hypocrisy that you can't see the disgusting hatred being promoted by this alleged "Christian"? Or did you just not care? (For the record, I didn't buy the book. I skimmed through it while seated at the cafe, trying desperately to refrain from vomiting. Please! Why would I drop $14.95 on this poorly-researched carton of nonsense when there's a perfectly good collection of essays by Noam Chomsky right next to it, waiting to be purchased?)
Needless to say, this front-cover proclamation stopped me in my tracks and demolished all my good intentions of writing a review of this book. Plus, the sight of Coulter's smug, hate-filled face incited such a powerful rage in me that I knew I didn't stand a chance of reading this book cover-to-cover. There's a lot to be said for knowing the arguments of those who have opposing beliefs, but clearly, the premise of this book is so vastly absurd and counter-productive that it doesn't even merit attention.
However, there are a few things that I simply cannot resist pointing out.
First, Coulter proudly identifies herself as a Christian, and even goes so far as to assert that she thinks everyone should be a Christian as well. In 2007, Coulter stated on CNBC's The Big Idea that Christians consider themselves to be "perfected Jews", and that it would be better if everyone was a Christian. She also takes issue with anyone who thinks it's important to protect the environment, believes in a woman's right to choose what happens in her own body, disagrees with abstinence-only sex education, and gives a damn about poor people. Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, for I'm just a heathen, pagan-lovin' Hindu, but isn't charity and social justice a central principle of Christianity? Doesn't Christianity advocate "loving thy neighbor"? Yes, I do believe it does. Coulter is clearly doing an excellent job of loving her neighbor when she describes her eloquent and well-researched views on foreign policy: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." (This comes from her own disgusting column, written a few days after 9/11.) Oh, what's that you said? If they're not American, they're not really my "neighbor"? So Christianity says it's okay to kill, subjugate, and torture people who aren't American. Gotcha. Then I wonder what Jesus would have thought of Coulter's description of President Obama's book, Dreams From My Father as a "dime-store Mein Kampf" (really, Ann? You read Mein Kampf? Wait, did you read Dreams From My Father? In fact, are you even literate?), and I also wonder what Jesus would have thought of Coulter's statement, "Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you (black people). Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it."
If Ann Coulter thinks that racist, white WASPs are charming, I guess she's never been to a Tea Party rally, where toothless rednecks with mullets and grease-stained pot-bellies dominate. But that's not really the point; the point is, Coulter truly believes that she and other white, American Christians are inherently superior. Can somebody please indicate what principles of Christianity support such an ignorant, hateful belief? In fact, there's only one ideology that I've identified that holds any similarity to Coulter's belief system and that's...Islamic fundamentalism.
Gasp! But Coulter hates Islam! She has openly shown her support for the airlines that performed some of the most egregious acts of racial profiling against Muslims, and has made several public statements that contained extremely ignorant and hateful epithets about Muslims. She even suggested "flying carpets" as a possible mode of transportation for Muslims denied permission to travel on commercial airlines. (Hilarious, Ann--did you develop that razor-sharp sense of humor while pursuing your degree in Basket-Weaving or Women-Hating or whatever it was you studied at Cornell?) With such unabashed hatred of Islam, it's really ironic that Coulter shares some profound ideological similarities with the Islamic fundamentalists who were behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Belief in moral and religious superiority? Check. Mindless indoctrination into a belief system? Check. Advocating the use of violence to convert others to one's own religion? Check. Disdain and hatred for anyone who follows a different religion? Check. An astonishing hatred of women? Check. In fact, I don't know if Coulter is aware, but she would make a great suicide bomber. No one would even miss her.
The point is, if Coulter truly believes that she is a good Christian, she clearly missed some crucial lessons in Bible-study. Love, acceptance, and morality are obviously irrelevant to her, while self-promotion, hatred, and racism are the principles she chooses to practice in the name of Christianity.
The second abomination that I have to point out is Coulter's disbelief in Darwinism. This is the real reason why I couldn't get through more than fourteen pages of Godless. Having studied evolutionary principles as a student of Physiology/Neurobiology for much of my adult life, I simply couldn't stomach the shrill proclamations of a woman whose education is in history and law and who currently earns a living as a public nuisance that evolution is "bogus science" and has never really been proven. Excuse me? You're telling me that people who have devoted their entire lives to researching and proving natural selection--people who hold advanced degrees from top universities and have published literature in the most reputable scientific publications, people who hold more scientific knowledge in their pinkie fingers than you hold in your entire emaciated body--are wrong, and you're right? Yeah, okay. Thankfully, I have an academic background that enables me to dismiss Coulter's diatribes as nothing more than arrant nonsense. When was the last time Coulter engaged in a legitimate discussion with an actual scientist about evolution? I'm going to go ahead and say never, since this is a woman who wrote a book called, How to Talk to A Liberal (If You Must), and is thus presumably not a huge proponent of intellectual discourse with people of the opposing viewpoint. I'd like to make a suggestion to Coulter: leave the scientific topics to the real scientists. For that matter, leave all those other topics in your book to the people who know what they're talking about.
There is a third topic that I wish to point, one that bewildered and revolted me so much that I actually feel the tiniest bit sorry for Coulter and the obvious self-hatred and/or the distorted self-image that governs her beliefs, and that is her blatant disgust towards women. I suppose I should qualify this by saying that Coulter presumably doesn't hate all women, despite the fact that she has publicly stated that denying women the right to vote would be a good thing. However, the prevailing hatred that Coulter has towards women seems to be, as far as I can tell, directed towards a certain breed of militant, tree-hugging, PETA-affiliated, hippie-loving feminists. Evidently, Coulter feels disdainfully about women who are activists, and she chooses to demonstrate this disdain mostly by taking pot-shots at their physical appearance. In the mere fourteen pages of Godless that I read, Coulter made FOUR references to women of opposing viewpoints to her own and their apparent lack of physical beauty. Excuse me, but how exactly is the appearance of a pro-choice activist relevant to her differing opinion on abortion legislation? Besides, why would any intellectual use such a subjective characteristic as physical beauty as a means to discredit her critics or opposition? I think it's hilarious that Coulter, who has been parodied on many occasions for her own appearance, chooses to emphasize her perception of the women with whom she disagrees as being physically hideous. Beauty (which is irrelevant to the topics that Coulter is supposed to be describing in her book) is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose that there are men out there who find masculine-figured women with prominent noses attractive, but still, does Coulter really think that she has a leg to stand on when criticizing ugly, shrill women?
The bottom line is, the fear I described in my previous post is appreciably exacerbated by Christian fundamentalist "pundits" like Ann Coulter, who have a very public platform on which they are able to express their hatred, ignorance, and blatant disregard for progress, equality, and social conscientiousness. If you're going to read Godless as a reliable resource, I beg you to consider: Ann Coulter has no higher education or expertise in politics, international relations, history, sociology, or philosophy. She has repeatedly expressed racist, xenophobic views. She doesn't even properly cite her sources in Godless; in fact, she scarcely uses those pesky old footnotes that you so often see in real non-fiction books about politics, and the few sources that she does cite don't appear to be objective, non-partisan ones. Why would you take this woman, or her ideas, seriously?
The good news is, there are plenty of people who don't take her seriously, and have, in fact, dismissed her for the ignorant, greedy, callous, self-important, hateful excuse for a human being that she is. I would love for her to take a look at some of the blog posts, articles, cartoons, and videos that have made her into a punch-line, such as this one.
Hate hurts, doesn't it, Ann?
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Fear and loathing in America
I’ll be honest: some Americans scare the crap out of me.
I was not born in this country. My family immigrated to the U.S. from India when I was about three months old. I’ve spent my entire life thus far feeling grateful for having been raised in the U.S. instead of in India for numerous reasons (better educational opportunities! A functional, secular democracy! More progressive attitudes towards women!). Even today, in the age of Tea-Party lunatics and the Rush Limbaugh school of hateful ignorance, I am grateful to be a U.S. citizen. I know, from having had exposure to foreign countries, including India, that life can be a lot worse than it is for many or most Americans.
So don’t brand me as some ungrateful, unpatriotic foreigner when I tell you that there are ultra-conservatives all over America whose disgustingly backwards views about foreigners, politics, President Obama, and the so-called “unique American culture” should instill fear into the hearts of any sane person.
Earlier today, I read a book by John Avlon, senior political columnist from TheDailyBeast.com, entitled Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. I won’t say that this book shouldn’t be taken with a grain of salt, because it absolutely should (Keith Olbermann is described as a Wingnut representative of the Left, for instance), but it essentially illustrates the extreme, misguided opinions promoted by conservative and liberal talking heads on the fringes of both viewpoints. Does it surprise anyone that the majority of Wingnuts appear to be conservative? While the right boasts Wingnuts so prolific and omnipresent as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea-Partiers (or Tea-Baggers, if you prefer to call them as such), the Birthers, the Three-Percenters, the Oath-Keepers, the Truthers, and the Bible-thumping “Baby Killer” shouters, the only left Wingnut that Avlon can come up with is the relatively harmless, albeit impassioned, Olbermann. Again, are you surprised? I’m not.
The unfortunate reality is that there are millions of very vocal conservatives all over America who know nothing--I repeat, nothing--about politics beyond what they hear on Limbaugh’s extremely popular radio show and what they see on Fox News Channel. If you didn’t have any expertise on a subject other than the talking points that wash over your American Idol-obsessed brain for thirty seconds a day, wouldn’t you think, “Hey, I don’t know much about that. Maybe I shouldn’t talk about it in public and risk making myself look like an idiot.” I sure would. Unfortunately, such reasoning has not entered the minds of the conservative lunatics who have rallied against President Obama since his election in 2008, and those who have most recently congregated to protest the health care reform legislation passed by Congress last Sunday evening. Polls show that the average American devotes very little time and energy to learning about current events. But this doesn’t stop certain average Americans from having the opinion that President Obama is a Communist Muslim who was born in Kenya, or that socialized medicine will result from the current health care legislation.
Some Americans appear to be unclear on a few important facts. First, that President Obama is not pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage. There appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of, for example, a certain pastor in South Carolina, who, on November 5, 2008, advised his parishioners to refrain from taking communion if they had voted for President Obama, citing the president-elect’s “pro-abortion” views as being in violation of the Bible. Second, the fact that President Obama is not a Muslim (and why exactly would it matter if he was?) Please refer to the senior citizen who was featured at a 2008 McCain rally, shrieking about how Obama is a Muslim who sides with the terrorists (also, just for yuks, observe as a very embarrassed McCain tries to shut her up). President Obama is not a Muslim. Oh, and just so you know, Muslims aren’t evil. Third, the fact that the current administration is not behaving in a way that is un-Constitutional or in violation of human rights. You might not think that the health care reform legislation is going to improve the quality of health care administration, or that the current legislation is really necessary. However, if you oppose the legislation on the grounds that you believe it’s a sign of “big government take-over that will violate individual human rights”, where were you during the Bush administration? You’ve clearly never heard of the Patriot Act, which allowed the Attorney General to detain any foreign-born American on any arbitrary “secret evidence”, sometimes for months on end, without a trial. That didn’t bother you, but legislation that requires every American to purchase health insurance does? And by the way, why don’t you take a break from Facebook-ing (which Americans spend, on average, at least five times as much time on as they do on looking up current events and news) and Google “violation of human rights” and read about violation of human rights that occurs throughout the world, far greater in severity than a simple mandate to purchase health insurance?
The elephant in the room is this: there is a large majority of white, conservative Americans who are uncomfortable with an administration led by a black man. This translates into a depressing series of misconceptions: the government is going to force you to give all your money to poor black people, President Obama is the Anti-Christ (according to a certain conservative, Christian faction in Southern California, the Bible states that the Anti-Christ will come from Africa, and, funnily enough, is named Barack!), and President Obama hates all white people and loves the terrorists, just to name a few. White minority politics terrify fringe lunatics: if whites aren’t represented in top-level government positions, who is going to make sure that white people stay in power? What’s going to stop the minorities from taking over and subjugating the white people? Subjugation sucks, right? Never mind the fact that this country was established through white subjugation of the natives, and made to flourish via the subjugation, rape, and abuse of African slaves. But all of that is besides the point: the point is, having a black President really does not mean that white people are going to be relegated to second-class citizen status. Really.
The ever-nauseating Sarah Palin recently spoke at a campaign event for Senator McCain, who is up for re-election in November. Palin exalted the Tea Party movement, calling it a “beautiful” movement that captures the heart of America, and stated that the perceived violence and hatred of the conservative party in response to the passage of the health care legislation is a “distracting” side issue (I wonder if she realizes that the children of members of Congress who voted in favor of the legislation are being threatened? Or that the map she kindly posted on her Twitter page that showed where these members of Congress lived with rifle cross-hair images marking the spots probably helped the lunatics who have thrown bricks through Congress members’ windows and cut off the gas pipe-lines to their homes?). She also ranted about how the American people have nothing to apologize for. But she’s wrong: the American people have a lot to apologize for. Fringe lunatics who shout racial and ethnic slurs at Congressmen on Capitol Hill. Pastors, priests, and community leaders who make racist remarks about the President and “pray for his death” (I didn’t make this up.) The fact that the majority of the world considers the United States to be the biggest threat against world peace, according to Noam Chomsky in Imperial Ambitions. Vigilante Americans who hover at the Mexican border with rifles, shooting at people attempting to cross the border into the U.S. The threats against President Obama’s life, which the Secret Service has indicated is the largest number of threats against any president in U.S. history (coincidence?). The many acts of violence enacted against Muslims and Sikhs after 9/11. As Americans, we should be embarrassed by our ignorance, our hatred, our susceptibility to misinformation and the influence of fringe lunatics.
Sorry, Sarah, but there are a lot of things that are wrong with this country. Aside from the obvious fringe lunatics, there are the people who insist that the “unique American culture” is in jeopardy as a result of the influx of immigrants to the U.S. Oh, I’m sorry, by “unique American culture”, do you mean, “white majority comprised of white people who immigrated to the U.S. a few generations ago from a variety of European countries”? For instance, I was asked by one of my patients if I planned on taking my American medical education back to “my country” once I was finished studying. And yes, he did mean to be derogatory. And no, he was not asking out of genuine ignorance. I found it interesting that, in my 22 years, I have managed to achieve more academically, professionally, personally, and in terms of community service and activism, using the educational and community resources provided by “my country” (which IS the United States, since I AM A U.S. CITIZEN!) than this man has achieved in his 62 years. So how dare he insinuate that I belong to this country any less than he does? I use this anecdote as an example of the stereotypical, improperly-informed American who attempts to articulate on opinions of which he knows little to nothing. You want to keep people out of this country because of their skin color, or their country of origin? Why don’t you worry about the ignorant lunatics and morons in your own country who are busy making America look bad to itself and to the rest of the world?
A little truth goes a long way. Unfortunately, there are plenty of Americans who can’t be bothered with truth. Lies and catch-phrases spouted from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and, of course, Sarah Palin, are so much easier to comprehend. Reason, logic, and facts don’t stand a chance against such fringe lunacy. And, for anyone who cares about taking a rational approach to politics and social reform, that’s a scary thought.
I was not born in this country. My family immigrated to the U.S. from India when I was about three months old. I’ve spent my entire life thus far feeling grateful for having been raised in the U.S. instead of in India for numerous reasons (better educational opportunities! A functional, secular democracy! More progressive attitudes towards women!). Even today, in the age of Tea-Party lunatics and the Rush Limbaugh school of hateful ignorance, I am grateful to be a U.S. citizen. I know, from having had exposure to foreign countries, including India, that life can be a lot worse than it is for many or most Americans.
So don’t brand me as some ungrateful, unpatriotic foreigner when I tell you that there are ultra-conservatives all over America whose disgustingly backwards views about foreigners, politics, President Obama, and the so-called “unique American culture” should instill fear into the hearts of any sane person.
Earlier today, I read a book by John Avlon, senior political columnist from TheDailyBeast.com, entitled Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. I won’t say that this book shouldn’t be taken with a grain of salt, because it absolutely should (Keith Olbermann is described as a Wingnut representative of the Left, for instance), but it essentially illustrates the extreme, misguided opinions promoted by conservative and liberal talking heads on the fringes of both viewpoints. Does it surprise anyone that the majority of Wingnuts appear to be conservative? While the right boasts Wingnuts so prolific and omnipresent as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea-Partiers (or Tea-Baggers, if you prefer to call them as such), the Birthers, the Three-Percenters, the Oath-Keepers, the Truthers, and the Bible-thumping “Baby Killer” shouters, the only left Wingnut that Avlon can come up with is the relatively harmless, albeit impassioned, Olbermann. Again, are you surprised? I’m not.
The unfortunate reality is that there are millions of very vocal conservatives all over America who know nothing--I repeat, nothing--about politics beyond what they hear on Limbaugh’s extremely popular radio show and what they see on Fox News Channel. If you didn’t have any expertise on a subject other than the talking points that wash over your American Idol-obsessed brain for thirty seconds a day, wouldn’t you think, “Hey, I don’t know much about that. Maybe I shouldn’t talk about it in public and risk making myself look like an idiot.” I sure would. Unfortunately, such reasoning has not entered the minds of the conservative lunatics who have rallied against President Obama since his election in 2008, and those who have most recently congregated to protest the health care reform legislation passed by Congress last Sunday evening. Polls show that the average American devotes very little time and energy to learning about current events. But this doesn’t stop certain average Americans from having the opinion that President Obama is a Communist Muslim who was born in Kenya, or that socialized medicine will result from the current health care legislation.
Some Americans appear to be unclear on a few important facts. First, that President Obama is not pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage. There appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of, for example, a certain pastor in South Carolina, who, on November 5, 2008, advised his parishioners to refrain from taking communion if they had voted for President Obama, citing the president-elect’s “pro-abortion” views as being in violation of the Bible. Second, the fact that President Obama is not a Muslim (and why exactly would it matter if he was?) Please refer to the senior citizen who was featured at a 2008 McCain rally, shrieking about how Obama is a Muslim who sides with the terrorists (also, just for yuks, observe as a very embarrassed McCain tries to shut her up). President Obama is not a Muslim. Oh, and just so you know, Muslims aren’t evil. Third, the fact that the current administration is not behaving in a way that is un-Constitutional or in violation of human rights. You might not think that the health care reform legislation is going to improve the quality of health care administration, or that the current legislation is really necessary. However, if you oppose the legislation on the grounds that you believe it’s a sign of “big government take-over that will violate individual human rights”, where were you during the Bush administration? You’ve clearly never heard of the Patriot Act, which allowed the Attorney General to detain any foreign-born American on any arbitrary “secret evidence”, sometimes for months on end, without a trial. That didn’t bother you, but legislation that requires every American to purchase health insurance does? And by the way, why don’t you take a break from Facebook-ing (which Americans spend, on average, at least five times as much time on as they do on looking up current events and news) and Google “violation of human rights” and read about violation of human rights that occurs throughout the world, far greater in severity than a simple mandate to purchase health insurance?
The elephant in the room is this: there is a large majority of white, conservative Americans who are uncomfortable with an administration led by a black man. This translates into a depressing series of misconceptions: the government is going to force you to give all your money to poor black people, President Obama is the Anti-Christ (according to a certain conservative, Christian faction in Southern California, the Bible states that the Anti-Christ will come from Africa, and, funnily enough, is named Barack!), and President Obama hates all white people and loves the terrorists, just to name a few. White minority politics terrify fringe lunatics: if whites aren’t represented in top-level government positions, who is going to make sure that white people stay in power? What’s going to stop the minorities from taking over and subjugating the white people? Subjugation sucks, right? Never mind the fact that this country was established through white subjugation of the natives, and made to flourish via the subjugation, rape, and abuse of African slaves. But all of that is besides the point: the point is, having a black President really does not mean that white people are going to be relegated to second-class citizen status. Really.
The ever-nauseating Sarah Palin recently spoke at a campaign event for Senator McCain, who is up for re-election in November. Palin exalted the Tea Party movement, calling it a “beautiful” movement that captures the heart of America, and stated that the perceived violence and hatred of the conservative party in response to the passage of the health care legislation is a “distracting” side issue (I wonder if she realizes that the children of members of Congress who voted in favor of the legislation are being threatened? Or that the map she kindly posted on her Twitter page that showed where these members of Congress lived with rifle cross-hair images marking the spots probably helped the lunatics who have thrown bricks through Congress members’ windows and cut off the gas pipe-lines to their homes?). She also ranted about how the American people have nothing to apologize for. But she’s wrong: the American people have a lot to apologize for. Fringe lunatics who shout racial and ethnic slurs at Congressmen on Capitol Hill. Pastors, priests, and community leaders who make racist remarks about the President and “pray for his death” (I didn’t make this up.) The fact that the majority of the world considers the United States to be the biggest threat against world peace, according to Noam Chomsky in Imperial Ambitions. Vigilante Americans who hover at the Mexican border with rifles, shooting at people attempting to cross the border into the U.S. The threats against President Obama’s life, which the Secret Service has indicated is the largest number of threats against any president in U.S. history (coincidence?). The many acts of violence enacted against Muslims and Sikhs after 9/11. As Americans, we should be embarrassed by our ignorance, our hatred, our susceptibility to misinformation and the influence of fringe lunatics.
Sorry, Sarah, but there are a lot of things that are wrong with this country. Aside from the obvious fringe lunatics, there are the people who insist that the “unique American culture” is in jeopardy as a result of the influx of immigrants to the U.S. Oh, I’m sorry, by “unique American culture”, do you mean, “white majority comprised of white people who immigrated to the U.S. a few generations ago from a variety of European countries”? For instance, I was asked by one of my patients if I planned on taking my American medical education back to “my country” once I was finished studying. And yes, he did mean to be derogatory. And no, he was not asking out of genuine ignorance. I found it interesting that, in my 22 years, I have managed to achieve more academically, professionally, personally, and in terms of community service and activism, using the educational and community resources provided by “my country” (which IS the United States, since I AM A U.S. CITIZEN!) than this man has achieved in his 62 years. So how dare he insinuate that I belong to this country any less than he does? I use this anecdote as an example of the stereotypical, improperly-informed American who attempts to articulate on opinions of which he knows little to nothing. You want to keep people out of this country because of their skin color, or their country of origin? Why don’t you worry about the ignorant lunatics and morons in your own country who are busy making America look bad to itself and to the rest of the world?
A little truth goes a long way. Unfortunately, there are plenty of Americans who can’t be bothered with truth. Lies and catch-phrases spouted from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and, of course, Sarah Palin, are so much easier to comprehend. Reason, logic, and facts don’t stand a chance against such fringe lunacy. And, for anyone who cares about taking a rational approach to politics and social reform, that’s a scary thought.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
This is not a food blog. This is a food-related post...in my blog.
If someone had told me a year ago that I would be writing a sappy, self-congratulating post in my blog about the delicious baked goods I've created, I would have laughed derisively in his or her face, and then proceeded to stick a Pop-Tart in a toaster and somehow cause an explosion. Allow me to share with you an abridged version of my culinary journey thus far. Until a few months ago, I was incapable of creating anything in the kitchen (except for a mess, a nervous breakdown, and a small fire or two). Friends and family alike used to joke about how I wouldn't know a whisk from a wok or a bay leaf from a Brussels sprout. It seemed that I was destined for a life of take-out and Lean Cuisine...until I decided to switch to a vegan diet.
A vegetarian/pescatarian for several years, I had no difficulty making the transition to veganism. (Well, let's just say the transition was eased by the very, very occasional dip into the basket of cheddar-cheese biscuits at Red Lobster). The ease of this change has been compounded by the fact that I sometimes eat seafood, unlike other vegans. So, even though I'm not the world's strictest vegan, I definitely have to control what's in the pantry and what comprises my every meal. What did this mean for this anti-domestic diva? I had to learn how to cook.
Oh, the horror! I suddenly found myself immersed in a world of recipes and measuring cups and dishwashers. But, to my enormous surprise, my first few attempts were rather successful, due to what I believe is known as "beginner's luck". More realistically, I think my success can be attributed to a number of excellent vegan cookbooks, including The Vegan Table by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau and Vegan With A Vengeance by Isa Chandra Moskowitz (well, really, anything written by Isa Chandra Moskowitz), as well as a very well-stocked, well-organized kitchen and helpful assistants/knowledgeable overseers (all provided by my parents). I didn't start out with anything super fancy, especially with regards to baking. We're talking nothing scarier than your basic chocolate chip cookies, the first batch of which was rock-hard and too doughy, but otherwise decently edible. The second batch of chocolate chip cookies was divine, and was quickly followed by a heavenly batch of banana bread (which is easy enough, albeit labor-intensive due to the need to mash 4 bananas with a fork. I built up some major guns!). Was it possible that there was hope for me, the once hopeless, ineffectual basket case who used to somehow invariably inspire the toaster oven to spontaneously combust?
That remains to be seen. Obviously, the only way to learn is to continue to attempt new recipes, which I've been doing for both dinner and desserts (the desserts are way more fun and don't require the stove top, which I'm still a little afraid of). Today, for instance, I attempted a batch of Macadamia Ginger Crunch Drops, found in a fun little book called Vegan Cookies Invade Your Cookie Jar, by Isa Chandra Moskowitz and Terry Hope Romero.
Of course, I know exactly what you're thinking: how do you make cookies without eggs? The answer, in the case of this recipe, is ground flax seeds. All you do is add just a little bit of ground flax seeds to the wet ingredients and, assuming that you ground the flax seeds properly and beat the wet ingredients properly, it's just as if you put an egg in there instead! Miraculous. I made the mistake of using milled flax seeds instead of ground and found that my dough didn't want to stick together AT ALL, so, in a panic, I manually ground another half-tablespoon of flax seeds, added 1.5 tablespoons of canola oil, and continued to mix the dough while praying to all the Baking Gods for a favorable outcome. The dough then became sort of scary-looking; it was a bit oily and goopy, but everything seemed in order once it was on the cookie sheet. With the goopy-ness in mind, I decided to just flour up the old paws and drop the dough onto the cookie sheet by hand. Because the milled flax seeds were still in there, I ended up with some biggish, conspicuous seed particles in my cookies, which weren't very pretty. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, so you shouldn't either.
I also made the relatively minor mistake of neglecting to chop the macadamia nuts into teeny-tiny pieces and instead put them in the dough as big honking chunks that didn't really want to stay folded into the dough. Because of this, I was convinced that the cookies would disintegrate as soon as I took them out of the oven, but, through some fortuitous twist of fate, the cookies rallied together and maintained their firmness (possibly because of the extra oil I added at the last minute?) Anyway, everything was absolutely delightful at the end and I strongly recommend trying this recipe, and the book in general, if you have a hankering for vegan yum-yums.
I'd also like to point out that vegan yum-yums taste just as good if you're not vegan...just saying.
A vegetarian/pescatarian for several years, I had no difficulty making the transition to veganism. (Well, let's just say the transition was eased by the very, very occasional dip into the basket of cheddar-cheese biscuits at Red Lobster). The ease of this change has been compounded by the fact that I sometimes eat seafood, unlike other vegans. So, even though I'm not the world's strictest vegan, I definitely have to control what's in the pantry and what comprises my every meal. What did this mean for this anti-domestic diva? I had to learn how to cook.
Oh, the horror! I suddenly found myself immersed in a world of recipes and measuring cups and dishwashers. But, to my enormous surprise, my first few attempts were rather successful, due to what I believe is known as "beginner's luck". More realistically, I think my success can be attributed to a number of excellent vegan cookbooks, including The Vegan Table by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau and Vegan With A Vengeance by Isa Chandra Moskowitz (well, really, anything written by Isa Chandra Moskowitz), as well as a very well-stocked, well-organized kitchen and helpful assistants/knowledgeable overseers (all provided by my parents). I didn't start out with anything super fancy, especially with regards to baking. We're talking nothing scarier than your basic chocolate chip cookies, the first batch of which was rock-hard and too doughy, but otherwise decently edible. The second batch of chocolate chip cookies was divine, and was quickly followed by a heavenly batch of banana bread (which is easy enough, albeit labor-intensive due to the need to mash 4 bananas with a fork. I built up some major guns!). Was it possible that there was hope for me, the once hopeless, ineffectual basket case who used to somehow invariably inspire the toaster oven to spontaneously combust?
That remains to be seen. Obviously, the only way to learn is to continue to attempt new recipes, which I've been doing for both dinner and desserts (the desserts are way more fun and don't require the stove top, which I'm still a little afraid of). Today, for instance, I attempted a batch of Macadamia Ginger Crunch Drops, found in a fun little book called Vegan Cookies Invade Your Cookie Jar, by Isa Chandra Moskowitz and Terry Hope Romero.
Of course, I know exactly what you're thinking: how do you make cookies without eggs? The answer, in the case of this recipe, is ground flax seeds. All you do is add just a little bit of ground flax seeds to the wet ingredients and, assuming that you ground the flax seeds properly and beat the wet ingredients properly, it's just as if you put an egg in there instead! Miraculous. I made the mistake of using milled flax seeds instead of ground and found that my dough didn't want to stick together AT ALL, so, in a panic, I manually ground another half-tablespoon of flax seeds, added 1.5 tablespoons of canola oil, and continued to mix the dough while praying to all the Baking Gods for a favorable outcome. The dough then became sort of scary-looking; it was a bit oily and goopy, but everything seemed in order once it was on the cookie sheet. With the goopy-ness in mind, I decided to just flour up the old paws and drop the dough onto the cookie sheet by hand. Because the milled flax seeds were still in there, I ended up with some biggish, conspicuous seed particles in my cookies, which weren't very pretty. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, so you shouldn't either.
I also made the relatively minor mistake of neglecting to chop the macadamia nuts into teeny-tiny pieces and instead put them in the dough as big honking chunks that didn't really want to stay folded into the dough. Because of this, I was convinced that the cookies would disintegrate as soon as I took them out of the oven, but, through some fortuitous twist of fate, the cookies rallied together and maintained their firmness (possibly because of the extra oil I added at the last minute?) Anyway, everything was absolutely delightful at the end and I strongly recommend trying this recipe, and the book in general, if you have a hankering for vegan yum-yums.
I'd also like to point out that vegan yum-yums taste just as good if you're not vegan...just saying.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
I found something more evil than Miley Cyrus: Abercrombie and Fitch!
At the risk of sounding like a nostalgic senior citizen, I can remember a time when one's coolness was directly proportionate to the number of clothing items from Abercrombie and Fitch that were hanging in one's closet.
Remember those days? If you were the hottest chick in the ninth-grade wing, you had better be wearing size 00 jeans bearing the overlapping semi-circles on the back pockets and a tight t-shirt proudly proclaiming "A&F 1982", "AF Spring Break", "Abercrombie New York NY", "Fitch", or other such permutations. Don't even think about showing up to the Bagel Bin after school if you were rocking an Aeropostale hoodie: you'd be better off walking home and stalking AIM away messages all afternoon.
Can anyone tell me what made this brand so appealing? Don't get me wrong: I realize that some of the jeans make the posterior look deceptively attractive, and there is nothing bad about that. But generally speaking, the clothes are over-priced, not true to size, poorly designed, generic, and of a quality that is mediocre at best and downright dismal at worst.
And worst of all, the store itself never fails to create an atmosphere that assaults the senses and makes one long for nothing more than a strong whiskey and a fistful of Tylenol. Tell me, what top-level executives sat in the board room at Abercrombie & Fitch's conception and said, "I think customers will buy more if we blast 45 billion decibels of techno music, dim the lights to the point that they can't distinguish blue from brown, and spray every square inch of space with the strongest, most pungent cologne known to mankind"? I suppose that, all things considered, it's not a bad strategy: after all, purse-or-wallet-wielding parents are so desperate to leave the store after 30 seconds of this torture that I don't doubt that they'd agree to buy their cool-in-training teenagers virtually anything in order to escape the hellhole.
It's not surprising that adolescents and teenagers have come to affiliate this brand with "coolness", given the hyper-sexual marketing strategies and the unique method of "customer service" employed by the company (and I use the phrase "customer service" very, VERY loosely). Aside from the shock value of the 98% naked minors in the catalogues and in-store marketing, the omnipresence of young, fit, exposed bodies in classy black-and-white delivers an unforgettable impact of sexy aspiration to the company's intended demographic. The young, fit, exposed bodies that are "working" in the store itself contribute to this image as well, and once again, I use the term "working" very loosely here, since I have yet to see these employees doing any actual work. It seems painfully obvious that the company trains its employees to be anything but friendly or welcoming to customers, instead treating them as an inconvenience and an encroachment upon their untouchable coolness. Employees are even told to great customers with a cold, half-muttered, "Hey, what's going on."
The clothes themselves have become laughably unattractive, impractical, unoriginal, and unbecoming over the years. There is essentially nothing that Abercrombie offers that I couldn't find elsewhere for a better value. Worse still, Abercrombie's versions of wardrobe staples are, to be blunt, ugly and poorly designed. I even found a color block dress there today (while enduring a booming techno version of Celine Dion's "To Love You More) that mixed two floral patterns so horrendous and tacky that I became genuinely nauseated. And this abomination was being sold for over $100. No retail experience should involve nausea and Celine Dion wailing over a thudding bass line.
The bottom line is, Abercrombie & Fitch continues to believe itself to be a lot cooler than it is. The adolescents, teenagers, and college students to whom Abercrombie is supposed to appeal are bombarded with overtly sexual marketing, high prices that anoint the brand with undeserving status, and snotty customer service from brand representatives that confer snob value. Maturation and life experience have endowed me with enough perspective to allow me to conclude that any store that forces me to squint, use a flashlight, bellow myself hoarse in order to be heard, and hold my breath to avoid aspirating toxic fumes named "Fierce" just to purchase a logo-emblazoned hoodie manufactured in a sweatshop in Vietnam is not cool. Not even a little.
Remember those days? If you were the hottest chick in the ninth-grade wing, you had better be wearing size 00 jeans bearing the overlapping semi-circles on the back pockets and a tight t-shirt proudly proclaiming "A&F 1982", "AF Spring Break", "Abercrombie New York NY", "Fitch", or other such permutations. Don't even think about showing up to the Bagel Bin after school if you were rocking an Aeropostale hoodie: you'd be better off walking home and stalking AIM away messages all afternoon.
Can anyone tell me what made this brand so appealing? Don't get me wrong: I realize that some of the jeans make the posterior look deceptively attractive, and there is nothing bad about that. But generally speaking, the clothes are over-priced, not true to size, poorly designed, generic, and of a quality that is mediocre at best and downright dismal at worst.
And worst of all, the store itself never fails to create an atmosphere that assaults the senses and makes one long for nothing more than a strong whiskey and a fistful of Tylenol. Tell me, what top-level executives sat in the board room at Abercrombie & Fitch's conception and said, "I think customers will buy more if we blast 45 billion decibels of techno music, dim the lights to the point that they can't distinguish blue from brown, and spray every square inch of space with the strongest, most pungent cologne known to mankind"? I suppose that, all things considered, it's not a bad strategy: after all, purse-or-wallet-wielding parents are so desperate to leave the store after 30 seconds of this torture that I don't doubt that they'd agree to buy their cool-in-training teenagers virtually anything in order to escape the hellhole.
It's not surprising that adolescents and teenagers have come to affiliate this brand with "coolness", given the hyper-sexual marketing strategies and the unique method of "customer service" employed by the company (and I use the phrase "customer service" very, VERY loosely). Aside from the shock value of the 98% naked minors in the catalogues and in-store marketing, the omnipresence of young, fit, exposed bodies in classy black-and-white delivers an unforgettable impact of sexy aspiration to the company's intended demographic. The young, fit, exposed bodies that are "working" in the store itself contribute to this image as well, and once again, I use the term "working" very loosely here, since I have yet to see these employees doing any actual work. It seems painfully obvious that the company trains its employees to be anything but friendly or welcoming to customers, instead treating them as an inconvenience and an encroachment upon their untouchable coolness. Employees are even told to great customers with a cold, half-muttered, "Hey, what's going on."
The clothes themselves have become laughably unattractive, impractical, unoriginal, and unbecoming over the years. There is essentially nothing that Abercrombie offers that I couldn't find elsewhere for a better value. Worse still, Abercrombie's versions of wardrobe staples are, to be blunt, ugly and poorly designed. I even found a color block dress there today (while enduring a booming techno version of Celine Dion's "To Love You More) that mixed two floral patterns so horrendous and tacky that I became genuinely nauseated. And this abomination was being sold for over $100. No retail experience should involve nausea and Celine Dion wailing over a thudding bass line.
The bottom line is, Abercrombie & Fitch continues to believe itself to be a lot cooler than it is. The adolescents, teenagers, and college students to whom Abercrombie is supposed to appeal are bombarded with overtly sexual marketing, high prices that anoint the brand with undeserving status, and snotty customer service from brand representatives that confer snob value. Maturation and life experience have endowed me with enough perspective to allow me to conclude that any store that forces me to squint, use a flashlight, bellow myself hoarse in order to be heard, and hold my breath to avoid aspirating toxic fumes named "Fierce" just to purchase a logo-emblazoned hoodie manufactured in a sweatshop in Vietnam is not cool. Not even a little.
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Big Top cupcake: 64 million calories, 310% DV of unadulterated junk
Earlier this evening, as I was doing my daily 45 minutes on the elliptical trainer and watching a rerun of Degrassi: The Next Generation (don't hate, you know you're also wondering when Spinner and Holly J are gonna hook up), I spied a commercial that worried me.
This should come as no surprise to anyone, since commercials (and television in general) tend to be frankly terrifying: we have the Bump-It hair-styling device for women wishing to capture the lost days when the Beehive hairdo was considered attractive, we have the Sham-Wow for men who think that headsets are necessary in advertising, and we have Oxy-Clean, for men and women who are addicted to methamphetamines and like stuff to be really clean (too soon?). Now we also have the Big Top cupcake, for kids who just can't get enough cupcakes.
According to this ad, traditional cupcake-sized cupcakes don't cut it anymore. Kids find them disappointing. Moms find them embarrassing. Neighbors find them insulting. But with the Big Top cupcake, you can be the envy of the universe by showing up at parties with THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CUPCAKE. I mean, this thing is the size of a well-developed child's HEAD, and I can prove this by directing you to the commercial itself, in which the Big Top cupcake is shown next to an actual well-developed child's head. I am not clear as to whether or not the Big Top cupcake qualifies as a cupcake or as a cake. It's my belief that the defining characteristic of a cupcake is its smaller size in comparison to actual cakes, but I, as we all know, am no culinary expert.
This commercial also explores a broad range of juvenile acting capacity. In one scene, the young lady on stage right is ecstatic at the sight of her Big Top cupcake, while the young man on stage left seems to be vaguely embarrassed and wondering how on Earth his mother coerced him into doing this lame shit when he could be at home playing Wii Bowling.
The bottom line is, I cannot help be frustrated by Americans' fixation on size, junk food, exploiting children, and promoting childhood obesity, all of which are embodied in the Big Top cupcake. Don't get me wrong, I love cupcakes just as much as the next person. But is there any reason why a cupcake has to be so HUGE? Can't you just invest in a cake if you want that much cake-ish, frosting-y goodness? What the hell kind of lame-ass gimmick is this?
When the upcoming generation of kids becomes so fat that they have to be rolled out of their beds, encased in circus tents instead of clothing, and elevated out of the house via crane in order to get to school, I'll know who to blame. Damn you, Big Top cupcakes! Damn you, societal pressures to compete with the Joneses! Damn you, size-does-matter-propaganda! Damn you, Billy Mays! (Wait, what?)
This should come as no surprise to anyone, since commercials (and television in general) tend to be frankly terrifying: we have the Bump-It hair-styling device for women wishing to capture the lost days when the Beehive hairdo was considered attractive, we have the Sham-Wow for men who think that headsets are necessary in advertising, and we have Oxy-Clean, for men and women who are addicted to methamphetamines and like stuff to be really clean (too soon?). Now we also have the Big Top cupcake, for kids who just can't get enough cupcakes.
According to this ad, traditional cupcake-sized cupcakes don't cut it anymore. Kids find them disappointing. Moms find them embarrassing. Neighbors find them insulting. But with the Big Top cupcake, you can be the envy of the universe by showing up at parties with THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CUPCAKE. I mean, this thing is the size of a well-developed child's HEAD, and I can prove this by directing you to the commercial itself, in which the Big Top cupcake is shown next to an actual well-developed child's head. I am not clear as to whether or not the Big Top cupcake qualifies as a cupcake or as a cake. It's my belief that the defining characteristic of a cupcake is its smaller size in comparison to actual cakes, but I, as we all know, am no culinary expert.
This commercial also explores a broad range of juvenile acting capacity. In one scene, the young lady on stage right is ecstatic at the sight of her Big Top cupcake, while the young man on stage left seems to be vaguely embarrassed and wondering how on Earth his mother coerced him into doing this lame shit when he could be at home playing Wii Bowling.
The bottom line is, I cannot help be frustrated by Americans' fixation on size, junk food, exploiting children, and promoting childhood obesity, all of which are embodied in the Big Top cupcake. Don't get me wrong, I love cupcakes just as much as the next person. But is there any reason why a cupcake has to be so HUGE? Can't you just invest in a cake if you want that much cake-ish, frosting-y goodness? What the hell kind of lame-ass gimmick is this?
When the upcoming generation of kids becomes so fat that they have to be rolled out of their beds, encased in circus tents instead of clothing, and elevated out of the house via crane in order to get to school, I'll know who to blame. Damn you, Big Top cupcakes! Damn you, societal pressures to compete with the Joneses! Damn you, size-does-matter-propaganda! Damn you, Billy Mays! (Wait, what?)
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
It takes under 200 pages to explain why women are crazy.
I recently had the dubious pleasure of reading Dr. Louann Brizendine's The Female Brain. This is a delightful guide to the insanities of women. Not only does Dr. Brizendine cogently reinforce every stereotype associated with women (Their periods make them crazy! Being pregnant makes them crazy! They hate sex!), she does so using neuroscience. And we, as laypeople, cannot possibly argue with neuroscience.
I think what really gets on my nerves is the way that some M.D.'s like to write books about medical stuff that supposedly interests the general public. If Albert Accountant reads this great book about brains, he can take his newfangled knowledge of the brain to parties and become a certified expert on brains, because he read a book all about brains and it was written by a doctor. So even though he's an accountant, Albert Accountant can now diagnose you with advanced multiple sclerosis, your husband/wife with epilepsy, and your hairdresser with a pituitary adenoma.
As if pandering to the layman's latent desire to boast medical expertise wasn't bad enough, Brizendine is guilty of the shameful crime that is anthropomorphizing hormones and other, non-human biological entities. Few things disgust me more than the patronizing use of human qualities to characterize molecules. Describing oxytocin as the "loving mother" of the female brain is insulting and slightly evil. I mean, if I see some hippie chick wandering around with a t-shirt that says, "I am Dopamine, loving mother", I'll know it's time for some M.D.'s to fucking get their shit together already.
But all that aside, the worst thing about this book is the fact that it over-generalizes women as neurotic, hypersensitive worry-warts who love to gab with their girlfriends and indiscriminately hate men. Regardless of whether or not this is true (and it may be true of most women), it's the same kind of militant feminist bullshit that reinforces the many negative stereotypes about women. Yes, there is stuff in our brains that makes us crazy sometimes. But you can't try to use science to make ridiculous over-generalizations. If there's one thing that I've learned in completing my degree in Neurobiology (and I sure as hell hope I've learned more than one thing), it's that neuroscience has nuances. Blanket statements don't work in this field. Yet Dr. Brizendine seems to take pleasure in merrily obliterating any nuances associated with the study of gender-specific brain functions.
The thought of millions of people reading this book and patting themselves on the back for having finally gained an understanding of the intricacies of the crazy that is Woman frankly terrifies me. It terrifies me the same way that WebMD terrifies me: by reiterating my belief that the masses will believe anything as long as it's presented by somebody with an "M.D." after his or her name. I feel certain that, if an M.D. were to post an article on WebMD about how killing people and eating their brains boosts antioxidants, the zombie apocalypse would be initiated within 4-6 hours.
I will conclude by saying that my general animosity towards women is no secret. Yet I don't think that being a woman automatically makes a person crazy. I think that being a Republican automatically makes a person crazy.
I think what really gets on my nerves is the way that some M.D.'s like to write books about medical stuff that supposedly interests the general public. If Albert Accountant reads this great book about brains, he can take his newfangled knowledge of the brain to parties and become a certified expert on brains, because he read a book all about brains and it was written by a doctor. So even though he's an accountant, Albert Accountant can now diagnose you with advanced multiple sclerosis, your husband/wife with epilepsy, and your hairdresser with a pituitary adenoma.
As if pandering to the layman's latent desire to boast medical expertise wasn't bad enough, Brizendine is guilty of the shameful crime that is anthropomorphizing hormones and other, non-human biological entities. Few things disgust me more than the patronizing use of human qualities to characterize molecules. Describing oxytocin as the "loving mother" of the female brain is insulting and slightly evil. I mean, if I see some hippie chick wandering around with a t-shirt that says, "I am Dopamine, loving mother", I'll know it's time for some M.D.'s to fucking get their shit together already.
But all that aside, the worst thing about this book is the fact that it over-generalizes women as neurotic, hypersensitive worry-warts who love to gab with their girlfriends and indiscriminately hate men. Regardless of whether or not this is true (and it may be true of most women), it's the same kind of militant feminist bullshit that reinforces the many negative stereotypes about women. Yes, there is stuff in our brains that makes us crazy sometimes. But you can't try to use science to make ridiculous over-generalizations. If there's one thing that I've learned in completing my degree in Neurobiology (and I sure as hell hope I've learned more than one thing), it's that neuroscience has nuances. Blanket statements don't work in this field. Yet Dr. Brizendine seems to take pleasure in merrily obliterating any nuances associated with the study of gender-specific brain functions.
The thought of millions of people reading this book and patting themselves on the back for having finally gained an understanding of the intricacies of the crazy that is Woman frankly terrifies me. It terrifies me the same way that WebMD terrifies me: by reiterating my belief that the masses will believe anything as long as it's presented by somebody with an "M.D." after his or her name. I feel certain that, if an M.D. were to post an article on WebMD about how killing people and eating their brains boosts antioxidants, the zombie apocalypse would be initiated within 4-6 hours.
I will conclude by saying that my general animosity towards women is no secret. Yet I don't think that being a woman automatically makes a person crazy. I think that being a Republican automatically makes a person crazy.
Monday, June 1, 2009
A rare salute to assholes
I think we can all agree that there are people who go virtually unappreciated in any society. Firefighters, teachers, and the people who assist in hemorrhoidectomies are undoubtedly among those who don't always receive the right amount of claps on the back. But I'd like to mention one particular category of people that almost never scores any kind of acclaim: assholes.
First, let me define the term. The word itself is misleading, since it seems to describe an anatomical component. However, the anatomical component that is incorrectly associated with the term "asshole" is actually the anus. See? Aren't you glad you're reading my blog? You just learned something. Anyway, when I say "asshole" in this illuminating publication, I mean "individual who engages in impolite, inconsiderate, and often arrogant behavior". So why, you ask, does such an individual deserve recognition?
The answer is simple: asshole-ish behavior is extraordinary at best, and horrifying at worst. Allow me to list some examples for your benefit.
Exhibit A: The oblivious and passive/aggressive driver
This is the person who, while merging onto the freeway, cuts you off without signalling. As if that wasn't infuriating enough, this person also proceeds to apply the brakes, forcing you to come to practically a screeching halt, then ride the brakes all the way down the freeway while traffic zooms past you on the left, leaving no opening whatsoever for you to accelerate and pass. Such behavior is both passive/aggressive and outrageously oblivious to your rapidly escalating blood pressure. Verdict: ASSHOLE.
Exhibit B: That Guy
Those of you who are currently in college (or have recently graduated) are uncomfortably familiar with That Guy. He is the guy at all the parties who wears the same dumb-ass t-shirt and the same dumb-ass hat (said hat is often sideways). He frequently blacks out and/or vomits and/or instigates physical altercations. He also has a tendency to use idiotic pick-up lines (I apologize for the redundancy of that phrase: "idiotic" and "pick-up lines" are actually synonymous). If you're reading this in guilty silence, gentlemen, fear not: if you are a male and have passed through the average American college and have partaken of alcoholic substances at a party, chances are that you have at some point been That Guy. Just try to convincingly deny it when someone points you out as That Guy creeping in the back of a photo with a group of wasted chicks, trying to grab a chick's ass. Verdict: ASSHOLE.
Exhibit C: The scene-maker
Please don't succumb to the delusion that all assholes are male. In fact, there is one particular specimen of asshole that is frequently, if not often, female. This specimen is known as the scene-maker. Now, obviously, there are situations in which it is appropriate to stand up for oneself. Genocide, for example, warrants making a scene for the upholding of justice. But one must exercise caution to avoid being a scene-maker of the asshole variety. This is the person who, upon ordering a venti, half-caf, no whip, soy latte with sugar-free vanilla, demands that the sugar-free vanilla be added slowly in a counter-clockwise motion exactly four seconds after the addition of the second shot of espresso. The person then hovers over the poor, flustered barista, determined to catch the barista in the midst of a blunder. When the drink has been presented to the asshole, who snatches the drink and inspects in suspiciously, the drink is of course all wrong and the asshole demands that the drink be re-made at no extra charge. Meanwhile, the line is backing out the door and all the innocent, non-assholes in line are standing by and getting later by the minute. Verdict: ASSHOLE.
So, as you can see, the average asshole is worthy of recognition merely as a sign of how low humanity is sinking, despite our increasingly impressive innovations and rapidly expanding knowledge. Please, as a favor to humanity, try to avoid assholeishness. My Starbucks addiction depends on it.
First, let me define the term. The word itself is misleading, since it seems to describe an anatomical component. However, the anatomical component that is incorrectly associated with the term "asshole" is actually the anus. See? Aren't you glad you're reading my blog? You just learned something. Anyway, when I say "asshole" in this illuminating publication, I mean "individual who engages in impolite, inconsiderate, and often arrogant behavior". So why, you ask, does such an individual deserve recognition?
The answer is simple: asshole-ish behavior is extraordinary at best, and horrifying at worst. Allow me to list some examples for your benefit.
Exhibit A: The oblivious and passive/aggressive driver
This is the person who, while merging onto the freeway, cuts you off without signalling. As if that wasn't infuriating enough, this person also proceeds to apply the brakes, forcing you to come to practically a screeching halt, then ride the brakes all the way down the freeway while traffic zooms past you on the left, leaving no opening whatsoever for you to accelerate and pass. Such behavior is both passive/aggressive and outrageously oblivious to your rapidly escalating blood pressure. Verdict: ASSHOLE.
Exhibit B: That Guy
Those of you who are currently in college (or have recently graduated) are uncomfortably familiar with That Guy. He is the guy at all the parties who wears the same dumb-ass t-shirt and the same dumb-ass hat (said hat is often sideways). He frequently blacks out and/or vomits and/or instigates physical altercations. He also has a tendency to use idiotic pick-up lines (I apologize for the redundancy of that phrase: "idiotic" and "pick-up lines" are actually synonymous). If you're reading this in guilty silence, gentlemen, fear not: if you are a male and have passed through the average American college and have partaken of alcoholic substances at a party, chances are that you have at some point been That Guy. Just try to convincingly deny it when someone points you out as That Guy creeping in the back of a photo with a group of wasted chicks, trying to grab a chick's ass. Verdict: ASSHOLE.
Exhibit C: The scene-maker
Please don't succumb to the delusion that all assholes are male. In fact, there is one particular specimen of asshole that is frequently, if not often, female. This specimen is known as the scene-maker. Now, obviously, there are situations in which it is appropriate to stand up for oneself. Genocide, for example, warrants making a scene for the upholding of justice. But one must exercise caution to avoid being a scene-maker of the asshole variety. This is the person who, upon ordering a venti, half-caf, no whip, soy latte with sugar-free vanilla, demands that the sugar-free vanilla be added slowly in a counter-clockwise motion exactly four seconds after the addition of the second shot of espresso. The person then hovers over the poor, flustered barista, determined to catch the barista in the midst of a blunder. When the drink has been presented to the asshole, who snatches the drink and inspects in suspiciously, the drink is of course all wrong and the asshole demands that the drink be re-made at no extra charge. Meanwhile, the line is backing out the door and all the innocent, non-assholes in line are standing by and getting later by the minute. Verdict: ASSHOLE.
So, as you can see, the average asshole is worthy of recognition merely as a sign of how low humanity is sinking, despite our increasingly impressive innovations and rapidly expanding knowledge. Please, as a favor to humanity, try to avoid assholeishness. My Starbucks addiction depends on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)