Reviewing movies isn’t particularly my thing, but I saw Supersize Me today with my girlfriend and I must admit that it was ridiculously compelling, on a gastrointestinal level, if nothing else.

For those of you too lazy to read about it on IMDb, Supersize Me is an award-winning documentary about handlebar-moustached Morgan Spurlock’s 30-day McDonalds diet, and his sudden, dramatic transformation from a relatively svelte, healthy adult male at 185.5lbs into a moody, 210lb fatty with liver fibrosis, skyrocketed cholesterol, trigs, and even uric acid buildup. Basically, an all-McDonalds diet melted his metabolic system to the point of physical addiction.

The movie was surprisingly well put together, though naturally eclipsed in the documentary category by Fahrenheit 9/11 (which didn’t really deserve the hype as such, anyway). Important points it brought up:

  • Where does personal responsibility end and corporate responsibility begin? Spurlock cites the lawsuit brought against McDonalds by two severely obese girls that was eventually thrown out by a judge. In much the same way as I find lawsuits against tobacco companies to be righteous but misguided and indefensible, claims that these girls were unaware that fried fatty foods at McDonalds were bad for them is ridiculous on any level. It’s all about choice: if people didn’t want to smoke or eat Big Macs, the companies would dry up like a slug in the sun. They aren’t forcing their wares down anyone’s gullet in a physical sense.
  • What comprises a healthy diet? One sore spot of the film was Spurlock’s girlfriend, a skinny little vegan who, prior to and after the experiment, fed her man a variety of “cleansing vegetables,” which is all nice and good, but struck me as somewhat kooky and too perfect a counterpoint for the Fatty Meat and Sugar side played by McEvilCorporation. Also, I could have done without her candid description of their sex life during the experiment. The saturated fats affect the blood flow to his penis? Better give him some alfalfa for his chi. The fact is, yes, you can eat a healthy vegetarian diet, but remember that humans have incisors for a reason: we were meant to eat meat. Protein is an integral part of our diet, and some people just prefer bacon to soy. Get over it.
  • Should schools be able to serve this garbage? Short answer: no. No wonder our kids are fat, when USDA-supplied meals can consist of 1’100+ calories each. This is not to mention the schools (like my old high school) that probably do better business in their snack-cakes-and-soda-pop vending machines than they do in their lunch line.

All in all, I highly recommend this movie. Just don’t expect to want to eat McDonalds for a while.

§424 · October 24, 2004 · 1 comment · Tags: ,

{A lack of action in Le Guin’s Omelas}

Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” is a morality play of a rather Stocktonian nature, wherein the readers are asked or merely given a vicarious decision and forced to refer to their own tables of values to find the answer. In fact, Le Guin was not so very vague as Stockton, both implying in the story and admitting in later texts that there was only one answer and that was, in fact, culled from the very essay from which she derived the framework of her own story.

As given, Omelas is a town whose very named holds vague etymological ties to salaam, or peace. In truth, it was derived from reading a road sign for Salem backwards. This mythological town, according to author, was an earthly paradise in which the weather was consistently nice, surplus and noneconomy existed concomitantly, and, as Le Guin wryly notes, one was free to engage in as much promiscuity and wanton disregard for standard conditional morality as one desired. Surely this glut of a city is the fatted calf of the metropolitan feast! However, the reader is soon introduced to the abject horror upon which all of the gæity and prosperity of life in Omelas is predicated, which is the complete and unconditional suffering of a small child.

Read more…

§412 · October 23, 2004 · (No comments) · Tags:

Abou was amazed at the absurdity of Bush supporters. It should really come as no surprise.

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

Read the entire article

Now, far be it from me to call Bush supporters stupid. That would be a gross oversimplification and an insult to men like John McCain (though I still can’t figure out why he endorsed the incumbent). However, it seems like these people are substantially less likely to question their president, even when his administration makes misleading statements, and some irresponsible corners of the media run with it.

§423 · October 21, 2004 · 1 comment · Tags: ,

From CNN

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) — Wal-Mart canceled an order for a best-selling book by Jon Stewart and the writers of “The Daily Show” after executives learned that it contained a photo of nine naked, aged bodies, each with the superimposed head of a Supreme Court justice.

“We were not aware of the image that was in the book (when Wal-Mart ordered it) and we felt the majority of our customers would not be comfortable with it,” said Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman Karen Burk. “We offer what we think our customers want to buy. That just makes good business sense.”

Wal-Mart has a well-known policy of refusing to carry magazines with racy covers or CDs with explicit lyrics.

I understand that when one thinks of Wal-Mart, it doesn’t immediately conjure up the idea of young, politically-savvy people. At least to me, it makes me think of housewives in sweatpants saying “Hey, where can I get [product] in bulk?”

Still and all, given that Wal-Mart is more or less the king of retail stores, it surprises me that they can take such a conservative stance on so much of their inventory. Who, really, buys censored albums? And why refuse to sell products even remotely racy? Why can I buy a lusty bodice-ripper romance novel with graphic (if poetic) description of sexual activity, but not America or magazines featuring fully (if racily) clothed people? Does this sort of business strategy really make Wal-Mart the leading retailer in the world? It boggles the mind.

§422 · October 21, 2004 · 1 comment · Tags: ,

Adland provided me with the link I’ve been searching for since I lost it, namely, the End of the World creator’s new work for Nike.

WTF, mates?

§411 · October 20, 2004 · (No comments) ·