View Full Version : Let's hang Paula Dean!! ;)
I can't believe that people are getting so outraged that Paula Dean has type 2 Diabetes (for 3 years) and was still cooking bad food and encouraging people to eat it, so they'd become diabetic too.
Is our nation so stupid that we can't figure out for ourselves that many of her recipes are very laden with fat/salt/sugar?
I wouldn't cook/bake like her (maybe one splurge now and then), but I don't think we should vilify her and hold her responsible for everyone else in the world getting diabetes.
I guess if there weren't so many stupid people out there, her cooking wouldn't be so popular.
How much responsibility does she have for all of us?
Maybe its true, that our nation is so full of idiots that we have to hold the wrong people responsible.
I realize that when people without brains eat all the stuff that Ms. Dean makes, many times a week, their eventual bad health causes everyone's insurance rates to go up.........but when do we just force people to be responsible for their own choices?
HappyHiker
1-19-12, 1:10pm
Good point, Cathy! Why single out Ms. Dean for her way of cooking?
I often laugh when I'm in check-out lines at the grocery store and read the cover stories on magazines. So often they have a feature article about losing weight or inches or getting a flat abdomen or a smaller butt or firmer thighs along with a cover photo of some dessert that's so obviously rich and not low-cal and surely filled with sugar and cream and butter--it's crazy making. Do THIS and eat THAT? Makes little sense and is counter-productive to the poor reader.
The media knows that we know what we should be eating, but continues to feature foods we want to eat--or crave. No wonder we're so conflicted when it comes to food and nutrition. Why don't the magazines feature cover photos showing a big plate of broccoli or rutabagas? Guess health foods don't sell magazines?
No, Ms. Dean is only the tip of the toxic food iceberg.
Bastelmutti
1-19-12, 1:35pm
I was shocked at the news. Shocked, I tell you! Pretty much anyone could have guessed that announcement would come. Glad she at least has a diagnosis and can act on it before it ruins her health.
I guess she is going to be the spokeswoman for a drug company..........showing how to modify her recipes to be less heart-unhealthy. People think it was awful of her to have diabetes for 3 years before telling everyone...........like we didn't already know this stuff was very unhealthy, if eaten on a regular basis. And they're angry that she's benefiting from it, by being the spokeswoman for a drug company. Well, this is her profession. Seems like she is turning lemons into lemonade.......so to speak.
Maybe I'm giving people too much credit, but use your own minds people, to figure out if something is good or bad for you. DUH!
Just curious if "ya'll" think she's despicable? If we're going to make her into an evil entity, then we have to make most advertisers/business people into evil too. I guess.
.....If we're going to make her into an evil entity, then we have to make most advertisers/business people into evil too. I guess.
Uh, too late.
I too thought this was a whole lot about nothing. The news makers are trying very hard to make this a much bigger story than it really is. It must have had some effect - as now it is reporting she is going to donate the money to the American Diabetes Assoc.
It seems like people are so quick to want to drive a stake through the heart of the successful.
That's what I mean Alan.
I realize that in a perfect world, people wouldn't try to sell anything to us that's bad/unhealthy, etc. But that ain't gonna happen.
But where do we draw the line, if we're trying to make it a better/healthier world..........when there are so many stupid people out there who are going to "eat" everything that's offered to them........no matter what it is? How do we do that? I suppose it would be fine if people were just responsible for themselves and their choices, but it affects so many other people.
I'm not very good at articulating...........but what I'm trying to say is that yes, Paula Dean cooked extremely unhealthy stuff......but blaming her for everyone eating her recipes isn't fair either.
domestic goddess
1-19-12, 3:02pm
I saw her on some talk show yesterday, totally by accident, as I only watched part of her show once. I knew it wasn't for me, and I dearly love butter. But even I felt she took the fat thing too far.
Ms. Deen did state that she was cooking food on her show the way she likes(d) it,and that she never told anyone it was ok to eat that way everyday.I guess her error was in assuming that people already knew and believed it. She shed a tear or two, which makes everything ok, I guess, and life will go on. She is going to work with either a pharma co. or the American Diabetes Association on some diabetic-appropriate recipes.
Yes, she ate too much of the wrong things, and now she's paying for it. I'm sorry for her, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. No one forced that food down anyone's throat. At least she didn't suffer a fatal heart attack. But one or a few servings of food fixed her way isn't going to kill you, and no one told anyone to eat that way daily. It's like hot coffee at McDonalds; if you can't exercise a little common sense, it isn't anyone else's fault when disaster finally strikes.
Cathy I think the real problem is that we, as a species, are just about the most judgmental lot imaginable. Too many of us are more than willing to admonish and demonize others for their choices/opinions/beliefs and then take offense when others do the same to us.
Paula Deen is successful because she gives people what they want. If some think people really shouldn't want what they want, that's fine, but they should keep it to themselves IMHO.
I drink too many soft drinks. I know they're not healthy, I know they contain too much sugar and caffeine and yet I continue anyway. Pepsi-Co isn't taking advantage of me, quite the opposite actually. Anyone blaming them for my actions is barking up the wrong tree.
loosechickens
1-19-12, 3:20pm
well, if we're going to demonize Paula Deen, there are plenty of other places to look......from the pharmaceutical companies that make millions selling us drugs that cause side effects that they then profit by by selling us other, additional drugs to counteract the side effects of the first ones.....multinational corporations that both push industrial foods and own the pharma companies that make profits on the resulting diseases.....it goes on and on.
I think it's just that the whole, systemic problems with these things in our society are so large, that we pick some small target, like Ms. Deen and make her the "poster child" for all the ways we feel manipulated for someone's profit.
Tempest in a teapot.....
Hey, glad to hear about the Pepsi consumption, Alan.....keep up the habit...we stockholders love to hear that! ;-)
I like many of Paula Deen's recipes and I make them a few times a year. I don't see what that particular fuss is all about. No one is saying "you have to make everything she does, and eat this way every day of your life, and by the way just sit on your rump and watch TV all day while you're at it." It's a cooking show, for heaven's sake, not doctor's orders. That she's pimping diabetes drugs IS sad to me - does everything have to be a profit center? Like Mark Bittman said, it seems like a spoof article in The Onion, only sadder. I'm embarrassed for her. Only she's not embarrassed.
What a tempest in a teapot. And it's not about the butter, either. Just ask Julia Child.
She is the least of the worries for the obesity problem in our nation.
She is an individual with a cooking show of recipes.
Yummy, fat-laden recipes.
Seriously if the viewer can't determine that any recipe with 3 sticks of butter is for holidays or special treat times, then they must live under a rock and be tone deaf to all health articles everywhere.
It's not like she's a mega-corporation that has an army of food scientists filling their products full of coincidentally addictive ingredients, lobbying our government for subsidies and to be served in school lunches, etc. etc. etc. etc.
At least it has people taking about food-health matters and some stepping up to discuss personal responsibility for health matters.
She will probably be a good witness to those that need to adjust their cooking/eating habits.
She's a tv personality. It doesn't faze me. I wouldn't eat her cr@p any more than I'd eat what Andrew Zimmern eats. Frankly I didn't watch her much, but...there was one memorable recipe:
(Basically...)
In an 8x8 pan, dump a few cans of pineapple chunks
Top those with a mixture of crushed Ritz crackers and (wait for it)....a stick of melted butter.
Top all that with 2 cups of shredded cheddar cheese and bake.
Yu-um, y'all!
goldensmom
1-19-12, 5:20pm
Much Ado About Nothing. I like her show but she doesn't make nor force my food choices.
Simpler at Fifty
1-19-12, 5:39pm
The same people that are whining about Paul will be buying those preservative laden Girl Scout cookies over the next couple weeks.
i'm just wondering why everyone is conflating butter with diabetes -- butter does not cause diabetes. nor does it even cause weight gain. diabetes is caused by eating sugar and grains, and can be controlled by NOT eating sugar and grains.
the saddest part to me is that she's going on this drug, and shilling for it, when she could solve her health issues by simply changing her diet. and still have as much butter as she wants! just not bread to slather it on and cake to frost it with.
My only question would be why she would continue promoting this kind of diet if her diagnosis was three years ago.
Financial gain/job security, Pinkytoe. Having already established herself with a devout audience, marketing strategy is the dictator.
My only question would be why she would continue promoting this kind of diet if her diagnosis was three years ago.
What kind of diet? Admittedly, I'm no expert on Paula Deen, but I got the impression most of her cooking--heavy on dessert--was celebration or special occasion foods.
But I have seen someone describe what she'll be pushing in conjunction with her Pharma shilling as the equivalent of "carb up and shoot up." I thought that was a pretty accurate assessment.
iris lily
1-20-12, 12:11am
... have as much butter as she wants! just not bread to slather it on and cake to frost it with.
madge. please explain how one consums butter if you can't put it on bread.
Oh ok, you can put it on veg, that's for sure, and that is nice, really it is.
But butter without bread isn't all that great. Dairy and wheat is the great food combo of the world! If not butter on bread, than cheese on pasta.
... I think the real problem is that we, as a species, are just about the most judgmental lot imaginable. Too many of us are more than willing to admonish and demonize others for their choices/opinions/beliefs and then take offense when others do the same to us.
I agree with you, but I think the problem runs even deeper. What we have, IMO, is a population that's spoiled and lazy to the point of stupidity. So many people want nothing but entertainment in their leisure hours and seem to expect (or even demand) that the information they receive from passive entertainment such as TV is all accurate. (God forbid they should have to make the effort to think for themselves, or do research at the library or on the 'Net!) And when some equally fallible human being who just happens to be a TV personality screws up, they are outraged. Duped, OMG!!! Lynch her!!!
Personally, I'm getting really fed up to there with this kind of passivity. And it is a sore spot with me because two of my women friends seem to keep looking to someone or something aside from themselves to get their lives in order, and I'm getting pretty bloody tired of it. I was really offended when I sent one of them a duplicate copy of a magazine called 'Natural Health', only to be told that she's taking oodles of supplements and watches Dr. Oz every day, so she really doesn't need the magazine. D@mn, that made me mad.
The bigger problem with passivity is that:
1) The person takes no responsibility for themselves; and
2) then gets angry when the person upon whom they've dumped their life doesn't perform well.
Those of you who are familiar with the Seven Deadly Sins may recognize two of them here, Sloth and Anger.
AAGH!!! Makes me crazy! >:(
I totally agree with you Jemima.
i'm just wondering why everyone is conflating butter with diabetes -- butter does not cause diabetes. nor does it even cause weight gain. diabetes is caused by eating sugar and grains, and can be controlled by NOT eating sugar and grains.
the saddest part to me is that she's going on this drug, and shilling for it, when she could solve her health issues by simply changing her diet. and still have as much butter as she wants! just not bread to slather it on and cake to frost it with.
Thank you! DH and I have been shouting this at the tv every time we see Paula Deen mentioned, because they invariably state that her fat-laden meals caused her diabetes. Um, no, if anything, the fat would help slow the blood sugar rise and resulting insulin spike.
Nutritional misinformation has been institutionalized in this country since Ancel Keys. No matter how many studies show that chronic health problems are insulin related and exacerbated by a wheat and sugar heavy diet, the drum beat of "heart-healthy whole grains" goes on. As usual, follow the money.
well I haven't read everything here, but I don't see the fuss.
She will do what she needs to do, but she isn't cooking for herself this type of food, nor is she advocating it as a daily menu is she?
If people watch her show and cook that way every day there is something not right about their judgement around food. That is where the problem is I think. Why would anyone take a tv cooking show and use it as their cooking guide.
Graham Kerr (one of the first tv cooks) modified his diet after he had health problems, but before that he cooked with all things delicious and fatty.
People need to understand how to cook for themselves; is that too much to expected from an educated society?
mtnlaurel
1-20-12, 12:22pm
well I haven't read everything here, but I don't see the fuss.
She will do what she needs to do, but she isn't cooking for herself this type of food, nor is she advocating it as a daily menu is she?
If people watch her show and cook that way every day there is something not right about their judgement around food. That is where the problem is I think. Why would anyone take a tv cooking show and use it as their cooking guide.
Graham Kerr (one of the first tv cooks) modified his diet after he had health problems, but before that he cooked with all things delicious and fatty.
People need to understand how to cook for themselves; is that too much to expected from an educated society?
I think this would make an interesting wager (or something like it)....
A week of Paula Deen's cooking vs. A week of typical restaurant/take-out/quick processed menu
It would be interesting to see how the 2 stack up against each other nutritionally.
If anyone has time and a blog do this, send out press releases or whatever is current these days and I bet you might get some coverage.
I firmly believe and would love to be proved wrong that a week of homecooked yummy, gooey meals would be more nutritional than a week of the equivalent at places outside the home.
At least if you cook sinfully at home you know what you're getting yourself into.......
Ignorance is bliss..... TGI Friday's anyone?
Edit to add: It's not like Paula Deen's recipes make themselves... you have to go get the ingredients, read recipe, put it together, bake/cook it VS. "A #1 combo super-size please"- VWALAH here it is!
Meaning you have at least somewhat thought through what you are getting ready ingest VS. "who the heck knows what's in here, but it sure is good"
folkypoet
1-20-12, 12:32pm
Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't do what Paula Dean did. Yes, she's a TV personality, just out to make money. I get that. I don't believe it's her job to make sure everyone in America understands the risks that come with preparing her recipes on a daily basis. However, I'm sure it must have crossed her mind, at least a time or two, that she might be doing harm. To one person. To five. To a thousand.
For me, her job wouldn't be in line with my values. Perhaps, though, it is in line with hers - what do I know?
mtnlaurel
1-20-12, 12:32pm
More to the point......
I hope Azure has gone into hiding since she put that most delightfully decadent fancy Mac n Cheese recipe up last week on the Food Board!
The nerve to put that up as our resolutions are starting to lose their resolute-ness!
:treadmill:
.....just playing......
TGIF all!
We are the product of our own making, plain and simple. We all have choices and options, it's just a matter of how each of us decides to apply those choices and options (in life) that helps distinguish who were are and what we are. (Our makeup).
There will always be a percentage of the general populace that breeds an underlying sentiment of, "I've been done wrong or hard done by", or, "I've been slighted", or, "I've been betrayed". People always looking for a way to justify something or another, or find a way to claim ownership to, or ownership of, something or another, as if to define territorial supremacy over others. Like a right to more, people laying claim to entitlement, or privy betterment over others or someone else.
Society (as a whole) has a way of coddling and culturing this way of thinking (and progression through actions). We see it in lawsuits and other legal cases, everyday. It's reached epidemic proportions nowadays, all of the finger-pointing and accusing, and the more this sort of thing is harvested and embraced, the more we will continue to be subjected to such.
madge. please explain how one consums butter if you can't put it on bread.
Oh ok, you can put it on veg, that's for sure, and that is nice, really it is.
But butter without bread isn't all that great. Dairy and wheat is the great food combo of the world! If not butter on bread, than cheese on pasta.
of course you are right, iris. when i'm low carbing i often miss my butter carriers more than anything else! but i manage -- mashed cauliflower soaks up a lot of butter. and a nice pat of butter on a nice steak? well ... that's very nice, too. :)
One more thing, striking a happy-balance. Networks IMV (in my view) behind such programming are the ones to blame. Take smoking for instance. Through legislation, laws and guidelines were set in motion (as a campaign) to curb smoking, while raising awareness and attention of the dangers and health ramifications associated with such habitual behaviour.
IMO, law-makers should regulate food-programming (and the networks behind them) exactly the same as they did with tobacco companies, requiring that all food networks/channels conform to ideals in line with good health and nutrition.
If stringent laws, as we are seeing today being brought to fruition, are going to be signed-off on and passed to restrict, ban, and outlaw (tobacco products being the main intent of my example/argument here), then similar laws and legislation should be brought forth and passed to enforce food networks to uphold and conform to the same ideals. It's time.
treehugger
1-20-12, 2:04pm
IMO, law-makers should regulate food-programming (and the networks behind them) exactly the same as they did with tobacco companies, requiring that all food networks/channels conform to ideals in line with good health and nutrition.
Whoa, really? I thought you were a believer in personal responsibility? This would be censoring entertainment in order to [attempt to] control behavoir, which I certainly would not be in favor of. I am definitely not a libertarian, but I still think we are better off with less legistlation of personal behavoir (hello, Prohibition!). Can you imagine how much that would cost for the government to monitor TV programs? Ugh, the worst sort of nanny state.
Kara
I really don't think it's possible that anyone could have imagined her cooking to be healthy. Personally, if I open a cookbook and see butter or oil, sugar, and flour in large quantities and in every recipe, I close it and put it back on the library shelf. I wouldn't watch cooking shows with similar cooking, either. Anyone can make something taste good with enough butter, sugar, salt - there is absolutely no art or challenge there, and I'm certainly not going to cook that way. As noted above, many restaurants do prepare food that way and that is why it is so addictive. See David Kessler's book, The End of Overeating, where he discusses the fat+sugar+salt combo.
That's what makes this forum so interesting, Treehugger, knowing we all share different thoughts and ideals related to issues and things. :)
As far as me being a believer in personal responsibility, absolutely, 100%. However, legislation has also recently been brought forth (and passed) related to the use of and location of vending machines, and that speaks volumes to me as to the seriousness of societies weight/unhealthy lifestyle woes present in our world today. So I see no reason why similar legislation shouldn't be brought forth, adopted, and rubber-stamped, as to how food networks draw-in audiences, and to what level and degree they portray nutritional balance and well being.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/opinion/weil-paula-deen/index.html
Dr. Andrew Weil challenges Paula Deen to a cookoff!
treehugger
1-20-12, 2:30pm
OK, fair enough. But I am very thankful we haven't reached that level of censorship of entertainment yet in the US.
Kara
"IMO, law-makers should regulate food-programming (and the networks behind them) exactly the same as they did with tobacco companies, requiring that all food networks/channels conform to ideals in line with good health and nutrition."
No thanks. Who gets to decide what "good health and nutrition" comprises? These are the people who brought us the Food Pyramid. This registered Independent and dyed in the wool lefty is proud of her Libertarian stripes and wants no part of the government (or its conjoined twin Big Business) deciding what I can see, read, or eat.
I can't believe that people are getting so outraged that Paula Dean has type 2 Diabetes (for 3 years) and was still cooking bad food and encouraging people to eat it, so they'd become diabetic too.
Is our nation so stupid that we can't figure out for ourselves that many of her recipes are very laden with fat/salt/sugar?
I wouldn't cook/bake like her (maybe one splurge now and then), but I don't think we should vilify her and hold her responsible for everyone else in the world getting diabetes.
I guess if there weren't so many stupid people out there, her cooking wouldn't be so popular.
How much responsibility does she have for all of us?
Maybe its true, that our nation is so full of idiots that we have to hold the wrong people responsible.
I realize that when people without brains eat all the stuff that Ms. Dean makes, many times a week, their eventual bad health causes everyone's insurance rates to go up.........but when do we just force people to be responsible for their own choices?
I've felt for years, that there has ben an attitude in this country called: SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY! It's always like this. If a kid gets in trouble, we need to find a way for the ignorant adult to pay for his crimes. If somebody has an accident due to stupidity, then someone else must be liable. If people go out without helmets, then the government must step in and intervene. The whole idea of personal repsonsibility as been skewed and turned on its head. We must wear seatbelts and have immunizations for chicken pox. Now it is "Neglect" if we allow our children to go to the skate park alone. What? We have a society admonishing us to not smoke, not be obese, stay healthy, (all good virtues) but no admonishments for pharmaceutical CEO's making millions of dollars. Yes, smoking is bad. Yes it needs some control, but where is the control of the health care agency? Or the Banking industry that allowed us to get into this state of economics. It's weird as a society, how the myopic the lens can be. Who ARE the people doing the bashing?
I blame it on the Puritans, personally.
Wildflower
1-21-12, 2:58am
Paula Deen cooks good old fashioned down home southern recipes. I grew up on this type of food - this is the way my Southern relatives cooked even after they moved here to the midwest, so I am well acquainted with it. It is good! But she never said anyone should eat this way everyday, and I, personally, don't know anyone that does. A Paula Deen meal or dessert is to be enjoyed occasionally and there is no sin in that. I've heard her say many a time on her show -"all things in moderation" and I agree!
Why some are so outraged - I don't understand. And diabetes isn't solely based on diet. Many other things are involved such as genetics, etc. How can someone explain a very, very obese person with a horrible diet that doesn't have diabetes as opposed to someone that is maybe 20 pounds overweight, eats well and exercises, but does have diabetes. I know of a few that "look" like they should have diabetes that don't and vice versa. People are simplifying the disease too much....
I once read an article in a magazine many years ago in which Paula Deen was being interviewed. The interviewer asked Paula how she managed to keep from gaining too much weight from her own cooking, and she said didn't eat that way everyday, that often she just had a salad for dinner....
One more thing, striking a happy-balance. Networks IMV (in my view) behind such programming are the ones to blame. Take smoking for instance. Through legislation, laws and guidelines were set in motion (as a campaign) to curb smoking, while raising awareness and attention of the dangers and health ramifications associated with such habitual behaviour.
IMO, law-makers should regulate food-programming (and the networks behind them) exactly the same as they did with tobacco companies, requiring that all food networks/channels conform to ideals in line with good health and nutrition.
If stringent laws, as we are seeing today being brought to fruition, are going to be signed-off on and passed to restrict, ban, and outlaw (tobacco products being the main intent of my example/argument here), then similar laws and legislation should be brought forth and passed to enforce food networks to uphold and conform to the same ideals. It's time.
Whoa. Seriously? This is how you feel? That we should restrict freedom of expression: (cooking it a form of expression.) And NOT allow this older, more archaic, form of instruction of cooking and culinary expression to be allowed???? And how do you justify this opinion?
Originally posted by Tiam.
Whoa. Seriously? This is how you feel? That we should restrict freedom of expression: (cooking it a form of expression.) And NOT allow this older, more archaic, form of instruction of cooking and culinary expression to be allowed???? And how do you justify this opinion?
Yes, seriously. And just how do I justify my opinion? Simple. If government legislation is going to be passed and brought down on smoking and vending machines, then I see no reason why additional legislation shouldn't be passed and brought down on cooking shows and content. It's all relative, so if there's going to be a push for good health and well being, then it should be done right, and applied accordingly, across the board. Otherwise, legislation applied to smoking and vending machines is hypocritically based IMV. You can't step on one and not the other.
ApatheticNoMore
1-21-12, 7:01am
It's so far from what I'd see as a root cause of anything that. For one thing I think most people watch far more food shows than actually cook. Critics of the food system ponder why cooking shows are so popular when statistics show more and more meals are being eaten at restaurants. Because I think food shows are actually more for observation than for actual instruction. It's food porn really.
Bad food habits have social contributors, but cooking shows? Really? The food system in this country is messed up beyond all measure and the culprit is really supposed to be cooking shows? Every poison imaginable is allowed in our food, it is illegal to inform us if our food contains GMOs, our chickens are bathed in chlorine, our meat irratdiated so weeks old meat looks new, every processed food and many restaurant foods are a chemistry lab, everything has MSG, conventional meat is dosed with antibiotics, we have corn subsidies, and feed lots. That is the food system. Then there is the rush pace of society that makes it harder to have time to cook.
Blaming Paula Dean is actually a way to solve nothing and in fact diverts any real threatening questioning of the status quo.
As for personal responsibility versus social causes, both positions at their best offer really deep insights. But it's rather hard to see a little lone individual with a cooking show as a social cause.
to me the ugliest part of this is the fact that paula is CASHING IN ON HER ILLNESS. i know pharmaceutical companies do it every day, but she has a familiar face and it just seems really cynical.
i find myself largely agreeing with tony bourdain's take on her: "Thinking of getting into the leg-breaking business, so I can profitably sell crutches later."
Anthony Bourdain has plenty of his own shortcomings he could be attending to, IMO.
Paula Deen cooks good old fashioned down home southern recipes. I grew up on this type of food - this is the way my Southern relatives cooked even after they moved here to the midwest, so I am well acquainted with it. It is good! But she never said anyone should eat this way everyday, and I, personally, don't know anyone that does. A Paula Deen meal or dessert is to be enjoyed occasionally and there is no sin in that. I've heard her say many a time on her show -"all things in moderation" and I agree!
Why some are so outraged - I don't understand. And diabetes isn't solely based on diet. Many other things are involved such as genetics, etc. How can someone explain a very, very obese person with a horrible diet that doesn't have diabetes as opposed to someone that is maybe 20 pounds overweight, eats well and exercises, but does have diabetes. I know of a few that "look" like they should have diabetes that don't and vice versa. People are simplifying the disease too much....
I once read an article in a magazine many years ago in which Paula Deen was being interviewed. The interviewer asked Paula how she managed to keep from gaining too much weight from her own cooking, and she said didn't eat that way everyday, that often she just had a salad for dinner....
That's my take on it, too. I had an acquaintance with Southern roots who was renowned for her coconut cake and chicken-fried steak. She lived to be a hundred, and only declined in her very last years. I really find the fuss over this ridiculous.
madgeylou
1-21-12, 12:45pm
Anthony Bourdain has plenty of his own shortcomings he could be attending to, IMO.
don't we all!
"Don't we all!"
Yes indeed. But it's so much easier--and more gratifying--to focus on other people's. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/black_eye.gif
As far as me being a believer in personal responsibility, absolutely, 100%. However, legislation has also recently been brought forth (and passed) related to the use of and location of vending machines, and that speaks volumes to me as to the seriousness of societies weight/unhealthy lifestyle woes present in our world today. So I see no reason why similar legislation shouldn't be brought forth, adopted, and rubber-stamped, as to how food networks draw-in audiences, and to what level and degree they portray nutritional balance and well being.
I can't speak for Canadians, but here in the U.S. we have hundreds of senseless laws on the books that attempt to keep people (adults, that is) from hurting themselves. Laws against drugs, liquor, tobacco, et cetera, and all it does is drive the behavior underground. People are still going to do what they want to do, they just get more devious. Behold the 'War on Drugs' and how much good that did! And anyway, who needs dope dealers when we have Big Pharma?!
I blame it on the Puritans, personally.
I rarely post, but this made me smile. Then, giggle. Thanks. :)
Now it is being reported she was CAUGHT eating a CHEESE BURGER! Stop the presses. Shessh, is she going to be hunted down - photographed - everytime she is eating anything the food police don't approve of? >:(
Maybe it will take the food police away from Michelle Obama - they seem to really like reporting on every non-healthy thing she puts in her mouth...
Obsessing over food is surely as big a threat to your health as actually eating it*. Obsessing over other people's food is beyond the pale, IMO.
*As anyone who's ever dieted has figured out.
I wasn't kidding about the Puritans. We're a nation full of finger-wagging nannies; it's in our blood.
mtnlaurel
1-27-12, 11:25am
Obsessing over food is surely as big a threat to your health as actually eating it*. Obsessing over other people's food is beyond the pale, IMO.
*As anyone who's ever dieted has figured out.
I wasn't kidding about the Puritans. We're a nation full of finger-wagging nannies; it's in our blood.
finger-wagging nannies in public
closet bingers in private
treehugger
1-27-12, 11:52am
I wasn't kidding about the Puritans. We're a nation full of finger-wagging nannies; it's in our blood.
Speak for yourself! I don't have any Puritan blood in me. :) But I certainly agree that finger-wagging nannies are really annoying. But, does being intolerant of them make me just as bad??
Kara
Every once in awhile I have to grab my hand to keep my own forefinger in check. Sometimes I don't get there in time.http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_finger.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.