Readers and Reading discussion

Please post here about 'this and that' for the next two months.

JoAnn, is it Mario Batali you like? If so, I just saw one of his programs on the Cooking Channel. If not, well, nevermind I guess. ;-0

yes, I like Mario.

I think that the Cooking Channel is desperate for shows to fill its time slots. I saw some last week that were from 2007!

Speaking of the Food Network, what do you think about Paula Deen and her admission of type 2 diabetes.

I have 2 problems with this.

1- She waited 3 years to reveal that she had diabetes. In the interim she continued to promote a unhealthy diet that may lead to diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Of course no one forces anyone to watch or eat her food, but to promote it and not acknowledge that her cooking style may have been a contributing factor in her own disease and may cause disease in the viewer or readers of her books is just wrong, imo.

I've read that she also withheld the info from the Food Network. And I assume also her publisher. They found out when she went public.

2- She only reveled her illness, after 3 years, when she had hooked up with a drug company to push their diabetes meds.

This could have been a golden opportunity for her to say her cooking style may lead to disease and she will now change and learn with her audience the healthy way to eat.

I totally agree with the analogy this person made,
"It would be like someone who goes on TV and brags about how wonderful it is to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day and then when he or she gets lung cancer becomes a paid spokesperson for nicotine patches," Dvorak said. "I feel it is in very poor taste and if she chose to become an unpaid spokesperson for the American Diabetes Association, that would be a better way for her to make a difference and help fight this horrible disease."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chef-pa...

According to this article she has a net worth of 16 million.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/rich...

JoAnn said: I think that the Cooking Channel is desperate for shows to fill its time slots. I saw some last week that were from 2007!

Hey, older than that -- they have old Julia Child shows on. I actually like seeing the older shows. I think they have a nice mix of older and newer. And I hate the chef cooking competitions that now populates the Food Channel.

Alias asks: what do you think about Paula Deen and her admission of type 2 diabetes.

I don't care. First, I don't think I ever watched her show.

Secondly, it's not her responsibility to tell people what is healthful and what is not. If people don't know, then that's their problem. Just as it's not her responsibility to tell me if a recipe is kosher or not. Or tell a vegan if a recipe has some kind of meat component, like in a broth or something. I have to assume that people who watch these food shows are not 4-year-olds who consider a TV chef to be someone who commands them to prepare and eat the foods they demonstrate.

Third, I rarely, if ever, have made a recipe from one of these cooking shows without making some alteration of it. If you're concerned with high fat or high carb, or whatever, then you know what recipes are good for you and which aren't -- and which you can alter to make them lower fat and/or lower carb.

Fourth, there is no determinism when it comes to diabetes. You have higher odds of getting it if you consistently eat a high fat/high carb diet and do no exerciae, etc. What if I eat a totally low-fat, low carb diet all year long, and once a year make one of Deen's recipes, then get diabetes? Is that meal to blame? Is she to blame? What if she'd never gotten diabetes? Would people still criticize her?

This whole thing is silly. If she had lied and said the recipes were low fat, low calorie, etc. (and when you know what's in the recipe, how could she lie?), then she might criticized.

Besides, there are really more important things to worry about in life than some TV chef. Or what other people eat.

Libyrinths wrote: Besides, there are really more important things to worry about in life than some TV chef. Or what other people eat.
================================

Just making conversation. :)

Alias said: Just making conversation. :)


Alias, ditto. I didn't mean to imply your post wasn't worthwhile. I just sometimes get cranky over the things society gets all bent out of shape over, as seems to be happening with this, whereas things that really matter get little airplay. So, the comment you quoted wasn't aimed at you, although I now realize it certainly sounded that way. In my brain I was thinking of the Big Deal it seemed to have become, not your reporting of the issue nor your question. Sorry to have been so grumpy!

I think you have to take all of these TV chefs with a large grain/box of salt. Bottom line is money, sad to say.

I do think that the operative word here is "may"....a diet that MAY lead to diabetes, etc. There are millions of people out there who eat this way and develop none of these conditions. It's their decision and it's a crapshoot at best.

I do not mind the old classic shows on the Cooking Channel. It's the old mediocre shows that they use for filler that annoy me.

Libyrinths wrote: "Alias said: Just making conversation. :)


Alias, ditto. I didn't mean to imply your post wasn't worthwhile. I just sometimes get cranky over the things society gets all bent out of shape over,..."

-------------

:) No problem.

JoAnn said: I think you have to take all of these TV chefs with a large grain/box of salt.

That would be coarse salt -- especially to "season the pasta" when cooking it. ;-0 BTW, one problem with their salt is that I've never been able to find that salt iodized. You'd have to eat a lot of seaweed to get your iodine if you only cooked with non-iodized salt.

JoAnn said: Bottom line is money, sad to say.


Would you do a weekly or daily cooking show for free? I don't have a problem with the money. It means they're going to be entertaining as well as helpful. And if they're awful, their show will fail.

As for mediocre old shows, I only watch these channels sporadically. I look at the line-up of shows for the day, and if there's one where they're going to be making something which interests me I watch it. Or try to, if I'm not busy doing something else. So, I'm not sure which shows are mediocre or not, if that makes sense. But I can see that for people who've seen a lot more of them than I have, it would be frustrating. I'm just glad to have a couple of channels like this. Although it generates severe Kitchen Envy in me!

no, I would not do a show for free. But would I conceal a disease for money? Probably not.

So money would not be MY bottom line!

Please feel free to talk here about APPLE, corporations, the "occupiers", or any topic that is restricted/suggested as inappropriate elsewhere.

JoAnn/QuAppelle wrote: "Please feel free to talk here about APPLE, corporations, the "occupiers", or any topic that is restricted/suggested as inappropriate elsewhere."

I never quite understood why people didn't like political talk. I have always found that sharing ideas is a great way to learn.

thewanderingjew wrote: "I never quite understood why people didn't like political talk. I have always found that sharing ideas is a great way to learn. ..."

Yes, it sure is.......especially when it is respectful and polite.......but that means keeping your mind open to new ideas.

What do you think about the attacks the candidates are making on each other? I keep feeling they are eating their own young while others feel they are getting it all out there now, so it can't be used later.
Why can't it be used later....?
Obama has a great deal of money, more than any of the GOP candidates. I am not sure anyone can go up against that. Yet, the Democrats complain about how the GOP is getting their money. They don't notice the union donations which are outrageous and curry favors later on.
The hypocrisy on both sides is really mind bogglng in this election.

JoAnn said: But would I conceal a disease for money? Probably not.

JoAnn, I guess I saw it the other way, that she revealed her disease for money -- that is, becoming a commercial spokesperson for a medication. Unless they did so as well, how many of these TV chefs have high blood pressure or atherosclerosis or diabetes or any other of a number of illnesses that are nobody's business?

thewanderingjew (can I abbreviate to TWJ?), it's only going to get worse. That's because for some reason, these kinds of things work. Sad commentary on our society, but there you go.

Libyrinths wrote: "thewanderingjew (can I abbreviate to TWJ?), it's only going to get worse. That's because for some reason, these kinds of things work. Sad commentary on our society, but there you go."

TWJ, is great and it isn't insulting, lol, like the primary ads!

Libyrinths wrote: "JoAnn, I guess I saw it the other way, that she revealed her disease for money -- that is, becoming a commercial spokesperson f..."

Reveal or conceal...all about the money. If they reveal it, they take a risk of not getting contracts but, like Paula, can get tied in with a phara company. If they conceal it, they can still get lucrative contracts that have no health clause....

What a tangled web.

I posted this on a different thread because I couldn't find this one...I am still learning how to navigate Goodreads. If Alias wants to remove it from the other thread...she has my permission.
I would genuinely like to know if other people have come across this kind of behavior that I am going to describe. I heard a story today, from a good friend, a reliable friend, she is special, would never lie and so I am truly horrified by what she said.
She has a friend who was exercising in the gym in the community in which I live. This is an affluent community of successful people. This does not make them all likeable but it does make them smart enough to know what is right and wrong. They are not young hippies but well-seasoned seniors, for the most part.
In this community there are a great many supporters of Obama, not only because they love Obama, but because being a Democrat is bred into their bones, to paraphrase a title from a Robertson Davies book.
I have heard hypocrisy expressed on both sides of the fence, the left and the right, but I have never heard of what this person related to me, except when it was said in what I assumed was jest, by loud-mouthed talking heads. I never thought it was actually a common practice, here in my own haven, my own community.
The scene goes something like this: while on the treadmill, a gentleman said to the woman adjacent to him, I have to go and vote. She, knowing he is an avid Democrat-large D, smiled and said, you can't vote. You know you are a liberal. Who would you vote for anyway? He said anyone Obama can beat. She said but how can you vote in the Republican primary as a Democrat? His reply is the kicker; he registered as a Republican so he could skew the primary and affect the final vote. He can still vote as a Democrat in the national election.
What is happening to us? Where is our moral fiber?
I posted a bit more about this on my private blog, which does lean right, but here it would be too political, so i left further comments out.
I would just like to know if others have heard of this as a practice or if this is an anomaly by one misguided citizen.

TWJ said: he registered as a Republican so he could skew the primary and affect the final vote.

This has happened as long as I've been alive, and that's not quite ready for The Villages, but long enough! I've even registered with an opposite party myself, once, to try to oust a REALLY objectionable candidate who was likely to be re-elected if she won the primary.

And, nasty canards in elections go back to the founders. Look at the election between Jefferson and Adams.

If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
Please don't take this personally, but why is it someone else's right to choose the candidate for me, by manipulating the vote? Can you imagine if it was a common practice? Our elections would be meaningless if the vote was unfairly influenced.

TWJ said: but why is it someone else's right to choose the candidate for me, by manipulating the vote?

It's my right to be sure that if I think the "other side's" candidate is going to win, that that person is the least objectionable to me. (And I'd tell you off-board about that election, if you want to know, and you'd probably cheer me for what I did.) After all, EVERYONE has to live with the decisions made by the public in their votes.

I think overall most people vote in their own primaries, if they vote in the primaries at all. You have a fairly small number of people (percentage-wise) who vote at all, fewer still who vote in primaries. I prefer states to have closed primaries (as in FL) where you DO have to change your registration in order to vote in the other party's primary, because it means you have to go to some trouble to do so. Only if someone is really objectionable will you get large numbers of people doing that. In some states, anyone can vote in either party's primary and don't have to change registration to do so. I don't like that. But, states make their own rules.

Thanks, I would love to hear more about it in a private email. How do we do that? Do I friend you?

I am guilty too, WanderingJew but do not feel guilty.

When I first moved to SE Pennsylvania 25 years ago, our mortgage banker, who was an old college friend (we were in the college Student Dems together), advised me to register Republican. At that time, I was a conservative Democrat. When I asked him why, he said because no one but Republicans will ever be elected in this area’s local elections, so if you want to have any say about what will affect you locally, you need to register Republican so you can make your choice in the primary.

This is not the same as what your friend related to you, but I did register Republican 25 years ago because Republican candidates always get elected to local offices here, by a 95% majority, so I feel okay with what I do….which is make my choice in the primary.

JoAnn, good example of another reason someone might register in a party other than their own, and vote in the primary.

I wondered if anyone had noticed this. Usually at my library, popular books will have a long waiting list until they come out in paperback. Then there's a very short waiting list. But I just checked for a couple of books which are out in paperback and the hold list is STILL enormous. Is this a sign that people may not be buying so many books right now? Are other people noticing this at their own libraries? Just curious.

I noticed that my library has very few books! Actually, I always bought my books, i wanted to keep them, however, lately, I have started to download some library books and listen to them on my ipod, instead.

What I Read in February 30 Years Ago (1982)

1692. Before the Deluge: A Portrait of Berlin in the 1920's, by Otto Friedrich (read 4 Feb 1982) This is an account by a guy (now with Time magazine) of Berlin from 1918 to 1933. It is a very interesting book to read, though mainly derived from other books and personal interviews. It told me much I had forgotten, and much I never knew before. There is a chapter on each year from 1918 through 1933.

1693. The House of Medici: Its Rise and Fall, by Christopher Hibbert (read 11 Feb 1982) Because I enjoyed Hibbert's two volume life of George IV I read this book. One should read it in Florence, and go to see things as one reads. It rather makes one sick that there were so many Medici cardinals. Interesting book, but rather flamboyant and poorly footnoted. I did not appreciate it much--its subject is too broad for good popular history.

1694. The Days of the French Revolution, by Christopher Hibbert (read 14 Feb 1982) This book is footnoteless and makes no pretense to scholarliness. But it was published in 1980 and is written in the usual lively Hibbert style. The time of the French Revolution was an unbelievable time--and the events never cease to amaze. But this book attempts to cover too much, and so I was not as intrigued by it as I have been by some other books I have read on this subject--see, e.g., Epitaph for Kings, which I read in July 1975. Maybe I should read a good book on the rise of Napoleon. The last section of this book deals with that rather summarily. [On 13 Oct 2008 I read Europe and the French Imperium 1799-1814, by Geoffrey Bruun, and I thought it did a good job telling of the rise of Napoleon.]

1695. The Great Mutiny: India 1857, by Christopher Hibbert (read 21 Feb 1982) This is the third book in a row that I have read by Christopher Hibbert. Frankly, it was not as good as I expected. It dwelt at great length on the events in India, as recorded by the participants. But it was very short on recording the whys and wherefores of events, and told nothing about the reaction in England. It concentrated on the trees and ignored the forest. I will say that the atrocities of the Indians were easily matched by the atrocities, albeit provoked, of the English. Despite this book not living up to expectations Hibbert has written other books I'd like to read, such as The Destruction of Lord Raglan; [ I did read it on 18 Sept 1993] and Agincourt [never have yet, but did read, on Jan 28, 2008, Juliet Barker's book on that battle].

1696. The Buccaneer King: The Biography of Sir Henry Morgan 1635-1688, by Dudley Pope (read 27 Feb 1982) I previously read three books by Dudley Pope and was rather impressed by them so I read this book. Morgan was a buccaneer, but Pope claims it is wrong to call him a pirate. Pope is biased in his favor and in favor of England. Sir Henry Morgan made great raids on Spanish towns: Villahermosa and Granada in 1663-1665; Puerto Principe and Portobello in 1668; Maracaibo in 1668-1669, and Panama in 1670-1671. The book really tells much interesting history, revolving around Jamaica in the 1600's. I kept thinking it is the sort of thing one reads on a Caribbean cruise, because it made me look at a Caribbean map more than ever. Central America and the Caribbean are much in the news these days and so in a sense the book is timely. I would like to read more on the subsequent history of Jamaica.

very impressive list, Schmerguls! A busy reading month.....and I assume you were working full-time in 1982!

You are right, JoAnn and as lawyer--not a judge. Lawyering is usully a more time-intensive job than judging.

Schmerguls, as usual I enjoyed reading your list of past reads. I've seen a couple of books by Hibbert, the subject of which interested me, but I never got them, and as I remember it was because of the lack of endnotes, or basically any documentation. I notice that with a lot of older general histories. I think it used to be thought that the general public didn't want to be bothered with endnotes or bibliographies. They wanted their histories to just be good stories, and assumed if someone had a good reputation for knowledge and accuracy that was enough. I think that's changed a lot over the past few decades. Maybe publishers realized people might actually want the endnotes, or at least a bibliography. For me, preferably both.