SPEAKING OF NIGELLA: Her cooking show, Nigella Bites, is now being shown in the States on one of the cable channels. (I think it's on the explosively-named E!) I happened to catch an episode when I was home sick one day a couple of months ago. Unlike our stolid Martha Stewart, or even Paula Zahn, Nigella is deliberately more than just a little sexy. Her rather long hair flows freely in the kitchen and she seems to mix an awful lot of things with her hands, purring about how divine everything is.
It all struck me as just a little unhygienic. I'm aware that people in other countries think Americans are obsessed with cleanliness. Perhaps some are, but not me-- I even adhere to the five-second theory, which states that, provided a dropped non-sticky food item is not on the floor for more than five seconds, it remains perfectly edible so long as you blow on it. So surely it was more than just typical American fastidiousness that caused my stomach to turn when Nigella showed us the frozen bags of wine in her freezer. She said she used them for cooking, and that they were leftover wine from previous dinner parties. Out of other people's glasses. Blech. One gets tired of Martha's insistence on buying the finest and most expensive of everything, but there are limits to frugality. It's interesting that extravagant Martha comes from rather humble roots, whereas thrifty Nigella's mom was an heiress and her father the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer.
One positive way that Nigella differs from Martha, which is clear in this interview in The Guardian, is that she spends a lot of time emphasizing that everything doesn't have to be perfect. Martha, on the other hand, projects an unattainable ideal which no one without a passel of servants is going to live up to.
UPDATE: I'm a little stunned by this, but the New York Times cooking page had a story yesterday on Nigella that mentions the frozen bags of wine backwash without a hint of distaste (via Ken Layne). It is kind of a puff piece, I guess, emphasizing her sensual methods of food preparation. But can't we be a little critical even in puff pieces?
FURTHER UPDATE: Ben Sheriff writes to inform that:
the UK aristocracy is famous for ridiculous thrift. Not all of them, of course, but (having bought fine items the first time round) there are a lot of upper class families that recycle, reuse, wear to threads, etc. Especially the men. Partly, of course, because since WWI (and WWII especially) there's not been the income to support them in quite the style to which they are accustomed, what with the cost of houses etc. (long ramble about the National Trust to follow). So it's not exactly playing against type for Mrs Diamond.
BOOZING BED-BOUND BROADS: Dan Dressel points out this 2000 article by British domestic goddess Nigella Lawson in his interesting new blog profound samurai. Lawson responds to a survey that revealed that some British women have one-night-stands when they drink. She asks, "This is news?"
What would be news, of course, is if the American Nigella Lawson (Yes, I speak of Martha Stewart) were to share her opinions about the power of booze to loosen a girl's inhibitions. If only we could get Martha drunk enough to dish!
BIG GUYS FIGHT BACK: Responding to the Junta case, where two dads fought over rough play on their sons' hockey rink and one ended up dead, Fevered Rants dares to speak out for big men. He makes some fine arguments and even points out the foreign policy angle. I love the warbloggers!
BLOGGER BOGDOWN: Bear with me, folks, I am having blogger problems up the wazoo like everyone else. So this is how far twelve bucks goes. Huh. Let me know if this is a cleverly opportunistic time to mention the tip jar.
PINK RIBBON FUNDAMENTALISM: Great piece on the absolutism of breast cancer activists in the Washington Post. It references the Danish study and tells the story of one woman's battle not only with breast cancer, but with those who believe there is only one way to react to it. I was reassured by some sensible words from the president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition:
"The focus has to shift," said Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. Mammography, she points out, is a small piece of the breast cancer puzzle. For too long, "breast cancer has been equated with mammography. 'Early detection saves lives,' so let's give every woman a mammogram," she said. "Now there is an acknowledgment that mammography screening is not the answer to breast cancer."
WHEN UNIONS AND THE EURO COLLIDE: Some fun reading on "euro rage" in Italy.
THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY EXPANDS: Now PETA is attacking the Clintons. Seems they find it strange that two of the Clinton's dogs would both be killed in traffic.
JOHNNY WALKER'S BRITISH COUNTERPARTS: The Times of London has this report on affluent young white Britons converting to Islam. It fills some kind of spiritual void for them and has the added benefit of shocking the bejezus out of the folks.
THE AGENT'S CASE: Because of his presumed willingness to take a bullet for the President, I have been heretofore reluctant to scowl at the claims of the Secret Service agent who was denied boarding on an American Airlines flight Christmas Day. I've seen three of his lawyers on the shows, and they told a pretty convincing story of racial discrimination. Why didn't American just call the Secret Service and verify his identity? Plus, who hasn't experienced ill-treatment at the hands of airline staff? I was prepared, like the President, to be "mad as heck."
Still, the agent's suit for "education" of airline pilots gave me pause. Were they to be sent to cultural re-education camps? Or was he simply asking that they be taught how to tell a surly Secret Service agent from a terrorist? Yet why reserve the right to ask for monetary damages, if he's not attempting a shakedown for some of that bailout money Mrs. Daschle successfully won for American?
National Review Online has now provided us with the other side of the story, and already his case seems harder to prove. If what the Captain and the SOC Manager claim is correct, the agent failed to correctly fill out the forms for carrying his weapon three times in a row. Nobody likes to fill out forms, but a security officer of all people should understand their importance. And apparently he was rude to airline staff in front of other passengers, so there will be witnesses to what really occurred.
It now seems just as likely to me that the agent was being hypersensitive. It may be that, since the 9-11 attacks, he had been expecting to have his presence as an armed Arab American questioned sooner or later when he flew, and he was all too willing to see a pattern of discrimination.
I don't have a problem with giving special scrutiny to Arab-American men on airlines. I would hope the agent, himself, steps a little closer to the Prez when in the presence of an unknown Arab. Of course, Arab-looking people should be allowed to fly like anyone else, but it does seem prudent to look closely at their gun permits. With a Secret Service agent and the captain of an airplane, you also have two men butting heads who are both used to running things. The Captain won Round One and the agent may be out for Round Two. I'm now glad to see that American is stepping up to the fight. Better that a jury decide this one, than that they immediately capitulate.
FLEXIBLE SEXISM: Here's a headline in the Chicago Tribune: Official benefits, reality, differ for women lawyers. Read the article and you find that, actually, it is much more acceptable for a female lawyer to take advantage of flexible hour plans than it is for a male lawyer. But many lawyers do not take advantage of flexible time, probably because they rightly fear to be seen as less committed to the firm than their colleagues when it comes time for promotions.
What is wrong with this state of affairs? One presumes the lawyers are being adequately compensated for their troubles. A lot of lawyers work long hours and some law firms can be very competitive places. I already know this just from watching TV, but I presume someone informs law students that this is what they face if they choose certain firms.
Is being a high-paid 90-hour-a-week-working attorney incompatible with being a part-time soccer mom? I would think it is. So what? Law is one of the professions that can be practiced solo. You want flexible hours; hang out your shingle. Or take advantage of your firm's offers of flexible hours. But if you work fewer hours than some of your colleagues, you may not be promoted as often as someone who generates more revenue for the firm. There is nothing unfair or sexist about that. Rather, it would be highly discriminatory if the reverse were the case.
YANKEE INGENUITY: Here's a report on a line of perfumes that, among other things, smell like dirt, mildew, a funeral home, or tomato leaves. I have actually seen this stuff here at a frou-frou shop called The Cadeau, and it wasn't exactly cheap. I only recall smelling the Tomato fragrance. It was accurately done, a lovely scent like the end of summer. I don't wear perfume, though I think I would rather smell like a tomato than like many of the things at the cosmetic counter. I'm not so sure if I'd say the same about sushi or a funeral home. People buy it, thus it must satisfy someone. That's the beauty of the market.
And from other fruitful minds comes a new lightweight gun that fires over and around barriers. With "basically the same architecture" as the M16 assault rifle, it is "five times as effective at twice the range." Cutting beyond Vietnam-style vegetation quicker than you can say "quagmire," it may make it possible to fight ground wars with the minimal casualties of an air war. Woo-hoo! Is this a candidate to replace my daisy-cutter wallpaper?
UN AGAINST HANDOUTS TO VICTIMS? Yep, you heard that right, folks. A new report from the UN Development Program, The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, indicts the culture of dependency that reparations to Chernobyl survivors has produced. What's more, the steps taken to mitigate harm from the radiation caused more health problems than the radiation:
More than 100 emergency workers on the site of the accident on 26 April 1986 suffered radiation sickness, and 41 of them died. The biggest direct consequences of the radiation are increases in childhood thyroid cancer, normally a very rare disease, that increased 60-fold in Belarus, 40-fold in Ukraine, and 20-fold in Russia, totalling 1,800 cases in all.The report says other evidence of increases in radiation-related diseases is very limited. 'Intensive efforts to identify an excess of leukaemia in the evacuated and controlled zone populations and recovery workers were made without success. There remains no internationally accredited evidence of an excess of leukaemia.' There is also no evidence of an increase in other cancers, and there has been no statistical increase in deformities in babies. The only deformities related to radiation were among babies of pregnant women working on the site at the time of the explosion.
The UN believes most of the deformed babies photographed by Western charities to raise funds have nothing to do with Chernobyl, but are the normal deformities that occur at a low level in every population. 'The direct effect of radiation is not that substantial,' said Oksana Garnets, head of the UN Chernobyl programme. 'There is definitely far more psychosomatic illness than that caused by radiation.'
The evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people, particularly from less contaminated areas, is seen as an over-reaction, which in some cases did more harm than good. 'The first reaction was to move people out. Only later did we think that perhaps some of them shouldn't have been moved. It has become clear that the direct influence of radiation on health is actually much less that the indirect consequences on health of relocating hundreds of thousands of people,' Garnets said.
Among relocated populations, there has been a massive increase in stress-related illnesses, such as heart disease and obesity, unrelated to radiation.
The UN is concerned about the corrosive effects of handouts to those classified as Chernobyl victims. In Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, they get more than 50 different privileges and benefits, including monthly payments and free school meals, medical treatment and holidays. In Ukraine, 'victims' get up to $100 a month.
In Ukraine, 92,000 people have been officially designated as permanently disabled, and half of the population says their health has been affected.
'There is an incentive to get classified as a victim. People getting benefits think they should get more and more. They think everything should be done for them by someone else - it creates a huge sense of fatalism and pessimism, which means they don't get on with their life,' Garnets said.
This is quite a refreshing attitude in a UN official, especially when you look at what comes out of the United Nations Income Foundation.
GIMME THE REMOTE! Looks like Fox News' hold on our evenings will become somewhat more tenuous around 9pm CST. On nights when we plan to go to bed early, we'll just leave it on FNC and let Greta Van Susteren work her soporific magic. Otherwise, we'll turn to MSNBC for what will no doubt be a lively treat from Dr. Keyes. Either way, it's an improvement on "just a little sexy" Paula Zahn.
SPEAKING OF GEEKS, here's two Seattle eligible bachelors who are already camping out outside a theatre for the new Star Wars movie out May 16th. This is madness. They don't even know if the movie is going to play at that venue. Plus, with a name like Attack of the Clones and following a stinker like Phantom Menace, how can it fail to suck?
Jeff Tweiten & John Guth are featured here at the Seattle Star Wars Society site. Mr. Guth is some kind of multimedia company head who apparently can spend four months away from his company. The other one, inevitably, considers himself some kind of artist. Here's how he describes his latest "project."
This project also explores the issue of the pursuit of happiness. It asks how much will a person sacrifice for a temporary acquisition, and questions whether a person can be happy with just food and shelter in pursuit of that acquisition. It also asks, will society as a whole fear or accept people for not desiring the things they desire, or for desiring things they consider frivilous or ridiculous. Finally, as we move into the next millennium, I wonder if our fast-paced society has become unwilling to slow down and wait for the things that bring us the greatest joy. This wait will test my mettle as I attempt to do just that.
Hmm. Are we to A)FEAR or B)ACCEPT Mr. Tweiten? How about C) NONE OF THE ABOVE? Mr Guth claims that "A lot of people, just because they're not doing it, they think it's weird." Actually, I would find it much weirder if I myself were camped outside a Seattle movie theatre in January. I would also hope that the people who love me would also find it odd enough behavior to get me the help I so obviously would need.
NEVER THOUGHT I'D WANT AN iMAC. Until today, that is. We watched the MacWorld keynote webcast this morning with great anticipation that Jobs had finally overhyped himself. It was hard to imagine what could top the G4 Titanium laptop, which was released last year with much less fanfare. I was frankly amazed at the gorgeous new iMac and its lovely price. $1800 for a flatscreened dvd-writing marvel of design is pretty sweet. So it looks like a lamp. How is that bad? The classic lamp design for lamps has served us pretty darn well for decades now. People even put them in their living rooms. I guess there are some folks who fear they aren't a real geek if their computer isn't ugly. Trust me, you are.
SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY: Further growing doubts that regular mammogram screening reduces mortality. As long-time dropscan readers may recall, there was an article in Britain's prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, in October, which evaluated the available literature concerning the effects of mammography screening on mortality. The authors concluded that the studies which found that mammograms reduced mortality were greatly flawed, and that the only well-designed studies found no reduction in mortality.
Why might this be? One reason is that many of the lumps that mammograms find are ones which will not turn into a deadly, fast-growing, metastisizing form of cancer. Before mammography, many women died at a ripe old age with a ductal carcinoma in situ in one of their breasts. Similarly, most older men get a type of prostate cancer, but this is not what kills them.
On the other hand, mammograms don't always find tumors that are deadly. And there appear to be vascular side effects to certain radiology treatments that increase mortality themselves. So you may find a lump which wouldn't have killed you, but end up dying from the cure. Plus, the test produces many false positives that cause unnecessary anxiety and medical expense.
We need to look at mammography with a skeptical eye, just like any other kind of treatment. The problem is that mammography screening has become an industry and a political cause. Because of the success of well-meaning activists, many people are now utterly convinced that mammograms save lives. And they may, but maybe not more lives than they cost or needlessly disrupt.
FISRT LOBBYIST? Excellent article on the questions that Mrs. Daschle, airline lobbyist, might get should she run for First Lady. Stephanie Mecimer predicts that the American public won't be as willing to give the Daschles a pass on conflict-of-interest questions as the Washington crowd has been. Many in Washington are in no position to throw stones when it comes to spousal influence peddling.
These are important questions, though. Does the spouse of a high-level public servant have a right to pursue any profession they choose? Even one which involves being paid to influence the high-level public servants within their spouse's sphere of influence? Or one which may raise the appearance of impropriety in other ways? Hillary's classic retort, when questioned about Whitewater in Spring '92 was that she supposed she could have baked cookies and had teas instead. (Oh, fate worse than death! That was the moment I began to dislike her, by the way. I voted for Tsongas.) Or do we even care about impropriety these days, much less the inkling of its appearance? I worry greatly that we don't.
Mrs. Daschle is apparently well-versed in the legalities of her profession and never flubs them. She discloses everything according to law. Thus, there is no scandal, so far. Still, thinking about his wife's expert influence peddling makes Senator Daschle's campaign finance self-righteousness stick even harder in my craw. If a presidential campaign brings her wider exposure, other even smaller-crawed Americans may have the opportunity to find it irritating, as well.
On the other hand, if someone is of a mind to vote for a President Daschle in the first place, I doubt they'll care what his wife does anyway, especially if she plays the cookie card.