Quotulatiousness

December 8, 2010

Repost: “What was I doing when I heard . . .”

Filed under: History, Media — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:01

Another year, another opportunity for some people to indulge in over-the-top, mawkish, ostentatious grief for someone the vast majority never actually met:

A post up at American Digest recounts what Gerard was doing when he heard that John Lennon had been shot. It’s a good posting: go read it.

What I was doing was a lot less interesting and profound: I was driving from Mississauga to Montreal that morning, and all I could get on the AM radio in the truck was endless playings of “Imagine” and other Lennon tunes I didn’t like to start with. To make it worse, I was going to be spending two weeks in Montreal (I don’t speak French), hanging off the side of an apartment building (I’m really not good with heights), learning how to install a master-antenna TV system. I certainly had enough worries of my own to occupy my thoughts.

I was born in 1960. By the time I started paying attention to popular music, the Beatles were about as current to me as the Monkees (and, truth to tell, I kinda preferred the latter, if only for the TV show reruns). John Lennon was some bearded weirdo with a whacky wife and they both spouted the sort of rhetoric that left me feeling that they really didn’t like the west at all. I was sorry that he was dead, but the wholesale public mourning struck me as being just plain over-the-top.

In retrospect, it was rather like the outpouring of public grief when Princess Diana got herself killed: unseemly, inappropriate, lavishly exhibitionistic displays of emotion. Perhaps I’m just not very sympathetic, at heart, but all it seemed to lack was ululations and slashing of cheeks to be a true primitive, tribal ceremony. I didn’t have the stones to say “Grow up” out loud, but that was what I thought then.

Originally posted on 8 December, 2004.

October 6, 2009

Another bulletin from the “Institute of Obvious Findings”

Filed under: Food, Health, Law, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 16:02

New York City has the most “progressive” laws on the books for labelling fast food menu items. The intent was to ensure that customers would be aware of the calorie and nutrition values of food before ordering, with the hope being that people would deny their tastebuds and order less fattening foods. A recent study found — to nobody’s surprise — that this hasn’t been working:

A study of New York City’s pioneering law on posting calories in restaurant chains suggests that when it comes to deciding what to order, people’s stomachs are more powerful than their brains.

The study, by several professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at four fast-food chains — McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken — in poor neighborhoods of New York City where there are high rates of obesity.

It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.

But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.

The laws were changed because paternalists in power thought that consumers were being gulled against their better instincts, and that merely pointing out the information in a hard-to-miss fashion would assist these poor, weak-willed eaters to trim back on calories and fat. It doesn’t work because people like eating food that’s calorie-rich and fattening. You’re not going to change that without instituting literal rationing: and don’t think they haven’t considered it.

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress