misshepeshu: (hitler says wtf)
I've been craving muffins but lacking the energy and initiative to make my own, so I decided to buy a six-pack from Trader Joe's, because while not as good as home-made, it lacks most of the gross stuff normally packed into store-bought muffins, like mono- and diglycerides, mold inhibiting chemicals, etc. This morning, as I grabbed one from the pack to bring to school, I noticed that the label said "Mini-Muffins."

These are not mini-muffins. These are the size muffins I would make when I bake, and there's nothing "mini" about them. These muffins, by my estimation, probably contain somewhere in the area of 300 calories. There's nothing "mini" about that, either; that's just over 1/4 of my ideal daily caloric intake. These muffins are "mini" only when compared to the monstrosities from Costco, which clock in between 610 and 690 calories.

It astonishes me how we're continually desensitized when it comes to serving size, because food manufacturers want to push more on us. The larger size catches our eye and fools us into thinking we're getting a better value, and the bump in ingredient cost is minimal compared to the cost of everything else. And because we don't bother to divvy our muffins into halves (the Costco muffins should be cut into thirds or quarters if we want to go for anything resembling a reasonable serving size), we end up eating the whole damn thing, or tossing the leftovers.

Anyway. Mini-muffins, my ass. The fact that they're called "mini" is kind of obscene.
misshepeshu: (Dance!)
Dudes! The California Supreme Court finally got off their asses and ruled 4-3 that prohibiting same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, going so far as to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is on the same legal footing as racial and gender bias.

Holy shit!

I mean, holy shit!

(The victory, however, is still provisional: Californians can still vote in November to put a same-sex marriage ban in the Constitution.)

The dissent by Judge Marvin Baxter agreed with many of the arguments set forth by the majority but argued that the court had overstepped its bounds and that this was an issue that should be decided by the voters.

No. No it shouldn't. When it comes to the rights of the minorities, the disenfranchised and the underprivileged, the voters and legislators are the worst bodies to determine and define those rights. Because guess what? There's a goddamn motherfucking turdburgling reason why these people are disenfranchised in the first place--the inequities exist because the majority are reluctant to put the disadvantaged on the same footing as they are. We've seen this over and over again with gender discrimination and racial discrimination; a lot of the rhetoric surrounding inter-racial marriage echoes what's being said about same-sex marriage now (It flies against everything we know to be wholesome and healthy! You're still allowed to marry, you just can't marry the one you want! You're violating traditional notions of family and marriage! You're violating the natural order [unspoken subtext: as determined by our interpretations of an ancient and highly unreliable sacred text supposedly revealed by a Judeo-Christian God]).

What I really want to know is: What kinds of traditional definitions of marriage are these people pulling out of their asses? Marriage, an institution based on legal and cultural traditions, changes with the times, and attempting to point to an arbitrary point in the past and go "Here, HERE'S where the real traditional marriage is, and we should freeze it there forever" strikes me as, if you'll pardon my French, plein de motherfucking merde.
misshepeshu: (Pelosi in the motherfucking HOUSE)
Ben and I were talking about Barack Obama last night, and after expressing extreme excitement at the possibility of having a president who not only a) is able to speak without sounding like a tragic rabbit-lovin' character from a Steinbeck novel, and b) displays more charisma than the average lump of uncooked dumpling dough, but also c) demonstrates ferocious intelligence, and d) has values that are actually kind of aligned with both the way things work and the way I think things should work, I noted that Obama is, indeed, one fine-lookin' man. "Dude's, like, the beautiful bastard love child of Marvin Gaye and Abe Lincoln," I believe were almost my exact words.

All of which is offered as an excuse for the following:

Marvin Gaye + Abraham Lincoln = CRAZY DELICIOUS


misshepeshu: (Default)

December 2013

1 234567
2223242526 2728


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 12:12 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios