MGZ's Profile

Title Last Reply

How To Become Gluten Intolerant

I wonder if that means the folks at Udi's are more powerful than the Pope. They can make anything gluten-free . . . .

about 11 hours ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

"I think a lot of this discussion comes from your assertion that people's comments about her were ad hominem attacks . . . ."

In that case, you might want to reread what I said: "The comparison I'm making is really nothing more than THE RATIONALE FOR deeming ad hominem arguments logically suspect. We need to be COGNIZANT . . . . " There's no assertion of ad hom by me about anything. I simply drew a parallel to the foundation we employ in formal logic to explain why ad hom is considered a fallacy and suggest maintaining awareness or it.

And, in case I've failed to make it clear before, I don't agree with FB's message either. I've only consistently been trying to say that she's a distraction.

about 11 hours ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

How To Become Gluten Intolerant

I'm confused. Shouldn't transubstantiation eliminate any gluten? Could it be that Jesus was actually made of wheat?

$15 hr min. wage x zero hours =?

Those WalMart closings are not really much support for the notion that a minimum wage hike will result in retail store/fast food outlet closings at all.

Or, to put it another way, "Objection. Calls for speculation."

about 16 hours ago
MGZ in Not About Food

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

"Like the Rolling Stones article about gang rape, it calls into question what is legitimate."

No it didn't - or, at least it shouldn't and wouldn't if the story wasn't shifted to the publication. The Rolling Stone article's only relevance to legitimacy pertains to journalism - not rape. Consequently, we should be ignoring RS when we have discussions about sexual assault on college campuses.

about 16 hours ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

No - at least not in context of the instant discussion. Your focus is still on the micro, and from a legal perspective, on the burden of proof in actions sounding in tort. The regulatory concept should really be to move away from a compensatory tort based system (i.e., I may cause any harm so long as I pay you for the injury) - to move away from the need for people to be making any claims at all. That's the stuff on the macro level we should be addressing.

Some examples that come to mind in the "food" arena* would be increased proof from industry and heightened agency scrutiny on the "reasonable certainty of no harm" safety standard. A reduction in the weight given by the agency "cost/benefit" consideration. Increased funding for government inspectors of meat/poultry and an end to the industry self-inspection pilot program. Consolidation of all agencies involved in monitoring/protecting the food supply. The creation of a consumer rights advocacy/watchdog group along the lines of the CFPB.

Let's have THOSE discussions as a society. Let's resolve those kinds of issues and the likelihood of a Food Babe having a significant purpose or following is greatly diminished. Part of the reason she got traction is that in the back of all of our minds, we know that there are flaws in our system.

That's why I'll stand by the initial statement of mine that seems to have caused so much confusion: "anybody wanna bet that FB is probably going to be proven to be correct about at least something[?]" It's because the system itself is intentionally designed to permit a certain amount of harm to happen first with the hope that it can be compensated for later. I am of the mindset that, for too long now, we have been sliding balance towards permitting more harm than we should or is necessary.

* Given the Site we're using, I'll try to stick to that; however, if we examine environmental issues, financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies, etc., we come across many of the same core problems. I'll omit discussion of the impact that Citizens United is increasingly having in this sphere.

about 16 hours ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

2015 Pork Roll Queen Pageant » 2015 Pork Roll Festival

What, no love for Ballantine?

I'm still hungry up on the "Pork Roll Queen" thing. What woman would want to be known as that?

1 day ago
MGZ in New Jersey

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

Yeah, that was a pretty lousy example to use, huh?

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

See how little we disagree? I just am championing notions of our own culpability in it more.

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

From 'Pillowy' Gnocchi to 'Tender' Rump Roasts, Why Food Porn is Everywhere

Just "food" works for me (I cringed when I noticed the title changed.)

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

Me too.

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

"the "personal belief" objection is invoked by those who selectively pick & choose based on "personal belief" -- generally mistaken views that reject the consensus scientific evidence."

I fully understand what California's law is trying to do, but the language requires some Bojangles-like tap dancing. The essential problem is, as your text helps illustrate: religious belief = personal belief.

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

From 'Pillowy' Gnocchi to 'Tender' Rump Roasts, Why Food Porn is Everywhere

The original title of the essay was better:

Food: The Newest Celebrity

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

From 'Pillowy' Gnocchi to 'Tender' Rump Roasts, Why Food Porn is Everywhere

Food is fun to me too!

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

"I've yet to read (and could have missed them) attacks on her personally . . . ."

Who cares? Why is so much of the regulatory burden of proof on consumers and not industry?

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

"So you think any narrative is good if people talk?"

Nope. Just that distrust and inquiry are essential with a legal/regulatory system that is based upon compensatory concepts of tort law. I mean, there was no good reason for BHT. Questions about the air mixture on planes are healthy. We wouldn't want those to be 100% nitrogen or oxygen would we?

As I've tried to make clear, I prefer ignoring to embracing. I just happen to be similarly afraid of over-marginalizing.

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

2015 Pork Roll Queen Pageant » 2015 Pork Roll Festival

Let's see if this image works:

1 day ago
MGZ in New Jersey

2015 Pork Roll Queen Pageant » 2015 Pork Roll Festival

Heads up on the festival - doesn't get much more Jersey, huh? Anybody going?

Also, any thoughts on an appropriate Queen? Apparently, Governor Christie will stay on as King again . . . .

1 day ago
MGZ in New Jersey

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

"That's why Walter Cronkite was informing us of world events instead of Marty Allen."

Nobody ever tried to make the story about Cronkite. When the story became about Williams he stepped out/was dismissed precisely because it distracted from the stories themselves and permitted the possibility of using that as rebuttal to the veracity of everything else.

On the contrary, when the news of O'Reilly's exaggerations/lies broke, there was no need to follow suit. Due to the slightly different nature of his job, the story IS ALWAYS about him. Consequently, it just needed to get worked into the script.

"The American public has become stupefyingly misinformed in the last few decades. Put the blame where you like."

I've been putting the blame in the same place all along - on us.* We're embracing this distracting "narrative of the messenger" approach because it's easier to cling to. Mention AGW and watch how fast someone brings up Al Gore or how the world's scientists are all getting paid to agree with one another. Moreover, look at the domination of personality politics in that sphere. The 2014 election fundamentally had no real issues - it was simply an unengaging referendum on a sitting president who wasn't participating.

In light of everything, think about this question: If Sinclair published "The Jungle" today, would we be discussing meat safety or his socialism, beliefs in the occult, and wife's telepathic powers?

* I tend to discount the role of the media for two main reasons. First, they're practices are basically reflective - "this is the stuff folks want" profit motive. Second, there is so much media available today that anyone who is interested has the ability to learn on a massive scale.

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News
1

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit

Ruth, I think you may be disagreeing with something that wasn't really said. Yes, "[h]ucksters like her" are problematic. I just assert that it's primarily for the reason that if it weren't for them there would be no personality narrative for the focus to be shifted to, thereby moving it away from the substantive, underlying issues. I mean, here we are again discussing "her". On the other hand, there are still no more comments on the NYT article and we've never had a single thread discussing the White House budget proposal to consolidate the regulatory structure applicable to the food supply.

I've never seen the vaxxer article you're talking about - just not an issue that really interested me too much. But, I did note how you presented it as about the goofy lady. When it comes to the "[w]ho do I trust?" question, the "telegenic, down-to-earth mom" should barely even enter into things - except maybe to hold the door open to a roomful of "old science guy[s]". But, it's on us to walk into the room and think about what they're saying, not stop and gossip with/about the woman.*

* I've maintained your constructions for this reply, but damn if it doesn't come across as brutally sexist when I employ them.

1 day ago
MGZ in Food Media & News

What's your ??????????

Please accept my apologies. My intent was not to cause harm.

Apr 14, 2015
MGZ in Not About Food
1

Five myths about fast-food work

I understood your point the first time. I also understand that it's really the "myth" itself you don't like and no argument about "entry-level" changes the fact that less than a third of the employees are teens. Call it a straw man, if you like, but it is something you will hear people say and we've seen as much posted on this Site when we've considered the overarching issue (which is really what you want to address anyway and, I don't blame you, the other side got to frame it here).

As to Bezos, I agree there is some irony concerning the first myth, if he started as a teen. It gets lost when the overarching issue is the subject on the table.

Apr 14, 2015
MGZ in Food Media & News
1

What's your ??????????

"'[M]arketing' is fundamentally the creation of want for the purposes of profit."

That's hard to accept?

Apr 14, 2015
MGZ in Not About Food

Five myths about fast-food work

So, basically you're saying (1) fast food workers are not "mostly teenagers working for pocket money" and (2) "flipping burgers is [not] easy".

Look, the article's over-simplistic and way more today's HuffPo than yesterday's WaPo, but nothing you're arguing really proves the veracity of the "myths" the author presents.

Apr 14, 2015
MGZ in Food Media & News

What's your ??????????

"because pissed-off people don't buy"

You do realize that you're using a profit motive as an ethical foundation, right?

It's ethical not to piss people off because society as a whole benefits from less pissed off people. It's ethical to not piss people off because it will reduce the likelihood of confrontation. It's ethical not to piss people off based upon some extension of the Golden Rule.

It's not ethical, however, to not piss people off because that's the best way to profit from them. It may be good business. It may not technically violate any "rules". But, that does not render it a moral justification for conduct that is "good" - merely conduct that may or may not be "evil".

Apr 14, 2015
MGZ in Not About Food

What's your ??????????

Well, if you'll keep in mind the hyperbole in pursuit of frivolity, I'll explain the gist.

First, note the phrase employed was "ethical marketing".

Next, accept the notion that "marketing" is fundamentally the creation of want for the purposes of profit. As such, it is, intrinsically, manipulation for personal gain.

Finally, we come to ethics - the philosophical consideration of moral rights and wrongs. One, not uncommon, school of thought, in this subjective and wide-ranging discipline, is that manipulating others for our personal benefit (especially if it also may be to their detriment) is a moral wrong.

Apr 14, 2015
MGZ in Not About Food

What's your ??????????

Well, since I'm paraphrasing today, I'll stick with it, and relate that when the roads of thought diverge in the mind, it's ok to take the one less literal.

As an aside, I submit that "ethical marketing" is an oxymoron.

Apr 13, 2015
MGZ in Not About Food

What's your ??????????

You don't wanna hear me sing.

Apr 13, 2015
MGZ in Not About Food

Five myths about fast-food work

Thanks for the link, Lizard. Funny how familiar much of it seems, huh?

Apr 13, 2015
MGZ in Food Media & News
1

What's your ??????????

"Why do so many people feel the need to be total jerks (and to take pride and brag about their assholery) to minimum wage workers just doing their jobs?"

Although I offered a more complete response moments ago, I'd like to point out that assholery and tomfoolery are not synonymous. The former is best directed at the highly-paid douchebags who create these programs, the latter is shared with the people who have to try and implement them.

Apr 13, 2015
MGZ in Not About Food