Smoothies have a prominent place in the great pantheon of foodstuffs that constitutes my diet. I buy bulk bags of frozen mangoes from Sam's Club that make my car's suspension protest in agony and I'm rarely without at least four (and often six or more) kinds of fruit on death row in my kitchen. My appreciation of the smoothie as a concoction of ambrosial value, therefore, is not in question, and in fact I've become something of a snob when it comes to restaurant-produced versions. I'm well aware that most of these lesser amalgams contain sugar (in one form or another) as a unique ingredient (as opposed to the fructose occurring naturally in the fruit), although I still expect them to be primarily fruit-based.

Enter, then, Taco Bell's Frutista Freeze, the newest (and most pushed in recent weeks by uninspired-yet-interested-in-staying-employed drive-through employees) product on the summer menu. In a bit of devious slight-of-hand, the chain incorporated "fruit" into the name of the drink (phonetically, if not in exact spelling) and serves it with strawberries on top (not to mention the advertisements are festooned with whole strawberries rolling around the cup), implying some sort of fruit-based blend. While waiting in the drive-through line the other night, however, I noticed the colorful cardboard placard near my car admitted in small letters in the corner that the Frutista Freeze "contains no fruit juice." Out of curiosity, then, I checked up on the product on Taco Bell's Web site. Sure enough, the freeze is essentially a fruit-flavored Icee with a strawberry "mixture" (likely containing as much sugar as strawberries) on top. Its nutritional content is disappointing, with a 16-oz. Freeze containing almost 100 calories and 20 grams of sugar (about one-and-a-half tablespoons) more than a can of soda. Normally I'd write this off as a "treat" (the way my occasional Coke Icee is) and forget about it, but I'm concerned (and annoyed) that the marketing angle will trick people into thinking they're actually consuming something semi-healthy (and more importantly that parents will buy them for their kids thinking they're better than soda). Grrr.

For the record, my smoothie recipe is very easy (and healthy). One cup low-fat or non-fat yogurt. One handful of frozen mango cubes as a base (rather than ice). Another handful of the fruit of your choice (I usually have fresh strawberries or bananas or frozen blueberries or blackberries on hand, and last week I used the kiwi that wasn't ripe enough to eat by itself). Enough orange juice to make it blend. Maybe a dash of vanilla if I'm feeling adventurous. No extra sugar or ice. Blend until smooth. The end.

Labels: annoyance, food, social commentary

but it serves as a suitably eye-catching prelude to a page or three of birthday photos. Enjoy. :)

To the wonder twins, Alec and Kyle, who turn the grand age of three today. :) We had the party on Monday and I do in fact have visual documentation, but it's still awaiting Photoshop touch ups. Suffice to say it was a good time, with cake, balloons, "pwesents" and a walk in the Fontenelle Forest.

To Joan, free-spirited, laid-back, eclectic-color-loving dancer friend extraordinaire. (I realized today that I don't really have a good full-color picture of her; hope this one doesn't seem too drab for a birthday.) Happy birthday! :)

Labels: birthdays, friends

I've come to expect very little from science reporting in mainstream news, but occasionally I'm particularly repulsed. This little tidbit of front-page Yahoo! information, complete with standard-fare kitschy 1960s Star Trek puns that scientifically illiterate journalists still think are creative, induced waves of bile-tainted frustration. "Distant galaxies"? Please. Just because it has the cool word "antimatter" in the article? Did we bother to do any research at all? A matter-antimatter engine (no, not science fiction) is extremely efficient and far, far faster than our chemical-based rockets. It is *not*, however, capable of anything even remotely close to the speed of light. So we can slash the time it takes to reach Mars from a year to a month. That's hardly "distant galaxies" material. Our own galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter. At the speed of light (something this engine can't even come anywhere near), it would take, yes, 100,000 years to travel across it. It would take another 2.5 million years to reach the nearest major galaxy (the Andromeda Galaxy), again, at the speed of light, and the trip to the most distant galaxies we've detected? Thirteen billion light years.

Science reporters should be required to take some science classes. My god.

Labels: annoyance, science, what the hell

Racial attitudes were also striking. About one in five whites in Kentucky said race played a role in choosing their candidate - on par with results in other Southern states. Nearly nine in 10 of that group backed Clinton - the highest proportion yet among the 29 states where that question has been asked.

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the concept of a candidate claiming viability through a strong victory when that victory is provided in substantial part by an electorate that openly admits to discounting human value based on race. The question arises, then, did Hillary win in Kentucky because she's a stronger candidate who is more capable of taking on McCain in a national election, or did Hillary win because her opponent was black? If it's the latter, Hillary's qualifications in this particular race were irrelevant.

Labels: politics, social commentary

Given its ranking in the holiday hierarchy somewhere between "Walk Barefoot to Work Day" and "Sell Your Children on eBay To Afford a New Set of Golf Clubs Week," I won't be surprised if no one is even aware that it's National Vegetarian Week. The human transition to omnivore status (an event possibly occasioned when some pre-human ancestor realized that grass and berries are more palatable when eaten with five pounds of mammoth meat) has left as its indelible mark a genetic heritage that makes the dead flesh of other animals taste good, and thus I expect few converts during this highly underpublicized "event." For my own part, I already botched it by preparing a chicken dish to bring to work for the first few suppers of the week, a situation I find vaguely ironic given I've purchased and cooked meat, including this dish, a total of twice in the last several years. In my defense, I find it likely, given the price of the antibiotic-free poultry I insist on using for my cooking, that I'll slide back into vegetarian cooking with little effort.

I'm asked now and then, in hesitant voices as though I may be offended, if I'm a vegetarian, usually at restaurants with new acquaintances or at family gatherings where my dearly dedicated mother, over my protests, cooks a separate meal to accommodate my decidedly non-western Nebraskan palate. Amusingly, I've been assumed to be a vegetarian twice in the last 10 years by coworkers because I passed on the red meat option and instead chose the chicken dish (in one case being the only attendee out of 40 not to opt for prime rib), which highlights a common public misconception that vegetarians eat fish and poultry (and consequently assuming that it's vegans who eat no meat at all, which is technically true but incomplete). For the record, I'm not a vegetarian, although my total poultry intake for a year is so low that I might as well be (I'm just annoyed enough by the people who triumphantly pounce on my decision to order one chicken dish every few months when dining out to avoid making the claim; yes, siblings, I'm looking at you). My last experience with red meat was a good eight years ago and frankly I've moved past the "do you miss it?" point to hover somewhere around "walking past the red meat counter at the grocery store makes me briefly nauseous."

My original decision to abandon red meat was based almost entirely on health reasons (there is just no way to justify red meat as a healthy diet base, at least in the context of the non-grass fed meat supplied by American feedlots). At the time I started, vegetarian diets were far more difficult, but greater access to varied foods and a renewed interest in non-meat dishes (both for health reasons and for flavor) on cooking shows and books have largely erased any stigma (at least for me) of not eating meat. I still take flak from my family for my soy- and vegetable-based reimaginings of the dishes we had when I was growing up (in particular, the two soy-based pies I made last Christmas that I conveniently "forgot" to mention were soy until after the fact), but hopefully in the long run it will help them see that dishes don't have to be unhealthy to be edible.

Personal taste and health reasons aside, a far bigger concern is environmental impact. Livestock production consumes a tremendous amount of resources (something like half of water use in the U.S. when you consider the water used to grow the grain that feeds the cattle). Figures vary from study to study, but estimates by the University of Michigan are 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat and 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef, before adding in petroleum costs and the very serious problem of excessive antibiotics being transmitted into water supplies (not only ending up in the body when the water is consumed but also providing excellent breeding environments for antibiotic-resistant infectious bacterial strains). I'm not quite on board with all of the points in this article, but it's a comprehensive (if slightly more strident then mine) summary.

In any case, if you're at all curious about whether a vegetarian diet is workable for you, now is the week to try it. Or you could switch to insects.

Labels: humanism, social commentary

A Canadian man who asked his lover to carve a heart-shaped symbol on his chest during a rough sex game almost died when she accidentally pressed too hard and punctured his heart, a newspaper said on Thursday.

Holy cow. What was she using as an implement? A chainsaw? Pneumatic cutting shears? The heart is located behind the ribcage; one does not just casually nick through that by pushing too hard . . .

Labels: what the hell

I spent a significant amount of time this weekend driving around (including trips on two different dirt roads) with camera in tow. I spent an hour at the Holy Family Shrine south of Omaha (a beautiful place, if you have some time to visit), then walked around midtown a bit (for a total of two pictures and meandered around downtown for a few hours before deciding that the sun and haze were not cooperating with the pictures I wanted to do of the Qwest Center.

Labels: photography

My castle, situated on my own private planet. Enjoy.

Labels: house, photography

To my dearest (and technically, I suppose, my least-dear, given the linguistic oddities involved in applying quantifying adjectives to singular subjects, although I'm going to stick with "dearest" based on personal preference) mother, who has labored patiently and valiantly for the last three decades to raise a gaggle of challenging children (not me, of course; I'm her favorite). Hopefully she's received some sort of rectangular box from Amazon.com with a small note inside from me, and hopefully she enjoys her day. :) Thanks for everything, mom.

Labels: birthdays, mom

I'm babysitting all this week, much to the delight of certain almost-three-year-olds (and possibly an approaching-thirteen-year-old, even if she feigns annoyance when I set up "booby traps" on her iMac . . .). We've been "benturing" ("adventuring" in Alec-speak), worked on counting to 10, played numerous games of hide-and-seek and watched blackbirds and bunnies in the backyard (yay for alliteration). Amidst such a carnival of activity, Lane and I have discussed American pre-WWII isolationist policies, talked about installing BootCamp on her Mac and started watching the "Indiana Jones" trilogy in anticipation of the upcoming fourth movie.

The most memorable part so far came when the twins and I were watching "The Land Before Time" and Kyle was talking about a character that's some sort of purple fish. I asked her if it was a dolphin and she said "No, it's not a dolphin." I asked her if it was a shark and she said "No, it's not a shark." I asked her if it was an icthyosaurus. She looked at me in a very puzzled way and then sternly pronounced "That's not a sticky horse! That's Mo."

Labels: alec, kyle, lane, twins

I finished Discover's Einstein-dedicated March issue a few months ago. It included numerous articles about his life, his learning years, his teaching environment, his family and his children. It did not, however, contain anything like this:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this . . . For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

Labels: humanism, religion and atheism, science, social commentary

To all mothers in general, but specifically to mine. :) It's raining where she is (and to here tell they're having 24-degree lows, in May . . .), so the day itself might be a little dreary, but hopefully she enjoys the concept of the day. :) Love ya, mom.

Labels: holiday, mom

Lane and I saw "Iron Man" today. Very good movie. Robert Downey Jr. was an excellent casting choice (sort of for superhero movies what Johnny Depp was for pirate movies). I highly recommend it. Not so big on casting Samuel Jackson as Nick Fury, but then again I haven't liked one of his roles in ages. Lane wants a suit of powered armor.

Last weekend when I was at Lisa's house watching the twins Lisa asked me to pull my car forward about 15 feet to allow Scott to get to the garage. She pulled the twins out of the way as I walked to my car, and almost immediately Alec became very distressed that I was "leaving" and began crying and protesting loudly. Followed immediately by my car not starting. After messing with it for a few minutes, Lisa and I finally just pushed it forward and left it, and I spent the next few hours stressing about calling a tow truck and where to take it (on a Sunday) and being without a car. When Scott offered to look at it later it started right up (grrrr). Scott thinks it was either vapor-locked or a failing fuel pump. Lisa thinks it was just a fluke. *I* think Alec has latent telekinetic powers and was so unhappy that I was "leaving" that she disabled my car with her mind . . .

Labels: alec, entertainment, lane

Overheard in the hallway from a woman checking her voicemail:

You know, I don't know why people always call my cell phone expecting me to want to talk to them. If she really wanted to talk to me, she should have called me when I'm home.

Labels: overheard

While enjoying the latest episode of "Top Chef" tonight (thanks to Cris for not spoiling it and yay to Richard for still being in), I saw a commercial for a company called "Finally Fast" that advertises a "free" computer scan (followed by a not-free "cleanup" of any problems it finds) for your PC. As a note unrelated to my amusement factor, what they're really selling is the same service that Spybot provides (except that Spybot is robust, highly recommended . . . and free), so what they're actually doing is cashing in on the computer-illiteracy of the average American.

What earned a laugh from me, though, was something completely unrelated in their ad. The opening and ending of the commercial, the "book ends," if you prefer, feature a young man first complaining that his computer (which "used to be so fast") is now crawling and then, after running Finally Fast, bragging in overly enthusiastic tones about how fast his PC is now. Except his "PC" is a 20-inch iMac (newer generation, either the last of the G5s or the first of the Intels). So the software the company is promoting wouldn't even install on his computer, let alone do anything to speed it up.

It's the details that get you.

Labels: amusement, funny, imac

Labels: amusement, funny

I saw an article today on a monstrosity being promoted by Baskin-Robbins this month. The description in the article was frightening, but determined to see the real horror unmasked, as it were, I tracked down the actual nutritional page on Baskin-Robbins' Web site (click the image to enlarge).

Behold! A single shake with 2,300 calories! Marvel in your seats as it provides you with 320% of your saturated fat! Gasp in awe as it dares to dole out 98% of your cholesterol and 100% of your carbohydrates! Shake your head in amazement at an ingredients list longer than the Democratic primary!

I don't swear much, but I'm pretty sure this deserves a "holy fuck."

Labels: what the hell

To Maureen, who is making me feel really old by only turning 22. Hope it's a good one. :)

Labels: birthdays

Just a quick update, mostly for my mother's benefit.

I've been in a less-than-optimal mood since my last post. Nothing catastrophic or calamitous in origin, mind you. Just a pyramid made of bricks of minor annoyances. Lack of sleep. Pulled muscles. Biting my lip hard enough to draw blood (twice). Car problems. Logistical issues with art projects. House issues. Headaches. Rude people. Time. Grover Cleveland stealing my Doritos.

It's a hard-knock life. Hopefully without a rap overlay.

Labels: annoyance, introspection, stress