Entry #15: Polka Pt.1

Fuck yeah, a polka band covering Katy Perry. This entry has literally no relevance to this blog whatsoever, but it's fun and we should all take a moment to appreciate polka music.

Entry #14: Organic Food Pt.1

In this entry, I'm going to discuss a horseshit article I've come across that embodies every inane utterance in transgenic food's defense. Now, incase it hasn't already been stated in a previous post, I'm a somewhat supporter of Naturopathy. Naturopathy is a form of alternative medicine that states that the digestive system is the "central" body system, rather than the nervous system, and that we can heal ourselves through the ingestion of herbs/roots/barks/etc. In all honesty though, I probably align myself more with "healing through diet" rather than the ingestion of herbs or supplements. Regardless, I'm not going to deploy all my defenses in Naturopathy's favor in this article nor am I going to take any major shots at conventional medicine/pharmaceuticals; I'm simply using this discussion on medicine as an analogy for comparative reasons. Whenever Naturopathy is brought up, practitioners of conventional medicine get up in arms as if their entire lifestyles are threatened by these foreign beliefs. It's honestly very, very frustrating. We're in a country where people are encouraged to live by what I'd consider careless and egocentric lifestyles, and we're told that ideological militance is unacceptable and every person is free to do whatever the fuck they want if it doesn't hurt anybody else on the surface. Being "preachy" has a negative connotation, as if you're supposed to enact major social, environmental, or cultural change by changing yourself and ignoring the pitfalls of society around you. Yeah fucking right. So it makes no sense why it's acceptable for proponents of conventional medicine to criticize alternative methods and be "preachy" about it, but I'll receive criticism and get labeled "preachy" for questioning peoples' diets or comsumption of drugs and alcohol (even moreso pharmaceuticals). They'll try and tell you it's a matter regarding peoples' health - how the fuck is it not a matter of peoples' health when I criticize alcohol, or I criticize genetically modified food products? Damn shit-eating hypocrites.
So where's the parallel? Organic food is treated as the opposition, just like Naturopathy or any other form of alternative medicine. The link I'm about to post is on a site called "Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena." How the fuck is the alternative food sector "Pop Phenomena"? Citizens of some states have lengthy drives between them and any popular organic food grocer or health food store, even Whole Foods - the Wal-Mart of industrial organic. I doubt some people have even seen a Whole Foods when they're not watching Good Eats. What constitutes "Pop Phenomena," a trend amongst the Hollywood elite? Also: how the fuck can I take a "skeptic" serious or even consider somebody a skeptic when they're a proponent of the "winning" side of the argument? I know it can still make sense semantically, but it's just stupid. You're not a "skeptic" in my eyes, you're a jackass who's trying to reinforce what the majority already believes. Stay tuned, and keep stroking your dicks.

anyways, here is the article

Right on its onset the first paragraph already has an aggressive tone:
"Today we're going to put on our tie dyed shirt, grow our hair long and dirty, claim hatred for science and corporate America, then walk into the most expensive specialty supermarket in town and purchase one of the most overpriced products on the market today: Organic food."




Wow. This article teems edginess, it's practically its second language. I don't even know where to begin with my retort. I can't quit looking at the dude's smug, shit-eating smirk on his face. Actually, a response probably isn't even in order. He's just trying to be witty; I doubt he sincerely believes that every individual who walks into a healthfood store fits that archetype.




Moving onwards, price: the number one thing people are going to bitch about when they're arguing against organic food. If I was going to make a "Defensive GMO Bingo" like that popular "Defensive Omnivore's Bingo," (here) price would be the fucking block in the top left corner. It's a fair assumption that the writer of the article knows more than I do about economics, so shouldn't he know that prices are driven by supply and demand? Organic crops, even industrial organic, don't have the same market power as transgenic crops. My workplace, along with any other grocery store, is (putting it as indelicately as possible) greedy. It costs a lot to order organic foods, considering most major retailers outside of the West Coast have to order their large scale, industrial organic products all the way from California, Arizona, etc. Earthbound farms supplies most grocery stores unspecialized in healthfood in the Midwest. Not only is the shipment longer, more costly, and the organic food naturally has a shorter shelf life - but the product is also stored in a warehouse for extended periods of time waiting to be ordered, making its shelf life even shorter. It's expensive for larger grocery stores unspecialized in healthfood to supply organic options for these reasons (in addition to low demand), and most of them don't deem it worth their cut in profit. I've watched the organic options fluctuate constantly at my workplace, and I have to throw away tons of product firsthand. So it's a given that grocers don't want to spend the extra money and are "greedy" and insensitive to environmental or health concerns, but the large scale organic agri-businesses are also susceptible to greedy practices. This is what most proponents of transgenic food will argue, and it's true. They realize that they're offering a specialty product, so they can demand a higher markup. However, how is that any better or worse than RoundupReady corn or any other herbicide-tolerant seeds that demand monopolies for Monsanto or other similar corporations? Is that any less greedy? How is that any worse than things like runoff from chemical fertilizers? The smaller amount you're paying for transgenic food is ultimately churned back into higher taxes because of more environmental destruction and government subsidies.
Also you have to consider the working conditions at the grocery stores versus healthfood stores. Let's just compare Whole Foods against Wal-Mart; the average wage for a "team-member" at Whole Foods is $11. Holy shit?! I wish I could get paid that money to work in produce like I do right now. Not only that, but Whole Foods offers discounts for its workers, which (as far as I know) Wal-Mart does not. My workplace doesn't even offer any discounts, even though my workplace offers a few benefits and union membership. Where do low prices come from at major retailers? Cutting hours and eliminating operating costs. It makes sense that healthfood stores would have higher prices when their workers have higher wages, more benefits, and more hours. It's not fucking rocket science.




Now let's talk about farmer's markets and the famous Westside market in Cleveland. My favorite produce stand in the Westside market, the Basketeria offers food that's organic, local, and from Amish farms that's cheaper than most produce at even my Super Wal-Mart! Organic food doesn't always necessarily cost more money, you soggy dicks.


Yes, mass-production generally makes a product cheaper - but that should just be common sense. There are plenty of unlisted costs for genetically modified food (potential crop mutation, run-off, soil degredation, health costs, subsidies, etc). Organic food doesn't necessarily cost much more to produce, so long as cover crops are planted and on-site manure is used.




Further down the article the author states that,
"The food itself is identical [which it's not], but it's prepared in such a way to conform to different philosophical standards [....] for animals it requires that they have not been kept healthy through the use of antibiotics." (Skeptoid.com)

The reasons why the animals are given antibiotics are because they're living in such close confines in such high volumes, and because of the poor diets they're fed in place of grass diets to maximize and marbelize their fat. Why the hell would I want to eat an animal that has antibiotics in its daily feed when I won't even take antibiotics myself? The diet of the animals you eat is as important as your overall diet itself, just as a grandmother's diet is ultimately a factor in a grandchild's health, wellness, and proper development. If you're in some totally hypothetical forced cannibalism, would you rather eat a guy in a "tie dyed shirt" with "long and dirty hair" who buys all his produce from local co-ops or a lardass Hell's Angel with a handlebar moustache and clogged arteries, who spends all his freetime eating bar food and drinking cheap domestic beer?

The author of the linked article then follows to say:
"All right, let's take for granted the position that major food producers deserve to be struck with a blow. I'm sure the starving millions in Africa appreciate the sentiment." (Skeptoid.com)

The hunger problem in Africa isn't entirely a result of a lack of arable land, or Americans not helping out "enough" - it's largely the result of the global marketplace. Listen and let me make my argument before anybody dismisses it:

It's a granted that different crops grow well under different conditions, correct? Certain crops demand less precipitation, use fewer or more nutrients from the soil, store carbon differently, grow well in different climates and temperature ranges. Things like corn are not meant to grow well in arid regions! If the Africans were more concerned with growing things like sorghum and bulgur they could get higher crop yields. Not to mention:

"[...] as American and European farmers were also discovering, while fertilizers were a necessary ingredient for modern high-yield agriculture, they were not sufficient to ensure its success. Although African farmers saw massive yield increases within the first few years of adopting the new techniques, in a relatively short time, something odd happened - yields fell unless farmers added steadily greater applications of nitrogen and other fertilizers. This effect was so dramatic that over the course of twenty years, a farmer would need to double his nitrogen applications simply to maintain his yields at their initial level." (The End of Food, Paul Roberts, pp.154)

What does this mean? Well, synthetic fertilizers are ammonia based. Most of that synthetic ammonia is produced using natural gas. The middle east happens to be the largest supplier of natural gas. In attempting to imitate Western growing methods they're consuming large amounts of subsidized chemical fertilizers, and creating economic dependencies upon other nations.

P.S. Now I'm not personally a buyer of all that nationalist bullshit, but if you're going to be one of those assholes who says buying weed supports the middle east (I in no way support marijuana usage, but I don't employ this particular argument) or that you're not a supporter of the current war, then how can you even think for a moment that you're blameless when you're buying transgenic crops en masse that are almost wholly dependent upon middle eastern natural gas?

The following paragraph in End of Food states:

"Why this change occurs isn't entirely clear, but research suggests that under intensive agricultural methods, soils will lose not just macronutrients - nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, which can be replenished synthetically - but the carbon-rich organic matter left over by decaying plants and animals. The organic matter is key to good crop yields. The more organic matter in the soil, the more rainwater the soil can absorb and retain [...] The problem is that soil organic matter, or SOM, can be depleted when farmers raise too many crops without replenishing nutrients with cover crops or manure or other fertilizers. And once SOM begins to fall, the soil's capacity to hold and transport synthetic nutrients also falls, which means that farmers have to add steadily more nitrogen simply to maintain their yields." (The End of Food, Paul Roberts, pp. 154-155)

The real problem is one of the same problems the United States has - monocultures and too much farm land without enough cover crops being planted. A large portion of the corn (very variable in its yields) being grown in Africa that isn't being directly consumed by its citizens is being sold on the global market. Admittedly, most nations want to bring prosperity and potential jobs to their home countries - not excluding those in Africa. Growing corn year round like the Americans is an attempt to stay healthy in the global market, along with the many cash crops native to countries like Kenya - such as coffee, tea, and pineapples. Much of their already meager crop is being sold on the global market instead of being as widely distributed to its citizens, not to mention they're the wrong crops being grown.
One problem with distribution is poor road systems. If we really wanted to help starving nations in Africa, we shouldn't just pump our leftovers onto their plates (ie. giving them a fish, instead of teaching them how to fish in that popular adage) - we should be improving their road systems and helping them build better irrigation systems. We're also not helping their economies by giving them our produce, as opposed to helping their domestic farmers and using our wealth to buy up their products; if anything we're just dragging down their prices and hurting their already struggling farmers even more. As for helping themselves, they should focus more on growing crops native to their regions and quit growing as many crops solely for competition in the global marketplace.

Brian Dunning, the writer of the skeptoid article I linked, continues by saying:

"Make no mistake, organic food is big, big business. The days when the organic produce section of the supermarket represented the product of a small local farmer are long gone. California alone produces over $600 million in organic produce, most of it coming from just five farms [...] the same producers of most non-organic food in the state." (Skeptoid.com)

At this point, the article says something that's undeniable truth - even if it's lacking in its considerations and it involves incredibly surface-level reasoning. Quoting Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan,

"All but one of the vegetables I served that night bore the label of Cal-Organic Farms, which, along with Earthbound, dominates the organic produce section in the supermarket. [...] As part of the consolidation of the organic industry, the company was acquired by Grimmway Farms, which already enjoyed a virtual monopoly in organic carrots. Unlike Earthbound, neither Grimmway nor Cal-Organic has ever been part of the organic movement. Both companies were started by conventional growers looking for a more profitable niche and worried that the state might ban certain key pesticides. [....] Philosophy, in other words, has nothing to do with it." (Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan, pp.174)

The "problem" with Dunning's article is that with its strongly anti-organic undertone, it neglects to recognize with any sort of followup that smaller organic farms still do exist. The options are still extant, with the "beyond organic" farms (like Joel Salatin's Polyface Farms) mentioned in Omnivore's Dilemma, options at local farmer's markets, most produce that comes from the Amish, and even the possibility that the reader him/herself could do small scale organic gardening. Nobody is locked into the prices that are offerred at the supermarket, and it's not our only source of food. Everybody should aspire to not be that detached from their food source by making such base assumptions.

Dunning continues to use Trader Joe's as an example of large scale organic businesses fooling their customers into thinking they're buying something from a family business atmosphere. I don't think that this is a fair assessment, because along with Whole Foods it's the largest national organic grocer. Are you really going to use that as the example? This should already be common knowledge to most people. The sad thing is, so many people think that shopping at Nature's Bin or Mustard Seed or Trader Joe's is the acme of ways they can contribute. I will partially agree with Dunning's overall theme of his article, large scale organic isn't much better than large scale transgenic - but it's still partially better, and it's still a "lesser evil." Dunning even mentions a previous argument of mine but fails to address it, by citing the starting salary for Trader Joe's supervisors. Does he not take into account that the prices we pay at the register directly affect workers' pay? Their salaries or hourly rates aren't necessarily based on profit per se, but the location's profit helps pay for labor and the allocation of more available hours. When more hours are available and workers have higher wages, prices will be higher for the customer. Honestly though, Trader Joe's is consistently one of the cheapest among its competitors - including conventional supermarkets, so they were already a poor example to use if you're trying to convey the idea that organic food is generally more expensive. Trader Joe's even placed second, only under New York's popular Wegmans, in Consumer Report's list of the best received supermarkets (based on customer satisfaction) covered in The Plain Dealer about a year ago with low price being one of its best selling points. What exactly is cheaper than Trader Joe's in Northeast Ohio, from personal experience? Marcs, Wal-Mart, Aldis, and maybe some farmers markets. That's it.

In Dunning's next paragraph, he argues that organic farming creates a breeding ground for disease like ecoli:

"Most local Chinese farming uses organic methods, in that the only fertilizers used are human and animal waste [...] In the case of China and other poor Asian nations, the reason for organic farming has less to do with ideology and more to do with lack of access to modern farming technology." (skeptoid.com)

I can't say I'm personally well read in regards to Chinese farming history, or their current farming conditions. I can say, however, that in the case of Joel Salatin's Polyface Farms, his products rated higher in food safety tests than the average farming operation. Michael Pollan states regarding imposed processing regulations that, "The specifications and costly technologies implictly assume that the animals being processed have been living in filth and eating corn rather than grass." (Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan, pp.250) How are we to not assume that Dunning is making a fallacy by assuming that it's solely their use of organic manure and not the result of poor care, poor diets of those contributing the manure (animal or human), or some other related issue? Shouldn't Joel's farms have ranked lower in food safety tests if it's solely the result of using manure, something used since the advent of agriculture? Also, are you fucking kidding me? Is that even implying that chemical fertilizer is somehow superior to organic matter, including manure?

In addition, if you're going to bitch about fermented urine being used as an organic pesticide - I'll take my pissed on produce, and you can have your carcinogens. Urine is an infinite source of ammonia, unlike natural gas. At the end of a long paragraph about naturalistic fallacy, Dunning closes by saying, "By no definition can 'all natural' mean that a product is healthful." (skeptoid.com) The coin can be reversed, and you could easily make the same statement about synethetic products - but nobody wants to question the integrity of almightly science and its crucified technology, right?

In the next paragraph, Dunning highlights conventional growers' desire to eliminate unforeseen problems by using the most efficient processes and thereby cutting operating costs, and how farming is a highly regulated industry:

"What's the best way to improve the profit margin? To buy less pesticides and fertilizer. This means they must use far more advanced and efficient products. The idea that pesticides leave dangerous residues is many decades out of date. Food production is among the most regulated and scrutinized of processes, and today's synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are completely biodegradable. They're supported by decades of studies that demonstrate their total safety." (skeptoid.com)

The problem is this, and I appologize if my response is a bit "childish" or cliched anti-corporate ramble - much of that research is funded by the producers of the pesticides in question, including Monsanto. There are loopholes that can be evaded at any corner if the money is present. Chemical runoff from farms in Iowa does travel downstream into the Gulf of Mexico and hurt biodiversity. Chemical fertilizer does degrade soil quality, and as I already stated in my discussion of Africa - can ultimately strike demand for placement of greater amounts of fertilizer. I can understand that proponents of organic farming that bring up health concerns regarding chemical residue can be a bit questionable in their sources (chances are a good source would be hard to find anyways, since most studies would be funded in the interests of larger chemical companies), and it's nothing that I'd actively use in my arsenal and expect to be taken seriously. I personally wouldn't put those thoughts too far out of the realm of possibility, but I wouldn't expect them to be key striking points in any argument. If you're comfortable supporting the use of chemical fertilizers that degrade soil quality, maybe not always directly but at least by not returning macronutrients into the soil through organic matter or cover crops, then be happy furthering our dependence upon other countries (including those that most Americans rally at any chance to hate in the middle east). I'm not an opponent of the middle east, but I am a strong supporter of a country producing as many of its commodities as possible, slashing the amount of imported goods, and creating domestic jobs wherever possible. Plus the transport of all those transgenic crops alone is less sustainable, because all of that chemical fertilizer has to be shipped from an offsite source.

One of Dunning's final contentions is that organic farming is ultimately worse for the environment, since it requires more acreage. Well, let's just step back for a second and consider all of the land that's used to grow inedible type 2 corn for byproducts, including ethanol, chemical preservatives, animal feed, and most importantly high fructose corn syrup. Let's also consider all of the rainforests that are being tore down to grow soybeans. Well, last time I checked - soybeans are a very effective cover crop, and pull nutrients (including nitrogen) back into the soil. How about we cut back on the production of inedible corn at least a few months of the year, and instead plant those soybeans we're tearing down rainforest to cultivate? How about we just cut back on the amount of subsidized, inedible corn produced period, and instead plant more edible plants? How about we cut the subsidy programs altogether and give incentive to grow other crops? Ethanol, preservatives, animal feed, and HFCS are all fucking horrible things to begin with - and I hate thinking that so much of my nation's soil is used to produce corn that's stripped down to any one of the four.

Farming should be a small scale operation that isn't stigmatized or associated with negative stereotypes. More educated people should be farmers, and thereby quit being cronies for corporate interest, and sell more of their product at local farmers markets (thusly eliminating storage time, transportation costs, and create a friendly and personal atmosphere). We should also have more of our workforce willing to be farmhands.

I'm well aware that we're on the verge of another food system collapse and another mass starvation. It's very idealistic of me to assume that with our current overpopulation issue that any drastic change could occur anytime soon without consumers demanding their surpluses. Cuba is able to have a self sustaining food system, and China has made a valiant attempt despite its astronomical overpopulation problem. We, as a nation, need to band together and eat less food (meat in particular), put more preparation into our diets and place less emphasis on convenience, form self sustaining farmers market networks in every state, and quit shopping at supermarkets (I'll excuse you if I'm put out of a job because my workplace isn't seeing enough profit). It's a slight possibility within my lifetime, and a definite fallback if a mass starvation does occur. Transgenic farming is simply not sustainable. Energy is lost when you're using chemical fertilizers, since they're highly dependent upon a finite resource. Manure, on the other hand, can be fueled via the sun energy that grows the grass that feeds the cows. You're only complicating issues by attempting to mask one mistake caused by technology with a newer technological fix that has its own set of problems. Technology did not die for our sins, it has its comfortable seat in Hades contemplating more ways to fuck over our species and, unfortunately, planet.

Also, for the record, organic produce is healthier by at least one reputable study:

"A study by University of California-Davis researchers published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols. [...] The Davis researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols. [...] Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain significantly more of these compounds? The authors of the Davis study haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggestive theories. The reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend themselves against pests and disease; the more pressure from pathogens, the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made pesticides don't need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the plants see no reason to invest their resources in mounting a strong defense." (Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan, pp.179-180)

Which makes perfect sense.

Entry #13: Plums (Cleveland Appreciation Pt.1)

How can something so wonderful taste so mediocre when it goes through what's typically a beneficial process? Dried fruits regularly rule. Dried strawberries, dried mango, dried papaya? All of that shit is fucking delicious. I'm of course talking about prunes being the black sheep of dried fruits.
I don't know the deal with them and why they're so popular with the elderly - there are other, tastier sources of insoluble fiber including dark leafy greens (hello last entry, dandelion greens?) and whole wheat products. I always thought it was a stereotype, but after working in produce long enough I can verify that it's fucking truth. There's one dude who used to regularly come into the store who'd always ask where the prunes were (even though they never sprouted feet and fucking moved, to my knowledge) and then he'd sit in the fucking cafe for an hour. He'd always read my nametag and repeat my name in the most grating, obnoxious manner. "Okay, Robert." Shit got so obnoxious so quickly. Note for the customers - calling me by my first name pisses me the fuck off and makes me more paranoid than a 13 year old kid trying to jerk off at a family computer. If you're calling me by my first name, I assume you're trying to drill it into your memory so you can report me for some trivial bullshit at a later time; it makes me feel like I'm on display.
Back to the prunes: once in Jr. High my home economics teacher offered to give me extra time on a project if I ate a prune. I hated it. Of course, back then I ate tons of Burger King and Wendys bullshit and limited my diet to shit high in sodium and fat. I'm not trying to sound like a snob, but after not eating meat for the longest time I really became more appreciative of food in general - because I didn't limit myself to what was cheap and convenient.
I figured last Tuesday that I'd get some paczki for paczki day and thought maybe now I'd have some prune tolerance. Nope, prune still taste like dick cheese. Actually, the prune filling reminded me slightly of sesame filling in pastries, but a lot worse.
So speaking of paczkis - how many of you assholes had paczkis on paczki day? When I was a little kid I used to get something like them at Ritos Bakery in Parma.
European food rules. I used to always get kolaches at Ritos, and I used to get pierogies from St. Josaphats. When I was living in Tucson I couldn't find a single pierogi that wasn't Mrs.Ts, and I was hard-pressed to find a good kolache or European bakery for that matter.
People are total dickwads to even suggest that the Southwest is somehow superior to the Midwest, because you're near the border and have access to good Mexican food; as far as my knowledge goes, good Mexican food is all over - but good European food only has its pockets in some of the more culturally diverse cities. Give me pierogies made by old Slovak grandmas or give me death. The West Side market also has great fucking pierogies, especially the sweet and sour red cabbage pierogies.
Next weekend I'm hopefully entering a pierogi eating contest at a local bar that puts on most of the good punk and hardcore shows in the city. I can't wait to wear my "I [heart] Parma" shirt, dance to "Who Stole the Kishka?," and eat pierogies until I puke. Maybe I'll even win money.
European food and cultural diversity are the first reason Cleveland rules.

Entry #12: Dandelion Greens

If I had the resources to become incredibly educated on one single family or group of fruits or vegetables, I would love to learn about all commonly sold greens. Greens are a great group of vegetables, and are usually good sources of minerals like iron and calcium that people usually employ in arguments against vegetarianism/veganism by claiming they're hard to come by without meat and dairy products. I never gave dandelion greens a thought until an old Italian woman came in my work asking about "straight endive" and was apparently mistaking dandelion for a variation of endive. Again, like I said in a previous entry - European ladies always rule. Since it was a relatively slow day, I curiously asked how she uses her greens. Her recommendation was cooking them with olive oil and putting them underneath pasta or serving them as a side dish. Hell, I'm a huge fan of kales, spinach, arugula, and turnip greens - so I wasn't very apprehensive about trying a new and unfamiliar green.

Once I got off work I bought two pounds of vine tomatoes, a white onion, basil, and a bunch of dandelion greens. I figured I'd make a second attempt at making pasta sauce from scratch (my last attempt resulted in really thick and seedy sauce that tasted way too "earthy" and bland). Of course my fucking workplace gave my pockets a wallet-raping, and the total bill was $12.34. The greens were surprisingly the least expensive item, ringing up at around $2.03.

Everybody I ask, including that Italian woman, tells me that I need to buy crushed or diced tomatoes in a can to make pasta sauce. This kind of pisses me off, because I don't want my shit coming from a can full of preservatives and all tons of other fuck. I was stubborn and again tried putting my tomatoes in a blender and just slow cooking out all the moisture.
I made a base with my garlic basil olive oil and the onion; meanwhile, I put the tomatoes (this time I gutted most of them so I wouldn't have as much excess water and seeds), basil, seasalt, black pepper, fresh garlic, a single mint leaf, and a sprinkle of sugar in the blender. After the base was finished and the onions were a little browned, I poured the contents of the blender in with the base. I cut up a carrot and put it in the mixture, figuring it would add a little bit of nutritional value. After about 2 hours of cooking it was at where I'd consider it finished, and I started cooking the pasta and the greens (separately, of course).

Apparently I'm a shitty fucking chef, and I just throw tons of shit together like I'm tossing paint on a canvass and expecting results. My sauce tasted like fish dick, and was even more bland than last time. The greens were very bitter, and the olive oil was too heavy. On a whole, the entire experience was a failure, even if I made a relatively nutritious meal and I kept myself productive.

For random scientific information, I looked up a few bits of nutritional information from credible online sources. I feel like I'm fucking Alton Brown and I need to impart some sort of "scientific" information unknown to the audience at large.
I searched the CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) database, and I got links to http://www.nutritiondata.com/ and http://www.allnatural.net/.

The former states that 1 cup of chopped dandelion only has 24.7 calories and 41.8 mgs of sodium (compare that to the 1,000mgs+ that you'll find in bullshit processed foods like ramen), but also has 8% of your daily recommended fiber, 112% vitamin A, 535% vitamin K, and has good amounts of plenty of vitamins and minerals across the board including 10% of your daily recommended calcium and 9% of your recommended iron. Dandelion greens certainly aren't any sort of superfood like spirulina, but they have a little of a lot, kind of like sprouts.

For the latter link, dandelion greens have been used as a diuretic and as an appetite stimulant. Their French name is pissenlit, meaning "wet the bed," and their high potassium content compensates for the frequent urination they induce. They're also used as a mild laxative. I may have to brush myself up on the topic, but I'm pretty sure dandelion is used in plenty of Naturopathic remedies.


In conclusion, even though the food I made tasted like a bitter asshole, dandelion greens are definitely something worth checking out. I'm going to try and incorporate them in more recipes, and try and learn to use them properly. I also want to start foraging my own greens.

Entry #11: Guy Fieri

I've never met a single living person who actually openly likes Guy Fieri. Guy represents so many cheesy, dickbag stereotypes in one conveniently gelled and styled package.
Today at work, my coworker and I stood around and thought of different stereotypes associated with people similar to Guy. Honestly, if you took "I Just Saw the Gayest Guy on Earth" by Anal Cunt and shifted the lyrical focus from Massachusetts to California, you'd have a song very fitting for Guy Fieri.

Guy Fieri is totally the type of dude who has an entire closet full of fucking bowling shirts; chances are half of his shirts, bowling shirts included, have flame, 8 ball, or dragon imagery. You know that episode of Tim and Eric Awesome Show with their alter-personas Jim and Derrick? Remember the skit about tattoos? Yeah, totally Guy Fieri. Chances are Guy Fieri has literally fucking sat around contemplating tribal tattoos (if he doesn't have a few already). He's also the kind of person who goes to Chilis and orders mojitos and drinks lite beer. When he's at Chilis he probably pinches the waitress' ass, and refers to girls as "chicks" or "babes" and talks about sex stories with his male workout buddies (altough his idea of "working out" is probably drinking Muscle Milk and sitting on leg presses checking out "babes"). Guy has a classic car and probably has little or no knowledge regarding its maintenance. If Guy wasn't a famous chef, he'd be the customer who comes in asking for "guacamoles."
Nearly every recipe I've watched on his show somehow incorporates avocado or ginger. He's almost as one dimensional as Bobby Flay, who always tries his best to make any recipe into some "Southwestern" clusterfuck. Guy's "cooking style" seems to be fruitty Californian bar food.
I would place bets that Guy is the kind of dude who stocks up on chips and salsa for Superbowl Sunday and it's the only day of the entire year he actually watches football. Instead, he probably watches "extreme" sports and the winter Olympics.
Whenever you're at the store and you see those goofy fucking $30 "sleek" sunglasses with yellow tinted lenses that make you wonder, "who the fuck would buy that?" Guy Fieri is who would buy that. To sum up my article thus far, Guy represents nearly everything cheesy and lame that gives California a negative image (in the same respects Family Guy gives atheists a negative image). As far as the West Coast, Guy truly is "The Gayest Guy on Earth." If any of the aforementioned stereotypes apply to you as the reader, then you have a very "Fieri" personality and you should probably go back to scouting for chicks in bars and drinking Natty Ice.

Guy is yet another reason why California sucks.

Entry #10: Plantains

This entry isn't the result of an ignorant or inconsiderate customer, nor is the following entry resulting from my like or dislike of plantains. I rarely ever use fucking plantains, if ever. I've had plantain chips before, like from Trader Joe's or homemade ones doled (pun was totally intentional) out to the class during diversity projects in high school.
No, I'm making room for this entry to openly criticize Seth McFarlane, Family Guy, and its followers and fanbase. I'm still convinced that in some circle of hell, there's the most god awful fucking movie to ever exist being readied for the servants of hell. In this movie, titled "Young Santa," it stars Will Farrell as a teenage son of Santa, preparing himself for his first year carrying out his father's duties. John C. Reilly is the voice of Rudolph, and there are cameo appearances from Dave Chappelle and Dane Cook. One of the main protagonists would be Michael Cera starring as an awkward youth whose only desired Christmas present is true love. The entire script would be written by Seth McFarlane and it would be popping out the seams with tons of anti-Christianity jokes and totally predictable atheist ramblings. Of course all the fucking demons are rubbing their fiendish hands, just awaiting for Seth to be damned to start writing this script.
Last night I was watching an episode of Family Guy, season 3 episode 5, aptly titled "And the Weiner is..." The episode is basically about Peter discovering that his son Chris has a bigger dick than him. The true weiner in this episode is Seth McFarlane. When the Griffins are at the supermarket, Chris picks up a bunch of nino bananas and comments on how small they are. Of course Peter relates the bananas to penis length and takes Chris' comment as an indirect insult. The dialogue goes as follows:

Chris: Dad, look at these little bananas!
Peter: You smug little bastard!
Lois: Peter! Chris, these are plantains. And there's nothing wrong with them. In fact, a lot of women prefer them to normal-size bananas because they're exotic and flavorful and very special.
Peter: Sure, Lois. All the sorority girls are clamoring for the plantain section. Stop with this!

The problem lies in the fact that they're not fucking plantains. I feel like such a fraud because I have to consult wikipedia whenever I'm unsure of something that demands immediate information. Sometime in the near future I should probably invest in some sort of botanical dictionary. Anyways, there are hundreds of variations of bananas. Apparently banana and plantain can be used interchangably in most situations (since there is "no formal botanical distinction between bananas and plantains"). One variation of plantain is the bocadillo plantain. I can't find any information here online on whether or not bocadillo plantains are synonymous with nino/baby bananas. For my own benefit I may try and go to the library soon and get a conclusive answer. Regardless, we're arguing conventions in nomenclature and identification. If they're synonymous and there's no distinction, are we to go by precedence or popularity? In this case, I'm opting popularity. The smaller bananas are popularly known as either baby bananas or nino bananas, and when somebody thinks of a plantain they typically think of the longer, more spotted bananas used almost universally for cooking. If bocadillo plantains are indeed something entirely independent of nino bananas and they are in fact not synonymous I doubt that fictional grocery store would carry them. Most grocery stores carry only "plantains," nino/baby bananas, Cavendish bananas (standard "bananas"), red bananas, and burro or Chinese bananas if you're lucky; it's very unlikely some major grocer in Rhode Island would carry some exotic fucking bastard son of plantain.

Back on the topic of Family Guy: nearly every opinion expressed on the show is recycled dog shit that publicly gives reason for people to dislike self-proclaimed atheists. It's like Seth McFarlane uses the show as a vehicle for his opinions on topical issues, and he's somewhere in Hollywood slowly stroking his own dick at the very thought of his opinions somehow being groundbreaking or insightful. At least Trey Parker and Matt Stone somehow serve up opinions on current issues that may not be entirely obvious to the general American population. Oh yeah Seth? Christians are "hypocrites," abortion is a woman's choice, abstinence education is detrimental to our children, marijuana should be smoked by everybody, war is "stupid" and our current situation in the Middle East is based entirely on oil, politicians are susceptible to greed, and the Dark Ages' lack of scientific progress was solely the result of dogmatic Christian censorship? Either Seth wrote the entire book on edgy, predictable liberalism, or he stole Jon Stewart's notes.
I don't want to argue any of these points because they're either incredibly surface-level interpretations of current issues, or they're so blatantly obvious and yet somehow wrapped in the pretense of self importance that they're not even worth debating.

Seth McFarlane gives yet another bad source of information to cite for obnoxious, proud atheists.

Entry #9: Bagged Salad

Bagged salads are possibly one of the largest rip-offs to ever exist, at least of those fresh on my mind. The only products I can think of in the produce department that even compare are those plastic containers shaped like garlic cloves or tomatoes that you keep your respective vegetables in to keep "fresh." My biggest peeve regarding bagged salads is when people pay as much money for a small fucking bag of shredded iceberg as they would for a large head probably three times its weight. I know it's only a dollar and some change that you're wasting, but are you honestly that much of a lazy fucking dickhead to not just get a large knife and chop a head of iceberg yourself? Actually, listen to my older entry and just skip the iceberg altogether. The only excuse for chopped iceberg is Mexican food, and in which case I'd probably have more fun chopping the fuck out of a large head of lettuce, plus I wouldn't have to buy two fucking bags to not run out.
I also hate the American blend salad, and I think it's the equivalent of buying a factory sealed bag of hard brown floaters; the American blend salad is just iceberg, radish, and carrots. If you can find yourself some italian dressing you can have yourself a salad from Olive Garden or a side salad from Wendys. Fucking fantastic.
Most of the bagged salads are made of up cheap ingredients, other than the Parisian blend with frisee. One other exception is the popular Italian blend, which is actually one of the relatively better deals since it has endive in it and it's among the cheapest salads. Bagged salads however, on a whole, still represent a major wallet fucking and the small population that I referenced in a previous entry that believe salads are the only healthy thing you can eat. They sell so fucking quickly and people toss the fuck out of the bags. I constantly have to put misplaced salads into their proper feeders, since customers have to toss a salad they second guessed into the feeder immediately below where it goes - because it's an inconvenience to reach a few inches higher and place it in its proper fucking place. The worst is when customers throw bagged salads ontop of potatoes or in random unrefridgerated places. Dicks.
Right now I'm pretty "salty" because I have cuts all over my right arm from shoving salads behind the feeders. I get really antsy when there are tons of customers crowding my space, and I just shove salads in their feeders as quickly and carelessly as possible. Every customer thinks I'm obligated to step back every time one of them wants through the aisle, instead of walking a few feet away and taking another clear path. Nope, their path has to somehow involve them being intrusive in my work.
Bagged salads bother me on a deeper level, because they are a perfect manifestation of the pampered, powdered, and dick-rubbed lives of convenience that Americans simply cannot abandon. All of those conveniences tallied up are a key contributer to our high obesity rates, and by opting convenience over slow and hard work you're theoretically encouraging obesity. So next time somebody wants to bitch about "fat people" or complain about them being slobs and having no discipline or self restraint, take a step back you asshole and quit buying bagged salads. Real talk.

On an unrelated note, let's take a moment to root for the Cleveland Cavaliers. The Saints just won the superbowl, and the Cavaliers could make this year a double franchise cherry popping. I believe we have all the pieces, and if we end up losing it'll be because of some intangible like a lack of confidence or not being playoff/championship ready. I have an inkling that at least Mo Williams will be the type to choke. The pop vendors at my work made this display, and it rules.

Entry #8: Cleaning

The following entry may end up being one of the shortest entries I'll ever write. It's not often that I'll say anything adverse about my workplace, incase it somehow finds this blog and my job is jeopardized. My work does relatively more beneficial things for the community than most larger grocers. As I already stated in a previous entry, my work offers a few local options including local produce (zucchini, eggplant, yellow squash, tomatoes, pumpkins, green beans, etc.), Cleveland tofu, breads from local European bakeries, Janka brand pierogies and blintzes, and a few other "authentic European" items of Ohio origin and a few brands that may possibly be larger but are still located here in Ohio. My workplace is also pro-union, offers dental insurance and miminal eyeglass insurance, and treats its workers relatively well.
That all being said, it's pretty fucking dumb that corporate requires standardized chemicals be used for cleaning purposes. Back at the last location I worked at, I cleaned using lemon juice. That shit was natural and didn't harm product. Today I was cleaning a table underneath some clementines, and because our regional supervisor was in the store I had to use "citrus" cleaning chemical. It says this shit is "natural," but it also says that it's not to make direct contact with any product. I personally find it fucked up that I have to clean with unsafe-for-human-consumption chemicals just because our company is too worried about shrink to squish a few lemons.

On a lighter note, we sell aspiration in the produce department. Who ever said that working in retail was a dead-end job?

Entry #7: Lines

Every post thus far on this blog has had some event or catalyst that caused me to write each entry. Earlier today I just got back from hanging out with my friends for a few days and had absolutely no money left on my person. Normally I don't carry my wallet or anything like a credit card or debit card, and the cash that I do carry is usually under $30. I feel like it's a safety precaution, and it also prevents me from overspending. I'm 6'1'', 220lbs - so the dumb motherfucker who actually would try and jump me without a gun would probably only get a twenty spot for all the hassle.
Anyways, I ran out of cash. I decided, since it's Thursday, to stop by my work and pick up my paycheck - so I could pay for something to eat before heading home. So I'm off the bus and back into my neighborhood at around 2:30pm, and upon arrival my work has a fucking line for customer service all the way to the fucking door. It was two fucking thirty, on a Thursday. That means most adults are working and most kids are still in school. The entire line was senior citizens or people in handicapped carts buying fucking cigarettes. Fucking cigarettes!
Lots of people will get pissed at me, but fuck cigarettes all the way to hell. Not only is it shitty to be buying cigarettes, and it's shitty to be in line at customer service for anything other than a return of an outdated or damaged product, cashing in a lottery ticket, or picking up a paycheck - but you can buy cigarettes at any fucking lane. It's not only restricted to the customer service line, you geriatric pricks. If you're buying cigarettes in any other lane the cashier will walk over to customer service and walk back with whatever you want; all you're doing by standing in line for customer service is wasting valuable time for people with legitimate concerns.

What else pisses me off about lines? I hate self checkout lanes and their popularity. If it's not past midnight, I feel like a total douche using self checkout. Self checkout lanes are putting people out of jobs; people who say otherwise are fucking morons, considering it only takes one worker to monitor every self checkout.
Putting people out of jobs is one of the shittiest things a person can do. It's like asshole customers who file complaints or write letter/email complaints. Why don't you risk being confrontational and just tell the worker in question what you're displeased with, instead of playing some sneaky roundabout ninja shit and fucking them preemptively. Every person who's ever made another person lose their job due to some self important customer complaint should be placed in an oven like they used in the holocaust. Not that anybody reads this blog, but incase: I don't condone the holocaust, shut the fuck up.