Wow, this is giving me flashbacks to my dissertation chair's comments: "First half of short sentence that introduces concept (EXPLAIN THIS!), and second half that explains concept. (OK!)" Read the whole sentence before commenting, argh!
@Beaks I agree. The problem is the ambiguity. "Everyone" knows it means bad, scary, artificial things, which are the opposite of "natural" things, but which things are those? If I like vitamins, are added vitamins chemicals or not? What if I didn't want them added to my food, even though they have nutritional value? What about "natural" coloring? Is it always a bad chemical, or is it sometimes okay? Etc. Everyone knows what she means, but everyone draws the line somewhere different. Since she is supposed to giving us expert advice about what is healthy and what isn't, I'd expect something less ambiguous.
@muralgirl I meant mega-healthy. Oops. Missed the edit window.
@crocuta Yes. That means nothing. Cheetos are a bunch of chemicals mixed together with other chemicals on top of them. So is organic vegan paleo meg-healthy soup.
On "At what other moment in history would it have been plausible for a serial killer to identify middle-aged white men as his most vulnerable targets?"
@Megasus I agree. And not even just then. There have always been disgruntled, poor (white) men. And this mythical age when families were all stable and eternal never existed.
I think the show is worth criticizing for its classism (and materialism to a lesser extent - that's often code for criticizing its femininity). But this article is great, and I agree that one of the most valuable things about the show is that it has relatable female characters who are not designed to be attractive to male viewers. Well, straight male viewers. That should be specified. How many other TV shows are like that? Also, I think it does a good job of showing female relationships in a deep and sometimes uncomfortable/painful way. It also has some of the most believable dialogue out there. So while it has flaws (basically almost anything that made it into the movies), I think the author here makes a good point about it not deserving the mockery its has collected.
There's an amazing story by Pliny the Younger (also ancient Roman, nephew of the Elder) about a dolphin in North Africa who makes friends with some children and lets them ride it, etc. The local people think he's some kind of divine creature, and so they lure him up to shore and pour perfumes on him as an offering, which makes him sick. He recovers eventually, though, and becomes a popular attraction. In the end, the villagers decide to kill the dolphin, because they are so annoyed by all the tourists who keep showing up and eating all their food and messing up their town. Not very good capitalists, those folks.
@laurel Fair enough, and that's an important part of a curator's job, I guess. But they are also supposed to be expert-type people, so I think he could have struck some middle ground where he brought up the Egyptian religious beliefs and talked about it being cool without saying, basically, "No, science is wrong, spirits." Because one of the functions of museums is letting people learn, right? We could learn about freaky science AND Egypt.
The part that scares me the most is that they have a curator who can't understand a non-mystical explanation for this. Uneven base + vibrations. Unless he's just trying to drum up publicity?
@PatatasBravas These are really comfortable, but it looks like there aren't many sizes/colors left: http://www.dsw.com/shoe/bc+footwear+pompom+pump?prodId=247962