Comments on: Rhinocrisy Guide to Being Evil, part I http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/rhinocrisy-guide-to-being-evil-part-i/ Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:33:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: card consolidate consolidate credit debt http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/rhinocrisy-guide-to-being-evil-part-i/#comment-24647 card consolidate consolidate credit debt Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:11:29 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=547#comment-24647 <strong>download free hindi ringtones...</strong> These credit card application on line le poker en réseau gratuites... download free hindi ringtones…

These credit card application on line le poker en réseau gratuites…

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/rhinocrisy-guide-to-being-evil-part-i/#comment-528 Anonymous Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:53:42 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=547#comment-528 Ya think this is an American problem? <a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4646942.stm" REL="nofollow">Soda makers in the EU have agreed to tone down marketing</a>  to kids and in schools (unless the $chool board$ agree). As <a HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/international/europe/25obese.html?ex=1295845200&en=62437468eaf6ef08&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss" REL="nofollow">this Times article on obesity in France reports</a>, however, big food has fought legislation regulating ads:<br/><br/>But the backlash from the food industry and a lack of political will has made it impossible to impose changes in advertising. More drastic legislation was rejected by Parliament, including health warnings on the packages of unhealthy foods, much like alcohol and cigarette warnings; a proposal to force restaurants to display nutrition and calorie information on their menus; and an outright ban on television advertisements for unhealthy products.<br/><br/><br/> <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu" REL="nofollow" TITLE="misschan at gmail dot com">echan</a> Ya think this is an American problem? Soda makers in the EU have agreed to tone down marketing  to kids and in schools (unless the $chool board$ agree). As this Times article on obesity in France reports, however, big food has fought legislation regulating ads:

But the backlash from the food industry and a lack of political will has made it impossible to impose changes in advertising. More drastic legislation was rejected by Parliament, including health warnings on the packages of unhealthy foods, much like alcohol and cigarette warnings; a proposal to force restaurants to display nutrition and calorie information on their menus; and an outright ban on television advertisements for unhealthy products.

 

Posted by echan

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/rhinocrisy-guide-to-being-evil-part-i/#comment-527 Anonymous Wed, 25 Jan 2006 04:41:04 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=547#comment-527 I once spent time in rural Brazil, where I saw someone who had grown up on a cane plantation. He had no teeth. He was 8. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="rhinocrisy.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">hedgey</a> I once spent time in rural Brazil, where I saw someone who had grown up on a cane plantation. He had no teeth. He was 8. 

Posted by hedgey

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/rhinocrisy-guide-to-being-evil-part-i/#comment-526 Anonymous Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:05:15 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=547#comment-526 Here we go. The markets must think Kellogs and Nickleodeon will win---c<a HREF="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1383870.cms" REL="nofollow">ommodity markets reached a 25-year sugar high </a> . Though I don't know if high-fructose corn syrup trades in Chicago.  <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://ssrdatta.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="sahelidatta at hotmail dot com">Saheli</a> Here we go. The markets must think Kellogs and Nickleodeon will win—commodity markets reached a 25-year sugar high  . Though I don’t know if high-fructose corn syrup trades in Chicago.  

Posted by Saheli

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/rhinocrisy-guide-to-being-evil-part-i/#comment-525 Anonymous Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:59:15 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=547#comment-525 and if you play it backwards it sounds like spongepop tartpants. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a>david and if you play it backwards it sounds like spongepop tartpants. 

Posted by david

]]> By: Saheli http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/rhinocrisy-guide-to-being-evil-part-i/#comment-524 Saheli Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:01:19 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=547#comment-524 I found the official pop-tarts website astonishingly overwrought and uninformative, but a venture into the real world for some antibiotics yesterday walked me past a display of doubleberry pop-tarts on sale (I love how the <i>excess</i>  junk food is right next to the sick-people supplies.) My Dad's eyes bugged out when I told him to hold on and picked up a box--I could see him thinking that I had definitely lost it. I didn't even bother reading the ingredients--besides the elementals Suarabh mentioned (<a HREF="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309017" REL="nofollow">mmm</a> , <a HREF="http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_becondensate.html" REL="nofollow">Rubidium</a>), I distinctly recall falling prey to pop-mart marketing back in the early 90s, and immediately discovering that of course it was <i>verboten</i>. (One of the advantages of imposing <a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/2005/10/edge-cases.html" REL="nofollow">seemingly arbitrary but fairly strict and sentiment-powered dietary regulations</a> on your children is that they end up eating a hell of a lot less processed food than most people, <i>even</i> if they watch a lot of Nickleodeon.) Instead I found the 17 grams of sugar I was looking for--comparable to <a HREF="http://www.kelloggs.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/product.pl?product=579&company=3" REL="nofollow">a bowl of Mueslix,</a> right? Except I really doubt anyone actually eats only one pop-tart for breakfast (versus one bowl of Mueslix), especially when they seem to come in industrial-strength packages of two. Reminded me of the <a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/2005/08/potato-chip-miracles-and-public-health.html" REL="nofollow">Canadian border-crossing diet trick</a>. <br/><br/>Coming home from one of the homelands of sugarcane, where I was lovingly fed extra bowls of aromatic fresh date-palm sap--the extra to make up for the doses <i>not</i> consumed by diabetic or near-diabetic relatives--I can't completely blame rising sugar consumption on modern American marketing. What does seem particularly more evil to me are two subtle differences in marketing. In India child-food-products seem to be still mainly marketed to mothers, not directly to children, hawking nutritional value--dubious nutritional value, which is its own evil, but in principle, nutritional value. Here, we do two things--we market directly to children--making them into obnoxious grocery-store companions and whiners--and we also convince parents that their children <i>simply won't eat</i> unless their food is covered in sugar. Having been raised on PBS and bitter melon, I am continually amazed when children arrive at my house and their parents go through all kinds of contortions to feed them exactly what they want to eat. WTF? They're children. They don't get to do whatever they want to do. That's what makes becoming a grown-up remotely bearable. <br/><br/>I offer up <a HREF="http://www.amyskitchen.com/products/category_view.php?prod_category=6" REL="nofollow">these</a> as a substitute for starving grad students facing stomach collapse, but I think I will continue to try following the famous advice of the <a HREF="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~cfarivar/blog/archives/000190.html" REL="nofollow">Columbia J-school Prof, Sig Gissler</a>: "Oatmeal is the only food they haven't fucked up.'"<br/><br/>I'll also refrain from showing indignation at the suggestion that we don't produce adaquate amounts of evil, and instead think of creative ways of better demonstrating my malevolent capacities in comments. :-)  <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://ssrdatta.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="sahelidatta at hotmail dot com">Saheli</a> I found the official pop-tarts website astonishingly overwrought and uninformative, but a venture into the real world for some antibiotics yesterday walked me past a display of doubleberry pop-tarts on sale (I love how the excess  junk food is right next to the sick-people supplies.) My Dad’s eyes bugged out when I told him to hold on and picked up a box–I could see him thinking that I had definitely lost it. I didn’t even bother reading the ingredients–besides the elementals Suarabh mentioned (mmm , Rubidium), I distinctly recall falling prey to pop-mart marketing back in the early 90s, and immediately discovering that of course it was verboten. (One of the advantages of imposing seemingly arbitrary but fairly strict and sentiment-powered dietary regulations on your children is that they end up eating a hell of a lot less processed food than most people, even if they watch a lot of Nickleodeon.) Instead I found the 17 grams of sugar I was looking for–comparable to a bowl of Mueslix, right? Except I really doubt anyone actually eats only one pop-tart for breakfast (versus one bowl of Mueslix), especially when they seem to come in industrial-strength packages of two. Reminded me of the Canadian border-crossing diet trick.

Coming home from one of the homelands of sugarcane, where I was lovingly fed extra bowls of aromatic fresh date-palm sap–the extra to make up for the doses not consumed by diabetic or near-diabetic relatives–I can’t completely blame rising sugar consumption on modern American marketing. What does seem particularly more evil to me are two subtle differences in marketing. In India child-food-products seem to be still mainly marketed to mothers, not directly to children, hawking nutritional value–dubious nutritional value, which is its own evil, but in principle, nutritional value. Here, we do two things–we market directly to children–making them into obnoxious grocery-store companions and whiners–and we also convince parents that their children simply won’t eat unless their food is covered in sugar. Having been raised on PBS and bitter melon, I am continually amazed when children arrive at my house and their parents go through all kinds of contortions to feed them exactly what they want to eat. WTF? They’re children. They don’t get to do whatever they want to do. That’s what makes becoming a grown-up remotely bearable.

I offer up these as a substitute for starving grad students facing stomach collapse, but I think I will continue to try following the famous advice of the Columbia J-school Prof, Sig Gissler: “Oatmeal is the only food they haven’t fucked up.’”

I’ll also refrain from showing indignation at the suggestion that we don’t produce adaquate amounts of evil, and instead think of creative ways of better demonstrating my malevolent capacities in comments. :-)  

Posted by Saheli

]]> By: Sandry http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/rhinocrisy-guide-to-being-evil-part-i/#comment-523 Sandry Sun, 22 Jan 2006 01:26:58 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=547#comment-523 That's not the world's most clear description of pop tarts. If I weren't familiar with the product in question, I'd've assumed they were a lot more three dimensional than they actually are.<br/><br/>Um. I am, of course, aware that your primary intention was a completely factual description. *cough cough* Yes. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a>Sandry That’s not the world’s most clear description of pop tarts. If I weren’t familiar with the product in question, I’d've assumed they were a lot more three dimensional than they actually are.

Um. I am, of course, aware that your primary intention was a completely factual description. *cough cough* Yes. 

Posted by Sandry

]]>