Posts Tagged what the fuck
Give Peace A Chance
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Money and Marketing on August 23rd, 2010
Watch this video.
Fuck this tea.

This tea is pissing on John Lennon’s grave, and the memory of every hippie who stood up to oppose war in the name of capitalism and imperialism. For the record, I have looked for examples that this tea is using the word peace as more than just an advertising slogan. I have looked for works of altruism and activism that they have performed. Nothing. Just perverted quotes about peace from leaders like John Lennon and Martin Luther King. If I believed in sacrilege, this tea would be it.
Peace tea company is whoring out the corpse of the hippie movement, and when you buy and consume peace tea, you are the John.
Muffin Critique
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Food on April 8th, 2010
A web page using a plug-in to auto-generate “related posts” created a ping-back to my previous post about how to recognize a Muffin. The web page contained a recipe for raisin bran muffins and, I assume, some ads, although I wouldn’t know because I use the free and easy-to-use AdBlock Plus plug-in for Firefox, which means I basically never see web-based advertising.
I read the recipe, and though it was worthy of critique. I should note, before I begin, that I haven’t actually made the recipe, so my critique is entirely theoretical. If you think that’ll stop me, you haven’t been reading very long.
Preheat oven to 400°F/200°C. Grease 18 standard muffin cups with butter or butter-flavored nonstick cooking spray; fill the unused cups one-third full with water to prevent warping.
Let me just start off by saying that all muffin recipes should make multiples of 12 muffins, because all muffin pans made since the beginning of history have held 12 muffins. Yes, I know there are mini-muffin tins and giant-muffin tins, but the standard muffin tin has 12 muffins. If I’m going to make 18 muffins, it’s no more trouble to make 24 and fill the second pan. Who the hell says, “12 muffins… not enough, but 24… too many! I’ll make 18!”
In a bowl, stir together the flour, bran flakes, raisins, wheat germ, baking soda, baking powder and salt.
So far so good. The dry ingredients get mixed together, per Alton’s Muffin Method.
In another bowl, using an electric mixer on medium speed or a wooden spoon, cream together the butter, brown sugar and honey until fluffy.
You may have seen the instruction, “cream together butter and sugar,” and wondered what it meant. Creaming is a process whereby sugar is gradually beaten into butter that is just barely soft, but not runny. What happens is that the sharp edges of the sugar crystals create lots and lots of tiny “seed bubbles” of air in the butter. These “seed bubbles” expand during baking to create the kind of tender, fine-grained texture of a good cake. Now then, you can cream granulated white sugar and you can cream brown sugar, but what you absolutely cannot cream is a liquid, because there are no crystals, and hence no sharp edges to create seed bubbles. And a liquid is what honey is. So right off the bat, the recipe’s author reveals a lack of understanding of what it means to “cream,” a basic baking technique. I am immediately suspicious of the recipe!
Beat in the yogurt, then the buttermilk and vanilla, until well blended and smooth.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why the recipe calls for both unflavored yogurt and buttermilk. My experience has been that the two are totally interchangeable in basically all recipes. If you were to eat or drink them by the spoonful, you could tell the difference for sure, but weight-for-weight and volume-for-volume, they bake up the same. Many times I have made biscuits with yogurt because I was out of buttermilk, or muffins with buttermilk because I was out of yogurt. My hunch is that this is an unnecessary complexity added simply to make the recipe seem more subtle and complex, or to make the recipe’s author feel like an epicurean. I doubt you could tell the difference between a muffin made with 100% buttermilk, 100% yogurt, or the yogurt/buttermilk mix called for in the recipe.
Make a well in the center of the flour mixture and add the butter mixture and the eggs.
When a recipe calls for creaming butter and sugar, it is tending towards being a cake (in this case, a cupcake). A characteristic of the creaming method is that the recipe usually goes: cream together fat(s) and sugar(s); add in liquids; add in dry ingredients in small batches. This is not arbitrary; because you’re working with a solid fat, the wet mixture will require extra mixing if you add it to the dry mixture all at once. This will form gluten, making your baked good rubbery and tough, and will also disturb all those wonderful seed bubbles that you created during the creaming step.
On the other hand, with a muffin, the fat is liquid, and so there’s no real down-side to dumping the wet mixture into the dry mixture and mixing just until they combine.
The author of this recipe, however, is confused, and doesn’t know whether he or she is making a muffin or a cake. You creamed the butter like a cake, but now you’re dumping the wet into the dry like a muffin. It’s just all wrong.
Oh, and by the way, why the hell didn’t you add the eggs in with the other wet ingredients? Why mix them in afterwards, necessitating more mixing and, hence, more gluten formation? Again, the recipe’s author seems confused. Adding the eggs slowly, separately from other wet ingredients, is characteristic of the creaming method that’s used to make most cakes, but it’s done immediately after creaming and before the introduction of the other wet ingredients. I will say this, however: if you had added the eggs to the dry ingredients before the other wet ingredients, it would have been a mess, so at least I agree with that decision.
Here’s what this recipe needs to fix itself. First, it needs to decide whether it’s making a cupcake or a muffin. If it’s a cupcake, then you should cream the butter, then add the eggs one at a time, then maybe the honey, then mix all the wet ingredients together separately and add them. Mix the dry ingredients separately and add them slowly to the wet mixture in several batches. Probably, the bran flakes should be kept out of the dry ingredients because they’re so chunky and won’t mix in well. They can be added as the last step, after all the dry ingredients have been incorporated.
On the other hand, if it’s a muffin, things get very simple. You’ll melt the butter or substitute it for an equal amount by weight of vegetable oil. Mix all the wet ingredients. Mix all the dry ingredients. Add the wet to the dry and mix just until combined.
It’s possible that there are very subtle and important reasons for this particular recipe being the way it is. It’s possible that this recipe’s author carefully tested variants of the recipe, and found that this one was definitively the best. But most of the time, there are reasons that recipes tend to follow certain paths, and recipes that deviate wildly or veer between several methods willy-nilly are often just the result of ignorant authors.
SoBe “Life Water”?
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Money and Marketing on April 4th, 2010
Given how essential water is to humans, it wouldn’t be going very far to say that water is life. SoBe seems to think otherwise.

SoBe lifewater is:
…a naturally sweetened vitamin enhanced water beverage that gives you vitamins and antioxidants (antioxidant vitamins C and E and a good source of B complex vitamins).
So, what does that make that shitty old stuff that comes out of the tap? Deathwater? I like it. Fuck deathwater! I need antioxidants!
On a side note, what the fuck is up with the lizard with the bling-ed out grill. Somewhere, a rapper is crying.
“Weight Change Can Impact Breast Cancer Risk”
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Religion and other Woo on March 30th, 2010
A copy of an article with that title from Clinician Reviews, August 2006, was posted on the wall of Issa’s doctor’s office. The paper on which the article was based was published in JAMA, a peer-reviewed medical journal. Given the credentials of the people involved, you’d think they’d know that correlation does not imply causation.
Weight gain throughout adulthood appears to increase a woman’s risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. Women who gained at least 25 kg since age 18 were more likely than those who had maintained their weight to develop breast cancer. Weight loss since the age of 18 decreased breast cancer risk.
Weight gain of at least 10 kg since menopause was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. However, women who lost at least 10 kg after menopause reduced their risk of breast cancer.
First, notice that the weight gain is being portrayed as the cause of the increased cancer risk. Even though some sentences use the correct, “correlation” language (“weight gain … was associated with an increased risk”) there are more sentences that use “causation” language, such as, “weight gain … appears to increase a woman’s risk,” “weight loss … decreased breast cancer risk,” and, “women who lost … reduced their risk.” A scientist should know better. A person with a high-school education in the scientific method could point out the logical flaw here: what if there is a third, unidentified factor, that results in both weight gain and increased cancer risk? That the authors of the study appear to have overlooked this obvious avenue for exploration (or that they simply do not consider it worth pursuing) is an example of fat-bigotry. The idea that fatness is the cause of bad health is seen as tautological, and so scientific results that support that idea are seen as correct and final, and not worthy of further investigation.
The article concludes with this morsel:
“Women should be advised to avoid weight gain and counseled on the potential benefits of weight loss after menopause,” according to Eliassen and colleagues. Given the difficulty experienced by many persons trying to lose weight, the authors add, weight maintenance should also be emphasized.
Right. Because the reason people gain weight as they get older is that they’ve never been counseled to avoid weight gain. Is there, anywhere in America, a single person who has not received the message that getting fat as they get older is bad? Is lack of education really the problem? At least the authors acknowledge that many people have trouble losing weight, but what’s their answer? Exploring the reasons WHY many people have so much trouble losing weight? No. Just add weight maintenance to the list of things you’re going to counsel your patients on. So, now, in addition to saying, “You’re fat and you should lose weight or you’re going to die,” doctors can also say, “You’re not fat yet, but if you get fat, you’re going to die.” What. A. Fucking. Improvement.
If doctors “advising” people to lose weight made people lose weight, there wouldn’t be any fat people left. It seems like “scientists” would have considered this.
There is a more subtle form of fat-bigotry going on here that I’d also like to point out. What if the study had said, “women’s hair turning gray was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, therefore doctors should advise women not to let their hair turn gray as they age.” It’s understood that a person’s hair turning gray is not something a person can control, and so the suggestion would be correctly perceived as ridiculous, and we would wonder what world the authors were living in. Since it’s perceived that a person’s weight is largely within their control, the suggestion to mitigate breast cancer risk by managing weight is seen as reasonable, but in a world full of fat-hate, where 70% of people are still defined as medically overweight or obese, you’d think that evidence-based scientists would be more receptive to the idea that a person’s weight is not as “in their control” as, say, the length of their fingernails.
Which is not to say that the authors of this paper are bad scientists or bad people—they’re probably not. But, like all of us, they live in a culture that is full of fat-hate. One message that we can take from this is that if people who have devoted their careers to evidence-based conclusions can be swayed by the culture of fat-hate, what does it mean for the rest of us?
Amphetamines For Children
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Consensual Crimes, Money and Marketing on March 10th, 2010

So, apparently it’s okay for children to take amphetamines in order to help them get through their homework. What the hell? I mean, I’m not a doctor, so I’m not qualified to say whether it’s safe to give amphetamines to children, but given how SUPER SCARY BAD BAD BAD amphetamines are supposed to be, I’m surprised they’re okay for kids to take.

See? This is what propaganda says that amphetamines do to perfectly healthy adults! I can only imagine what little Kevin is going to look like in 2.5 years.
“Oh, but that’s meth, and Kevin is getting Vyvanse! Vyvanse is a prescription drug, not a dirty dirty street drug.” Riiiight. Would you rather I called it Desoxyn, which is what they call meth when a doctor prescribes it?
Look, bottom line is that I don’t care what people put into their bodies, and I do realize that not all amphetamines are the same, and that taking a drug under a doctor’s supervision is different from self-medicating. All that being said, the idea that we’re simultaneously putting out the message that meth is the worst thing since sliced anthrax, while prescription amphetamines are TOTALLY FINE TO GIVE TO CHILDREN seems kind of hypocritical. Especially given that meth used to be a prescription amphetamine (technically still is, but nobody really prescribes it anymore).
