What I'm reading
Today I read reviews of two books that essentially reject key elements of what has become "American Culture" but have nothing to do with Hollywood or Madison Avenue. Basically they share a rejection of monoculture. A couple excepts:
from: Dining Dilemmas: How shall we then eat?
a review of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
by Cindy Crosby
[the emphases below are mine - EK]
"In his first section, devoted to convenience food, he traces much of the cheap food America eats (and the plight of American agriculture) to the super-abundance and government subsidizing of corn. His research is startling. Corn has found its way into a large percentage of the foods we eat: canned fruit, mayonnaise, vitamins, and cake mixes just for starters, raising a myriad of questions. How could a McDonald's chicken nugget be composed of 38 ingredients, 13 derived from corn? What does it mean to eat beef, chicken, or even salmon largely raised on corn?
"Pollan shows that corn-fed animals and fish don't have the same nutritional value as grass-fed animals; farmed salmon, for example, do not have the same omega-3 levels as their wild counterparts. By changing the diet of the animals we raise, we are changing ourselves. And it only takes a look at the soaring obesity rates to realize it is not for the better."
"By using a more holistic, humane approach to land use and consuming locally and seasonally, rather than globally, sustainable farming seems to solve many of the problems created by industrial agriculture. Good reading, although many will wonder if it's viable on a large scale. To function on an ongoing basis, this sort of agriculture requires a heart-and-mind change on the part of the consumer. No small thing."
"Petroleum is another problem. What about the ethics of trucking "organically grown asparagus from Argentina" to America's suburbs in January? What are the economics of fuel and the cost to the people of Argentina, whose land is feeding Americans? The food industry, Pollan points out, burns nearly a fifth of all the petroleum consumed in the United States."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/126/22.0.html
This seemed particularly apt considering the recent E-coli contaminated spinach incident. It also personally resonates considering my husband's preference for things like re-formed chicken burgers ...
from: Anti-Bland Design
A review of Sarah Susanka's Not So Big House series.
by Andrea Nagy
"The Not So Big House is distinguished by more than modest size and informality: more important, it creates an atmosphere of relaxation and excitement balanced in perfect congruity. This ideal is achieved when there is a correspondence between the symmetrical and the asymmetrical, the regular and the irregular, the ordered and the dynamic, texture and smoothness.
The problem with the typical suburban house is that it is boring without being restful, and this is because it is designed with too much symmetry, smoothness, and regularity. Texture -- that is, some irregularity or variation in a surface -- creates a sense of shelter. Texture can come from above, through variation in ceiling height; from below, through variation in floor type; or from the sides, through the addition of trim, woodwork, and alcoves to otherwise flat walls. The construction of small spaces within a large space generates that sense of security that makes us feel at home. Similarly, the repetition of forms, particularly archetypal shapes like circles or squares, is comforting and unifying.
"On the other hand, a well-designed house must be more than a womb; it should also rouse us to explore the world. This need for stimulation is met through the use of asymmetry, through the placement of tiles or furniture on the diagonal, and through the design of long, unobstructed views, both within the house and from the inside to the outside. The house that achieves this balance nurtures a civilized life that is likewise balanced between the active and the contemplative, the material and the spiritual, the city and the country -- in other words, the suburban ideal."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2006/005/15.18.html
from: Dining Dilemmas: How shall we then eat?
a review of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
by Cindy Crosby
[the emphases below are mine - EK]
"In his first section, devoted to convenience food, he traces much of the cheap food America eats (and the plight of American agriculture) to the super-abundance and government subsidizing of corn. His research is startling. Corn has found its way into a large percentage of the foods we eat: canned fruit, mayonnaise, vitamins, and cake mixes just for starters, raising a myriad of questions. How could a McDonald's chicken nugget be composed of 38 ingredients, 13 derived from corn? What does it mean to eat beef, chicken, or even salmon largely raised on corn?
"Pollan shows that corn-fed animals and fish don't have the same nutritional value as grass-fed animals; farmed salmon, for example, do not have the same omega-3 levels as their wild counterparts. By changing the diet of the animals we raise, we are changing ourselves. And it only takes a look at the soaring obesity rates to realize it is not for the better."
"By using a more holistic, humane approach to land use and consuming locally and seasonally, rather than globally, sustainable farming seems to solve many of the problems created by industrial agriculture. Good reading, although many will wonder if it's viable on a large scale. To function on an ongoing basis, this sort of agriculture requires a heart-and-mind change on the part of the consumer. No small thing."
"Petroleum is another problem. What about the ethics of trucking "organically grown asparagus from Argentina" to America's suburbs in January? What are the economics of fuel and the cost to the people of Argentina, whose land is feeding Americans? The food industry, Pollan points out, burns nearly a fifth of all the petroleum consumed in the United States."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/126/22.0.html
This seemed particularly apt considering the recent E-coli contaminated spinach incident. It also personally resonates considering my husband's preference for things like re-formed chicken burgers ...
from: Anti-Bland Design
A review of Sarah Susanka's Not So Big House series.
by Andrea Nagy
"The Not So Big House is distinguished by more than modest size and informality: more important, it creates an atmosphere of relaxation and excitement balanced in perfect congruity. This ideal is achieved when there is a correspondence between the symmetrical and the asymmetrical, the regular and the irregular, the ordered and the dynamic, texture and smoothness.
The problem with the typical suburban house is that it is boring without being restful, and this is because it is designed with too much symmetry, smoothness, and regularity. Texture -- that is, some irregularity or variation in a surface -- creates a sense of shelter. Texture can come from above, through variation in ceiling height; from below, through variation in floor type; or from the sides, through the addition of trim, woodwork, and alcoves to otherwise flat walls. The construction of small spaces within a large space generates that sense of security that makes us feel at home. Similarly, the repetition of forms, particularly archetypal shapes like circles or squares, is comforting and unifying.
"On the other hand, a well-designed house must be more than a womb; it should also rouse us to explore the world. This need for stimulation is met through the use of asymmetry, through the placement of tiles or furniture on the diagonal, and through the design of long, unobstructed views, both within the house and from the inside to the outside. The house that achieves this balance nurtures a civilized life that is likewise balanced between the active and the contemplative, the material and the spiritual, the city and the country -- in other words, the suburban ideal."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2006/005/15.18.html