McDonald's ran what seemed to me to be a pretty daring ad during the Oscar telecast tonight. It follows a pair of Chinese girls, the best of friends, from their youth in an idealized village, to graduation from a university (complete with a shot of diplomas featuring the visage of Chairman Mao!), to life in the big city. The jingle is something like, "Sharing was always so easy," until, that is, McDonald's french fries entered the picture.
I'm not even casually acquainted with the evolution of Chinese Communist doctrine, but the symbolism of the ad—a tempting product of the capitalist machine undermines cultural acceptance of communal property—is delightful, even if unintentional.
2.28.2005
2.22.2005
Endangered French Fries
The New York Times has a remarkably balanced article on the challenges facing the food industry as it moves away from transfatty oils. The main obstacle isn't industry greed; it's consumers who are used to their favorite products tasting a certain way.
The cycles of nutritional fads has had an unfortunate impact on many great American foods. Take the classic McDonald's french fry:
It's not to be, though, since the advantages of mass marketing make it impractical for McDonald's to produce them again, and trademark laws (and probably more than a few trade secrets) doubtlessly make it impossible for a competitor to create and advertise "McDonald's fries like you remember them."
As the digital age makes it exponentially cheaper to store all sorts of information practically forever, I think we'll more and more feel the loss of experiences we can't save and savor.
The cycles of nutritional fads has had an unfortunate impact on many great American foods. Take the classic McDonald's french fry:
McDonald's replaced beef tallow with partially hydrogenated soybean oil in 1990. In September 2002, the company vowed it would use healthier oil in its 13,000 stores in the United States by February 2003.The new fries are probably healthier than those fried in beef tallow, but boy I'd love to be able to taste those pre-1990 fries again.
It's not to be, though, since the advantages of mass marketing make it impractical for McDonald's to produce them again, and trademark laws (and probably more than a few trade secrets) doubtlessly make it impossible for a competitor to create and advertise "McDonald's fries like you remember them."
As the digital age makes it exponentially cheaper to store all sorts of information practically forever, I think we'll more and more feel the loss of experiences we can't save and savor.
2.18.2005
Rum Run
On a happier note, while taking a run down Mass Ave this evening, I did find a liquor store that sells the heavenly Pyrat XO Reserve rum.
A few years ago my girlfriend brought me back a bottle of Bacardi 8 from the distillery in Puerto Rico. Ever since I've been a big fan of aged rum. (And even more a fan of my endlessly thoughtful girlfriend!)
The ideal destination for rum drinkers of all kinds is the Cuban-inspired Naked Fish. During an after-work trip to the Faneuil Hall location a few weeks ago, the bartender recommended the XO, and I was instantly smitten. It's sugary without being too sweet, molassas-dark without being syrupy—everything you'd want in a sipping rum.
A few years ago my girlfriend brought me back a bottle of Bacardi 8 from the distillery in Puerto Rico. Ever since I've been a big fan of aged rum. (And even more a fan of my endlessly thoughtful girlfriend!)
The ideal destination for rum drinkers of all kinds is the Cuban-inspired Naked Fish. During an after-work trip to the Faneuil Hall location a few weeks ago, the bartender recommended the XO, and I was instantly smitten. It's sugary without being too sweet, molassas-dark without being syrupy—everything you'd want in a sipping rum.
Where to find Château Plissac-Bellevue?
Somehow my parents got a bottle of this 2000 vintage Château Plissac-Bellevue, Premieres Côtes de Blaye. Don't ask me what that means, I'm only an aspriring wine snob, but it was terrifically quaffable, and I'd love to get my hands on a few bottles.
Unfortunately, a Google finds me only European, Hawaiian and Hong Kong sellers, and until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns states' bans out out-of-sale wine purchases, like the one in puritan Massachusetts, it really wouldn't help me to find an Internet vendor, anyways.
Does anyone who happens to Google their way over here know where I can get some within 200 miles of Cambridge, MA? My eternal gratitude and a drink at the bar of your choice in Cambridge would be your reward.
Unfortunately, a Google finds me only European, Hawaiian and Hong Kong sellers, and until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns states' bans out out-of-sale wine purchases, like the one in puritan Massachusetts, it really wouldn't help me to find an Internet vendor, anyways.
Does anyone who happens to Google their way over here know where I can get some within 200 miles of Cambridge, MA? My eternal gratitude and a drink at the bar of your choice in Cambridge would be your reward.
2.16.2005
New web tools
My last post reminded me to mention two web apps I've started to get a lot of use out of, both of which are well-designed (and free!):
- Google Maps: gee-whiz scrolling and zoomable maps with street names and multiple "pushpin" waypoints. When can I get this on my cell phone?
- Ta-da Lists: the best designed web app I've used. Simple, elegant, fast, and most importantly, shareable.
Sourdough perfection
I'm sure there are lots of people who would claim you can't get good sourdough bread on the East Coast, but those people haven't tried Nashoba Brook Bakery's sourdough. My girlfriend picked some up a couple of weeks ago from the local market, and we enjoyed it over two nights with pasta and soup. Best I've ever had: crusty on the outside, flaky and buttery on the inside, and sour without being overpowering.
I see from the web site that they've got a café in Back Bay. I better add it to the to do list.
I see from the web site that they've got a café in Back Bay. I better add it to the to do list.
2.11.2005
Therapeutic cloning is creepier than it sounds
K Lo at The Corner is right to be indignant about the New York Times' editorial on MA Governor Mitt Romney's stem cell position. Governor Romney, who has every reason to take this issue seriously, endorsed a sensible compromise: embryos resulting from fertility treatments that would otherwise be disposed of can instead be used for research. Human embryos, however, should not be produced solely to be destroyed, without even a chance at life. This tracks closely to the president's position: we should not create a market in human life.
That's not good enough for the Times. They're unhappy with anything short of regulations that allow therapeutic cloning, as endorsed in NJ and CA. Of course, the Times won't even use the term "therapeutic cloning," which is a euphemism to begin with: all cloning works the same way, it's just the use of the end product that matters. Advocates of cloning for stem cells use the term "therapeutic cloning" to differentiate it from "reproductive cloning," a la Dolly the sheep. Reproductive cloning is supposedly creepy and unnatural, but who could be against therapy?
I think the reverse is true. Reproductive cloning, at least, produces a human being, with a chance to live his or her own life. We don't find identical twins unnatural, and ideally a clone would be no more so, typically being a different age from the donor anyway.
Reproductive cloning is also well-understood, thanks to a media fixation on the aforementioned Dolly and decades of science fiction.
Therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, is often just packed in with the stem cell debate. Media coverage focuses on the politics of the issue, with perhaps an abstract discussion of the technique:
Another issue worth pondering: Assume therapeutic cloning is deemed morally and socially acceptable, and proves wildly successful at treating a variety of diseases. As the description above indicates, to make it work you need a donor egg. Eggs are not exactly easy to come by: each female of the species is born with only so many. Given their rarity, and the cost involved in extracting them, could we see a sellers' market in human eggs? If they really do provide miracle cures, wouldn't their market price end up at least in the vicinity of a few thousand dollars? You could make a pretty good living, then, just dispensing eggs. I suppose there would be a serious incentive to develop an artificial egg, but until then an ovary could be an ATM. I have no idea what to think about that.
That's not good enough for the Times. They're unhappy with anything short of regulations that allow therapeutic cloning, as endorsed in NJ and CA. Of course, the Times won't even use the term "therapeutic cloning," which is a euphemism to begin with: all cloning works the same way, it's just the use of the end product that matters. Advocates of cloning for stem cells use the term "therapeutic cloning" to differentiate it from "reproductive cloning," a la Dolly the sheep. Reproductive cloning is supposedly creepy and unnatural, but who could be against therapy?
I think the reverse is true. Reproductive cloning, at least, produces a human being, with a chance to live his or her own life. We don't find identical twins unnatural, and ideally a clone would be no more so, typically being a different age from the donor anyway.
Reproductive cloning is also well-understood, thanks to a media fixation on the aforementioned Dolly and decades of science fiction.
Therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, is often just packed in with the stem cell debate. Media coverage focuses on the politics of the issue, with perhaps an abstract discussion of the technique:
The person who needed the healthy stem cells would provide a non-egg, non-sperm cell from which the DNA would be removed. That DNA, containing two copies of each human chromosome, would be inserted into a donor egg that has had its own nucleus and DNA removed. The egg with the introduced DNA would act like it had just been fertilized and begin to divide, forming an embryo. Stem cells from that embryo would be removed and cultured to provide the needed healthy tissue.I think there are some extremely troubling implications here that I've never seen teased out in mainstream reporting. Because you're providing your own DNA, the embryo being created is a genetic duplicate of you! That is, if it were implanted into a mother and came to term, it would be your clone. Not to put too fine a point on it, this technique involves destroying an embryo that is identicalto you at that stage of your development. Now, perhaps that doesn't bother you, the embryo is indeed "just a clump of cells" as the Times puts it. I think, though, that it would bother many people on all sides of the debate. For all the reporting on this issue, it's remarkable that this consequence isn't common knowledge, as it surely must be to the scientists and researchers who are always wringing their hands about falling behind in crucial, life-saving research. It's a great moral question that ties in questions of identity, medicine, morality and The Clonus Horror. I guess it's just easier to frame the issue as luddite Christian fundamentalists vs. brave pioneering scientists, which is too bad.
Another issue worth pondering: Assume therapeutic cloning is deemed morally and socially acceptable, and proves wildly successful at treating a variety of diseases. As the description above indicates, to make it work you need a donor egg. Eggs are not exactly easy to come by: each female of the species is born with only so many. Given their rarity, and the cost involved in extracting them, could we see a sellers' market in human eggs? If they really do provide miracle cures, wouldn't their market price end up at least in the vicinity of a few thousand dollars? You could make a pretty good living, then, just dispensing eggs. I suppose there would be a serious incentive to develop an artificial egg, but until then an ovary could be an ATM. I have no idea what to think about that.
2.07.2005
The boarding pass switcheroo
At Slate, Andy Bowers discovers a pretty basic hack of the airline check-in system.
The attack works like this: Before you can board a plane in the U.S., you need a boarding pass with your name and an airline-issued bar code, as well as a government-issued ID, with a name matching the pass. The ID and the name on the pass are matched at the TSA security gate, while the airline gate attendant matches the name on the pass with the name in the airline computer corresponding to the bar code. An attacker could fly under an assumed name by buying a ticket using a stolen credit card, printing out both his actual boarding pass (with the assumed name), and another boarding pass modified to contain a name matching his government-issued ID. It won't match the bar code, but that's OK, because at the TSA gate, they don't check the bar code. At the airline gate, they don't check the government-issued ID.
By flying under an assumed name, the attacker has rendered useless the "no-fly" list designed to limit the travel and opportunities for airplane-based terrorism of known or suspected terrorists.
This scheme had occurred to me as well. It's such an obvious flaw that the TSA must be aware of it, and if they wanted to fix it, they could order the airlines to stop issuing home-printable boarding passes, or to check ID's at the gate.
I think, though, that the TSA rationally concludes that while printing out a fake boarding pass isn't hard, buying yourself a fake ID to go along with your stolen credit card isn't that much harder.
So why have a no-fly list at all? I think the no-fly list is targeted not at the hard-core, professional operative terrorist: they're smart enough to beat any system the government is likely to deploy. Rather, it's targeted at the second-tier of known or suspected supporters (financially or otherwise) of terrorism. These folks are unlikely to try to travel under assumed names, and they're unlikely to pose an actual threat to the airplane. Instead, the no-fly list serves to keep the government notified of their attempts to travel, prevents them from easily moving into or out of the United States, and generally makes it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to keep tabs on them.
Some of the second-tier no-fliers might graduate to first-tier status without being smart enough to try to fly under a stolen or otherwise disguised identity, as some of the 9-11 hijackers did. If the no-fly list catches them, terrific. But I suspect the chief utility of the no-fly list lies not in actual air travel security, but in aiding connect-the-dots style surveillance.
The attack works like this: Before you can board a plane in the U.S., you need a boarding pass with your name and an airline-issued bar code, as well as a government-issued ID, with a name matching the pass. The ID and the name on the pass are matched at the TSA security gate, while the airline gate attendant matches the name on the pass with the name in the airline computer corresponding to the bar code. An attacker could fly under an assumed name by buying a ticket using a stolen credit card, printing out both his actual boarding pass (with the assumed name), and another boarding pass modified to contain a name matching his government-issued ID. It won't match the bar code, but that's OK, because at the TSA gate, they don't check the bar code. At the airline gate, they don't check the government-issued ID.
By flying under an assumed name, the attacker has rendered useless the "no-fly" list designed to limit the travel and opportunities for airplane-based terrorism of known or suspected terrorists.
This scheme had occurred to me as well. It's such an obvious flaw that the TSA must be aware of it, and if they wanted to fix it, they could order the airlines to stop issuing home-printable boarding passes, or to check ID's at the gate.
I think, though, that the TSA rationally concludes that while printing out a fake boarding pass isn't hard, buying yourself a fake ID to go along with your stolen credit card isn't that much harder.
So why have a no-fly list at all? I think the no-fly list is targeted not at the hard-core, professional operative terrorist: they're smart enough to beat any system the government is likely to deploy. Rather, it's targeted at the second-tier of known or suspected supporters (financially or otherwise) of terrorism. These folks are unlikely to try to travel under assumed names, and they're unlikely to pose an actual threat to the airplane. Instead, the no-fly list serves to keep the government notified of their attempts to travel, prevents them from easily moving into or out of the United States, and generally makes it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to keep tabs on them.
Some of the second-tier no-fliers might graduate to first-tier status without being smart enough to try to fly under a stolen or otherwise disguised identity, as some of the 9-11 hijackers did. If the no-fly list catches them, terrific. But I suspect the chief utility of the no-fly list lies not in actual air travel security, but in aiding connect-the-dots style surveillance.
Super Bowl in Foxboro?
Congratulations to the Pats on another huge Super Bowl win. Shouldn't this give Bob Kraft the necessary leverage with the NFL to bring a Super Bowl to Foxboro? Fans have been clamoring for a cold-weather matchup, Gillette Stadium is beautiful, and what's the worst that happens? They have to do the halftime show under a tent?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)