Joe: The initial intent of this column was as a "Worst of Atlanta" -- a bit of homeopathic poison to counter next week's congratulatory "Best of Atlanta."
I was surprised that the editors did not put some indication of that on the column. The original first two grafs on the column, which Besha and I agreed weren't really essential and dropped, said this:
"I long ago learned that most people – including “foodies” – are interested in food from only one perspective: taste. The way in which our culinary culture reflects more than the palate’s immediate stimulation isn’t discussed much at depth – especially on the negative side.
"Indeed, if you go Googling for articles about negative dining trends, you will come up with very little outside the usual condemnations of fast food, plus some worrying about unsustainable farming. Michael Pollan’s work about politics, economics and food is an exception."
If I am looking at dining trends that are reflective of broader problematic cultural trends, I don't see it as appropriate for me to suggest a different kind of culinary expression. That is like saying we should change the symptom without regard to the underlying problem.
I really don't agree that Americans have become too self-critical. In fact, it's the decline in critical thinking skills that has caused many of our culture's problems. As I indicated above, the facts -- simple Googling -- don't support the notion that we've become very critical, even introspective, about broad culinary trends.
In any case,I think my words suggest more ambivalence than outright condemnation.
Kimgar: I'm not positing anything Ledger didn't say himself about his state of mind relative to the role.Read my second paragraph. Besides describing Ledger's own words on the role's effect, the second graf also says that the role may have ADDED to pre-existing anxiety, insomnia and depression. I do not say that it created it.
I'm not sure what the contradiction is here. One can be deeply affected by the encounter with unconscious contents and still be a likable, talented person.
Lissonifan: Thanks for the clarification. As I'm sure you know, the stage play developed out of more raucous and rawer club performances. My understanding is that the songs were sometimes sung as part of those performances, when Trask and Mitchell were first collaborating and developing their story. Do you know whether that's true?
Even if that's not true, it's still difficult for me to believe it was coincidence that the particular songs that were eliminated from the film were all explicit in the way I described. On the other hand, it's good to know that someone did realize that the work, on stage or on screen, needed a more explicit statement about the virtue of the freak.
Eisenhower: "Freaks on the left" is a compliment, even if it's not politically expedient.
Dale: I'd argue that borrowing the Republican strategy of the last Democratic president is what got his wife dumped by voters.
Educators filled my head with nonsense, gatorboy, like this wrong-headed letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. But what the hell would a founder know about the intention of, um, the founders?:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
I don't have any objection to the direction of the conversation, Mr. Ike. However, considering the mail I've been getting and what I read here, I'm afraid my column's intention wasn't clear.
I'm not making a judgment about the value of Christianity or Jesus; I'm simply proposing that Jesus -- the church -- leave the political stage, as the founders intended.
Some readers seem to think that in congratulating Obama for banishing the "fundamentalist Jesus," I advocate wholesale abandonment of Christianity. What I meant, and I thought I explicated it clearly, is that I congratulate Obama for refusing to take an absolutist, a fundamentalist, position. He does that about his pastor, about religion and about race.
Religion has no appropriate place in our politics. Whether Christianity has value otherwise is a different discussion and, although it's cool with me that my column provoked a debate in that respect, it is an excursus.
MY COMMENTS (34)
RE: The Satyricon and modern dining
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 09.18.09 @ 05:51 PM
Joe: The initial intent of this column was as a "Worst of Atlanta" -- a bit of homeopathic poison to counter next week's congratulatory "Best of Atlanta."
I was surprised that the editors did not put some indication of that on the column. The original first two grafs on the column, which Besha and I agreed weren't really essential and dropped, said this:
"I long ago learned that most people – including “foodies” – are interested in food from only one perspective: taste. The way in which our culinary culture reflects more than the palate’s immediate stimulation isn’t discussed much at depth – especially on the negative side.
"Indeed, if you go Googling for articles about negative dining trends, you will come up with very little outside the usual condemnations of fast food, plus some worrying about unsustainable farming. Michael Pollan’s work about politics, economics and food is an exception."
If I am looking at dining trends that are reflective of broader problematic cultural trends, I don't see it as appropriate for me to suggest a different kind of culinary expression. That is like saying we should change the symptom without regard to the underlying problem.
I really don't agree that Americans have become too self-critical. In fact, it's the decline in critical thinking skills that has caused many of our culture's problems. As I indicated above, the facts -- simple Googling -- don't support the notion that we've become very critical, even introspective, about broad culinary trends.
In any case,I think my words suggest more ambivalence than outright condemnation.
RE: First Look: Urban pL8
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 08.21.09 @ 08:08 PM
The puffy, two-layer beignet-style chips? I dunno.
RE: First Look: RA Sushi
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 07.04.09 @ 12:18 AM
I see that I failed to mention that RA is owned by the same people who operate Benihana's.
RE: You too can have an iLife
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 10.30.08 @ 05:27 PM
To my readers: I was informed after this column was published that, effective immediately, Headcase is being discontinued after 15-plus years.
You can read my response to the news on my personal blog:
http://cliffbostock.com/sacreddisorder/?p=66
RE: Journalistic anemia
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 08.20.08 @ 02:39 PM
You can find a longer, more personal rant about this subject on my own blog:
http://cliffbostock.com/sacreddisorder/?p=43
RE: Meeting the shadow
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 08.01.08 @ 11:51 AM
Kimgar: I'm not positing anything Ledger didn't say himself about his state of mind relative to the role.Read my second paragraph. Besides describing Ledger's own words on the role's effect, the second graf also says that the role may have ADDED to pre-existing anxiety, insomnia and depression. I do not say that it created it.
I'm not sure what the contradiction is here. One can be deeply affected by the encounter with unconscious contents and still be a likable, talented person.
RE: Hedwig and Obama
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 07.23.08 @ 11:26 PM
Lissonifan: Thanks for the clarification. As I'm sure you know, the stage play developed out of more raucous and rawer club performances. My understanding is that the songs were sometimes sung as part of those performances, when Trask and Mitchell were first collaborating and developing their story. Do you know whether that's true?
Even if that's not true, it's still difficult for me to believe it was coincidence that the particular songs that were eliminated from the film were all explicit in the way I described. On the other hand, it's good to know that someone did realize that the work, on stage or on screen, needed a more explicit statement about the virtue of the freak.
Eisenhower: "Freaks on the left" is a compliment, even if it's not politically expedient.
Dale: I'd argue that borrowing the Republican strategy of the last Democratic president is what got his wife dumped by voters.
RE: Memo to Jesus:
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 04.01.08 @ 10:56 PM
Memo to Jesus: Next time I consider using your name in a column, please ask your daddy to hit me with a lightning bolt.
RE: Memo to Jesus:
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 03.31.08 @ 07:58 PM
Educators filled my head with nonsense, gatorboy, like this wrong-headed letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. But what the hell would a founder know about the intention of, um, the founders?:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
RE: Memo to Jesus:
Posted by Cliff Bostock on 03.30.08 @ 02:38 PM
I don't have any objection to the direction of the conversation, Mr. Ike. However, considering the mail I've been getting and what I read here, I'm afraid my column's intention wasn't clear.
I'm not making a judgment about the value of Christianity or Jesus; I'm simply proposing that Jesus -- the church -- leave the political stage, as the founders intended.
Some readers seem to think that in congratulating Obama for banishing the "fundamentalist Jesus," I advocate wholesale abandonment of Christianity. What I meant, and I thought I explicated it clearly, is that I congratulate Obama for refusing to take an absolutist, a fundamentalist, position. He does that about his pastor, about religion and about race.
Religion has no appropriate place in our politics. Whether Christianity has value otherwise is a different discussion and, although it's cool with me that my column provoked a debate in that respect, it is an excursus.