antof9

Yup, that's me: the girl who cried "wolf!" ... because, let's face it. I have so many times said, "I'm doing it! I'm losing the weight!" ad nauseam, that frankly it's a little embarrassing to talk about. Again.

And in fact, it's so "again" that I decided to wait to talk about it again until I'd actually made some progress because at minimum I could point to that and say, "see?"

Anyway, I've lost 13 pounds. And it's true that you do change a clothing size approximately every 10 lbs (who knew? my sister; that's who). So I'm doing it again. I'm giving it the old college try. I'm starting over. I'm ... well. I'm done talking and I'm doing. But I'll talk a little about it here if you're interested. Don't feel obligated. Really!

I think I've mentioned before that I have some ultra-conservative relatives ... and some days I have a harder time with them than others. When one of them posts that she's read a review (ONE REVIEW?!) about The Hunger Games, and based on that thinks they are awful and Christians shouldn't read them, I feel compelled to write. The good thing is it forced me to think, and as I knocked myself out trying to not be offensive, I thought I'd post my comments here, too.

So ... Why Christians should at least be ok with other Christians who read The Hunger Games trilogy

Quickly, and without thinking about it too much:


It's true you just might not want to read the Hunger Games books, [cousin]. The hard thing for me, though, is when people make a decision about something without actually having all the information.

It seems literature is one of those grey areas where people will always disagree -- which is partly why it's so fun that there are so many books in the world -- there's something for everyone! In terms of these books specifically, they aren't striving for realism - they aren't saying that killing children is good, or that it should be good. When I was reading them, I literally felt as if they were a (great) cautionary tale and commentary on where our world is today. That is, if we continue in the vein of things that are currently popular -- plastic surgery, reality shows, etc., etc., the human race will degenerate into such a mess that something on the order of "the hunger games" as a reality show could happen. It seems to me this is actually in agreement with at least some of your concerns. Cautionary tales come in all shapes and sizes -- allegory, fairy tales, etc. Think about C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" - if that's not a cautionary tale, I don't know what is! In addition, these characters learn a LOT about consequences, helping each other, grace, sacrifice ... truly, there are a lot of Biblical themes in these books.

None of that means you'd still like them, [cousin] - as I said earlier today, one of my friends just couldn't read past page 30 because the concept was too upsetting. And I totally get that! Lots of my friends love books I can't/don't want to read :)

But I think it's worth considering other angles on things like this. The book reviewer for Christianity Today has a very fair review posted online that you might find interesting. Whatever the case, choose for yourself if you want to read the books and/or see the movies. It seems a little unfair to make sweeping statements though, without having given them a chance yourself.

In terms of seeing movies and giving money to Hollywood, in general I try to support movies that are more family-friendly and/or clean or where there's growth in the characters and they teach good lessons*. That's why I saw "The Help" in theatres 3 times and refused to see or rent "Bridesmaids". I want to give my money to the people making good movies; not the ones making garbage.

Anyway, I've probably said too much :) I hope it doesn't sound like I'm being argumentative -- I really don't want to argue about this! I just thought it might be helpful to hear another angle on the topic.



*yes, I recently saw (and subsequently wrote about on this very blog) the Dragon Tattoo movie. If you want to criticize me for that; go ahead. You'd be right :)

You know when you put something on a to-do list and it's not on fire, so you keep moving it forward, or hitting snooze, or whatever method you use to put it off, and pretty soon it's been a year since you added it to your list? No? Just me? Well, I do that all the time. And sometimes it's 2 years, and then 3 and then I turned around and I was 45 and still hadn't had a mammogram.

It's not even like I'm worried about what I'd find (well, of course that's scary, but I'm still young and dumb enough to think I'm invincible), or that it's as invasive and icky as a pap smear; I just keep putting it off. I suppose a headshrinker might say it's because of my horrible 34th birthday ...

[wavy Wayne's World flashback motion]

The day I turned 34, I realized I was officially "old". ... which is sad, really, because I love birthdays. Three things happened that week/day that are branded in my memory:
1. It was the year I realized that while I'd been dyeing my hair for fun -- funky highlights, etc. -- my hair had been going gray and I didn't know it. It just snuck up on me, and then I was stuck dyeing my hair after that because I had a gray line at my temples I didn't know what to do with.
2. On my 34th birthday, my doctor's office called to tell me I should schedule a mammogram. THIRTY-FOUR! "But, but, I'm not even 35!" I exclaimed incredulously to the poor girl making those calls from my doctor's office. I honestly don't even remember how she responded, because the rest of the call was a blur.
3. I was in a small group of women that had grown out of a grief support group at church. What I liked about that group was the diversity in our ages. I was the youngest, and I think the oldest was 60-something. However, when I started telling them about my sad discovery about my hair AND getting called for a mammogram, they all pooh-poohed my concerns and told me to get over myself. Since it was a time we were actually meeting for my birthday, that hurt my feelings and I felt sorry for myself ... with no sympathy from the women who were all about the "just wait until .... happens!"

[reverse wavy Wayne's World flashback motion]

So anyway, time passed and I'm 45. And I'm on Twitter the other day, minding my own business, when Jennifer Vides posts

As I go in for surgery... I'd be grateful if at least five of you scheduled your mammogram today.

Included in the tweet was a link to this blog entry (you should read it - I'll wait). Have you read it yet? Go read it.

So I picked up the phone and made an appointment. And then I went to the appointment. And I had such a nice mammography technician that I called her boss afterward to say nice things about her (and what does it mean that their hold music was "Impossible Dream"?). She did a great job educating me, explaining what she was doing, also that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest rate of breast cancer in the world (I don't know if my family was Ashkenazim or Sephardi, but they were from Romania, so probably the former), and that if I got a call to come back in, not to be alarmed as that wasn't uncommon for first-time screens, because they had nothing to compare the xrays to.

And so I was left to ponder my grandmother's radical mastectomies (both sides!), so long ago we can't remember when she had them, and assume I'm fine. Except that I did get a call back that I shouldn't be worried about, but they want to do one more mammogram on the right side, followed by an ultrasound, just to be sure. So. That happened.

I mentioned on Facebook yesterday a month or so ago that we were going to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and I got a bunch of questions about the book, the original, etc., etc., so I decided it was time for a blog entry ... it's only been like 5 months since I blogged, right?

Q: Have you read the book?
Yes, I read the first two books with my book club and then had to read the third because I'm OCD about series.

Q: Do you recommend it?
I honestly don't recommend it. If I can have a conversation with someone about it, then I'll tell them that it's really heavy subject matter, that the original title was something along the lines of "Men Who Hate Women", that it's upsetting, that the mystery in it is fascinating, and then I'll say again that it's upsetting and warn you from reading it. Frankly, it was the mystery in the first one that kept me reading. But it's not light reading and in fact is upsetting reading, and no, I don't recommend it. Also? Lots and lots of (Swedish) political/news junkie stuff in it that could have been edited down a bit.

Q: Did you like the original movies, subtitles and all?
See my answer to the previous question. "Like" isn't the word I'd use. They're VERY well done. Very. And I didn't feel like I was "reading" a movie. But I'd already read the books. And I couldn't believe they'd attempt to re-make them. Surprisingly violent. Also, cold - so much "greyscale" that they are almost black and white films and I watched all three wrapped in blankets.

Q: Did you like the new one?
It was also surprisingly good. I thought I'd think it surprisingly Hollywood AND sanitized, and I don't think it was. Daniel Craig was great. Rooney Mara was great, but the whole time I was watching it, I thought, "what does her family think of this?" I didn't so much like the way they handled the unfolding of the mystery or the annual flower pictures.

I had more to say and more questions to answer, but I have a short memory and can't find the FB post where all the questions were, so ... that's it. And now I have an awfully boring but more current blog entry up. So there's that.

Anyone else totally freaked out when they watch (or watched) "The Social Network" and see the Zuckerberg character using LiveJournal?

Every time I see it, I'm a little shocked :)

Opened yesterday's mail to find this pic on the cover of a flyer from Lane Bryant (I later read online that they call it a "magalog" which is just another reason to cancel my card with them, if you ask me):

( pic behind the cut )

I did tweet that I thought it was inappropriate last night, and a bunch of others agreed with me because their feed was about 20 apologies in a row, but I thought I could better articulate it on their Facebook page. So I wrote this:

I've been shopping at Lane Bryant -- almost exclusively -- for about 16 years. I love the clothes, I love the fit, I love that I can find non-muumuu, trendier clothes in my size ... I could go on and on. However, the current flyer/catalog (I read you call it a "magalog"? ouch, that's bad) really gave me a bad taste in my mouth. I appreciate the attempt at "real women". I appreciate that it's an attractive picture. What I can't appreciate is that you made the choice to make it a cover photo. If you just thought it was a great photo and were all "real women" and "embrace curves", blah blah blah, it could have been on the inside where no one but the women who shop at Lane Bryant would have seen it. Choosing to place it on the cover tells me you just wanted to be titillating. Shocking for shock's sake doesn't make me shop at your store. Are you marketing to me, or my husband?

Here's the thing: years ago, my husband asked me to not to get the Victoria's Secret catalog anymore. Because I respect him, I cancelled mailings from them. When I saw this in the mail yesterday, it took me right back to that time. Really, it raises all kinds of questions. Why do you want half-naked girls on the cover of a CLOTHING CATALOG?! Are you selling half-naked women? Last time I checked, you would actually *prefer* that I buy both a top and bottoms. Wouldn't that be better for your bottom line?

Please hear me: I don't think it's pushing any sort of homosexual agenda, as some have noted. I don't think it's not a beautiful shot. However, I *do* think it's almost soft-core porn. I do think it's very clear none of those women is wearing a top or bra (ironic, because I happen to know you sell both). And the only conclusion I can draw is that you chose that pic because you knew it would be shocking. Putting that pic on the front means you are not marketing to me. You're basically just opting for the old "all publicity is good publicity" thing.

I'm sad, because I always felt like you actually DID understand me and my preferences, and now I know you don't. Do I want to look like those girls? Sure! But they don't need to be half-naked on the cover for me to want to look like them.

Women who receive your catalog have husbands and sons who don't need to see that. Have some decency. Think about your customers. Don't turn in to Victoria's Secret. Make nice clothes for us and sell them tastefully. I expected more from you, Lane Bryant. I'm also thankful that Old Navy now has plus sizes on line. We can "embrace our curves" with clothes on them, you know.

They replied nicely but cluelessly:

Hi Margaret - Thank you for notifying us of your thoughts regarding the Lane Bryant September magalog cover. Its intent is to feature a group of beautiful women proudly showing their figures and empowering our customers to embrace their own curves. We appreciate your opinion and apologize for any displeasure the photo may have caused you.
Again, we value your opinion and that you took the time to share it, and we will continue to offer the fashion and quality you expect from us.

Which I felt compelled to correct:

No; your intent was to shock. Please don't try to couch it in marketing spin. The women who get your catalog are intelligent, professional, world-wise women. Again I'll say: curves can be embraced with clothes on. Showing me half-naked girls who are too big to be "regular-sized" models doesn't "empower me to embrace my curves". Please. They don't even have back fat! You've made me laugh. Thanks.

And then I reminded them of this example of theirs which is utterly gorgeous (and ironically contains many of the same models):

You've missed a few BWA HA HA moments in our house lately and I've been trying to remember to blog about things Unk said lately that made me go LOL. I had three "food conversations with Unk" I was going to share with you, but I can only remember 1. *sigh* The mind is the first thing to go.

The one that has stuck in my head for ages was when I was cutting up broccoli florets and telling him how good they were for him. The conversation was something to the effect of:
Me: Cruciferous vegetables are so good for you! They fight cancer!
He: Cruciferous vegetables? Like what?
Me: Uh ... like the broccoli I'm cutting up now.
He: So is there a link between farting and less cancer?

The broccoli is thanks to our CSA (lovingly known as The Farmbox). We've had an abundance of greens (of course!) and other veggies (recognizable and un), and rhubarb! We had several weeks in a row with only a small amount of rhubarb (so had to settle for "crisps"), but last week finally got enough to bake a whole pie. Anyone who knows my husband knows he doesn't really eat sweets much at all, and is more likely to be found eating protein at any time of the day or night -- meals, snacks, or otherwise. So imagine our surprise when we heard he'd had a piece of pie for breakfast the morning after I made it! Our friend Scotty (who is living with us for a while) decided that the Unk who eats pie for breakfast is probably a horcrux.
( The only reason to click here is to see the rhubarb pie progression pics )

Recently, I was in a situation where I was forced to think about my extreme dislike for Burger King. I can't remember what I was doing or why I thought it needed to be traced, but imagine my surprise when I "remembered" why I disliked it so! Even more recently I was in a Facebook conversation where I had to type it and thought, "oh yeah, I can blog this. THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW!" Lucky you.

Growing up, we didn't eat a lot of fast food. In fact, we ate almost none. On a very basic level, I couldn't have told you if I liked McDonald's or Burger King or Wendy's better, or what a favorite order was at each place, etc. In college, I found that I really liked the Hardee's breakfast sandwiches and would have one on the way to church every Sunday morning. I distinctly remember when McDonald's started selling chicken nuggets - I was also in college, and I loved a 9-pack with BBQ dipping sauce. I'm sure the fact that at some point I started buying the 20-pack had nothing to do with the fact that I went to college at about 130 lbs. and ended my freshman year at 162.

Life moved on and I never really did become a big fast food eater (no pun intended), but if given the choice, I'd have a Wendy's burger over anything else. McDonald's would be my next choice, but I really don't like Burger King. Why? For many years I didn't think about it; I just knew I didn't like them.

And then I had my memory epiphany. I never really ate a lot of Burger King, but I ceased altogether when they came out with the "croissanwich". I was so offended by what they did to the word croissant that I never wanted to eat there again. My only regret is that I wanted to boycott them again when they came out with that creepy Burger King ... King as a mascot. Holy cow, I wished I'd been spending millions there on a weekly basis so they would feel the big gaping hole of me NEVER EATING THERE AGAIN as a result of that stalker mascot decision. *sigh*

Anyway, that's why I don't eat Burger King. Ever. And "because I like food" is the reason I don't eat at other fast food places. Also, see: $$. Last, I've seen Supersize Me and it freaked me out. ... although I did recently eat a McDonald's burger in the Whole Foods parking lot, which gave me an evil satisfaction I can't fully explain.

I guess I wrote this and never actually clicked the "post" button. I could just toss it, but I might as well have it here so I can link back to it. Basically, here's my essay on "I don't care what he does in his personal life" and (former) Representative Anthony Weiner.
_________________

Just like with Bill Clinton, I'm hearing comments to the effect of "I don't care what Representative Weiner does in his personal life ..." blah blah blah. Basically what these people are saying is, "I just want him to be good at his job. He can do whatever he wants when he's off the clock." This sounds so magnanimous and high-thinking and… short-sighted.

Because while that sounds good in theory, there are several things wrong with it in reality. I could argue that very few of us are only at our jobs for 8 hours a day. The vast majority of us (and definitely politicians) ARE our jobs 24/7. But that's not my argument.

Here's the thing: morals are morals. You don't use them sometimes. You don't just use them at home or just at work. They govern your every action. They don't change between work and home -- they are with you always. If you believe X is wrong; it's wrong all the time. If you believe Y is right; it's right all the time. Situational ethics don't actually exist. You might think you can apply one set of morals in one type of circumstance and another in another, but eventually your real ethics take over and the gray becomes black or white.

And because of that, I say that your morals matter, politicians. If you'll steal pens from work today, there's no telling what you'll steal from work tomorrow.

But I can give you a better example. I worked for a man in Chicago who I used to say was the best manager of anything I'd ever worked for. He managed one of the top 3 branches of a huge financial services company. This was no small potatoes. I was his assistant and part of the leadership team in both a suburb office and then in the big downtown Chicago office. He really was a great manager and boss. Everyone loved him, he increased production in that branch, he recruited great people, and as one of the top 3 branches in the nation, we were incredibly successful and were constantly jockeying for position 1, 2, or 3 in the company.

In the months up to my taking a new job as a trainer (and reporting to our home office), some odd things happened. I felt like he was constantly mad at me, he made some very questionable hiring decisions, and it was just a generally weird atmosphere. Basically, I was happy to become a home office employee and telecommute from a different space in that Chicago office and no longer report to him.

As time passed, I heard comments and rumblings from the people who sat near my new desk (when I was actually in town and in the office). More decisions that didn’t sound like that manager. Odd choices, strange rule implementation, a couple really good recruits he’d had “in the bag” who slipped through his fingers and went to other firms, etc., etc. And more bad hiring decisions.

And then one day when I was just back from a trip, he asked me to come into his office. After walking down the hall feeling slightly paranoid (I didn’t report to him anymore – why did I feel funny?!), I got to his office and he shut the door behind me. It felt exactly like when I worked for him and he had to yell at me. And then he shocked me. I mean SHOCKED me. He told me he’d been having an affair, and was basically enlisting my help in convincing people that it was true love. I could go into the details of who the person was and how that made it even more upsetting, but I don’t need to. Suffice it to say that that explained EVERYTHING. (and nothing, at the same time, of course) He had just celebrated a big anniversary (20 or 25), and was having an affair at the same time.

It's possible you might not see the correlation between the affair and his job performance, but it was glaringly obvious to me and many people around him. His lapse in morals most definitely affected his work. Soon after The Conversation, he was demoted to a smaller branch, left his wife, and then eventually was no longer a branch manager. I'm not sure if he married the woman he "affaired" with, but he is not with her now. I fell out of touch with him so I don't even know the whole work history, but suffice it to say he was either asked to leave (that's how they fire managers who haven't actually embezzled or done something illegal but are nonetheless sucking at their jobs) or actually dismissed in the end.

You can keep saying "what he does in his personal life doesn't matter to me; I just want him to be the mayor/senator/president/whatever," but for me? It matters. It matters a lot. I expect a person to have integrity in all of their dealings. I expect him/her to be faithful to a partner, to be a parent to the kids they've chosen to have, to do the job they are being paid to do. Doing something "on their own time" isn't actually a thing if it violates promises and vows they've already made. If they don't demonstrate integrity in little things, I don't expect them to demonstrate it in the big ones. What's the expression? "Character is who you are when no one's watching" or something like that. I believe it. Because it's true.

Old BookCrossers may remember this chit-chat thread, which just took me about 20 minutes to find using the "new" search feature on BC. It took long enough that I decided to condense the BBB part because it entertained me, and I talk about it periodically.

Here's the original thread. Unless BC changes the way they do links again, of course.

To start, our good friend zz_neena was looking for dinner ideas. People responded with a lot of good recipe ideas, so if you're looking for dinner recipes, there's that in that thread, too. Of course someone wondered what she was serving for dessert, which is where this recipe came up.

Original Recipe:
Here is a SUPER easy brownie that tastes really decadent!
(by BookCrosser Ri)

Combine one box of brownie mix with one can of pureed black beans (yes, you heard me correctly). I just throw the beans in the blender with a bit of the liquid from the can until it makes a nice soupy goop. Stir it up, like you would a "regular" brownie mix.

Bake just like it says on the brownie mix box. That's it. Yes, it is true that the only ingredients are black beans and brownie mix.

These brownies are extremely fudgy and the best that I have ever tasted. I give them as gifts, as they are so popular with my friends now. You can dress them up with frosting, chocolate chips, marshmallow fluff, nuts, etc. They are also really nice with vanilla ice cream and hot fudge sauce!

Also, I tend to underbake my brownies a bit to keep them moist and fudgy, as I don't like hard ones.

The details, if you wondered how anyone could come up with that idea:
I learned of ts great recipe from a vegan friend of mine who also has bad chocolate cravings. She had way too many beans in her house and voila, the recipe was born.

I typically used Pilsbury mix (when I was in the States) because it was the one that didn't have whey in the mix (hence it was vegan). But, since then I have successfully made this with any brownie mix. For the 13x9 sized mix, I used the whole can of beans with a little liquid. For the smaller 9x9 varieties, I just scale back the beans slightly and add to the mix until it looks like brownie batter consistency.

As for the health specs, I don't know them. On the box mixes there is usually a nutritional listing for the mix itself as well as the prepared type. Take the info from the mix and then add the info from the black bean can (divided of course by the number of brownies you cut).

Well, I certainly couldn't leave it at that, so ...
Then I did a Scientific Experiment:
The specimens are in the oven!
Specimen A: Atkins Chocolate Brownie Mix
Specimen B: Betty Crocker Chocolate Chunk Brownie Mix

so far they look and smell like brownies, although Betty's was clearly glossier and brownier. The chunks of chocolates didn't hurt her either. . .

One note: we found black beans with an ingredient list of only beans, water, salt. Many of the others had garlic or onion powder or other things. Probably something you want to check first :)

A huge plus from the lab: no measuring cups!

Results from the Lab Experiment:
Specimen A (Atkins) just didn't quite cut it. Quite frankly, we weren't sure if they would be sweet enough even if made as directed. I wish I had stirred some extra sugar (I was even willing to use Splenda) in the mix.

Specimen B (Betty) was . . .well, to use Ri's word, "decadent". We think it was the gooey chunks of chocolate throughout the brownie.

Final results: Betty's could be eaten straight out of the pan. And quite frankly, were. Could have been a *tiny* bit sweeter, but was definitely, definitely yummy.

Atkins was MORE than adequate with vanilla ice cream and chocolate syrup.

Special thanks to Ri for the idea (which I will definitely do again) and zz-neena for having a dinner emergency in the first place. Even if they hadn't turned out yummily :) we still had fun doing the science experiment!

The good thing -- my friend who was over for dinner took them back downtown with her to give to "the boys", so we just have a little bit left in the house.

Additional thoughts (in conversation) about the two mixes:
... that the Atkins one just wouldn't be good no matter *how* it was prepared! :) But honestly, it was perfectly good with vanilla ice cream and chocolate syrup!

No doubt Betty is using the gooey chocolate chunks as a diversionary tactic :)

And of course, Unk's final assessment from the morning after:
"those are the first brownies that'll give you gas"