From the WSJ I have just learnt about the cherpumple as a prospect for holiday meals. Not only is it too much dessert, it’s too much information.
In case your clicking finger is broken, a cherpumple is three whole pies—cherry, pumpkin & apple—baked into three cake layers—white, yellow & spice, respectively. Then it’s glued together with cream cheese frosting.
This is just plain wrong on so many levels. For one thing, pumpkin pie is slimy & disgusting all on its own. I’ve made it a couple of times for holiday dinners, but I’ve never been able to gag down more than a single forkful.
I think my chief objection—aside from the sheer excess—is the amount of work involved. Even though the cherpumple inventor uses frozen pies & cake mixes, you have bake the pies, then wrangle them into their respective cake layers & bake again.
Plus, apparently it’s a crap shoot as to whether the thing is actually baked through.
Then you have to assemble it with “three tall tubs of cream cheese frosting” & hope to God it doesn’t collapse on you or slide off in three different directions. I mean—cakes are supposed to be light; imagine what the layers are like with a pie in each of them? We’re not talking about the ground-up Styrofoam crème-like filling in a Hostess Sno Ball here.
The article says all this folderol can take up to three days.
& when you’re done with all that, what have you got? Something at least 83% of your friends aren’t going to touch with a barge pole, much less a fork.
With the holiday season fast approaching, here's a hope: that you don’t have anyone in your life who’d put a cherpumple on the table in the expectation you’ll eat it.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
This little light
Romita Patel, my physical therapist, informed me that today is Diwali, the Hindu holiday also referred to as the festival of lights.
Although there appear to be several legends associated with the tradition of Diwali, they mostly revolve around the triumph of righteousness over evil, of light over darkness. Thus it’s appropriate that the focus should be on lights—oil lamps, candles and (so I hear) neon lights among the nouveau riche.
Diwali marks the end of a month of prep; Romita tells me there’s been a lot of dancing at temples, and tonight big family meals with emphasis on Indian sweets.
(Tonight is also Bonfire Night in the UK, when Britons burn effigies of Guy Fawkes, symbolically destroying Roman Catholics. This marks the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot, and--while historical—isn’t nearly as felicitous as Diwali.)
I’m joining in the celebration in my own, small way: hauling out a couple dozen candles to light and contemplate through the evening.
A happy and prosperous Diwali to you. And God bless us, everyone.
Although there appear to be several legends associated with the tradition of Diwali, they mostly revolve around the triumph of righteousness over evil, of light over darkness. Thus it’s appropriate that the focus should be on lights—oil lamps, candles and (so I hear) neon lights among the nouveau riche.
Diwali marks the end of a month of prep; Romita tells me there’s been a lot of dancing at temples, and tonight big family meals with emphasis on Indian sweets.
(Tonight is also Bonfire Night in the UK, when Britons burn effigies of Guy Fawkes, symbolically destroying Roman Catholics. This marks the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot, and--while historical—isn’t nearly as felicitous as Diwali.)
I’m joining in the celebration in my own, small way: hauling out a couple dozen candles to light and contemplate through the evening.
A happy and prosperous Diwali to you. And God bless us, everyone.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Caught in the Net
New firestorm in the blogosphere. It seems some otherwise obscure print/Web Zine called Cooks Source allegedly lifted a discussion of how apple pie recipes changed from the 14th to the 17th centuries, posted in 2005 by Monica Gaudio on the Gode Cookery website. When a friend notified Gaudio that she’d been plagiarized, not by a college student or a blogger but by an actual, supposedly professional publication, she contacted Cooks Source for an apology and token damages of $130 to the Columbia School of Journalism.
Instead, she received an email purportedly from CS editor Judith Griggs basically telling her to get over herself, be grateful that her work was deemed worthy of publication by the mag and maybe she could consider how CS improved the piece by editing it. (Gaudio’s post obviously includes text taken from original sources, so it has what we would consider stylistic and spelling inconsistencies. Griggs apparently didn’t actually read enough of the article to twig to that before slapping it into the October issue.)
Besides, Griggs goes on, “[H]onestly, Monica, the web is considered ‘public domain’ and you should be happy we just didn't ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence [sic] and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally.”
Basically, then, it’s not really plagiarism if it’s stolen from the Web, because “if it’s out there, it’s available to everyone, innit?” Like downloading MP3 files or bootleg videos. Or copying and pasting entire pages from an online cooking magazine.
And, besides—all CS writers are ecstatic to work for them for free.
What’s interesting about this—aside from Griggs’s whacked-out view of copyright violations (she stole the entire article, which is copyrightable, not just a recipe, which is not; at least a list of ingredients is not) and her apparent belief that writers don’t really own their work, not like publishers—is the immediate marshaling of Web resources to excoriate her.
The magazine’s actual Facebook page (to which http://www.cookssource.com/ no longer links) has a gazillion comments, most (that I see) not happy about Griggs’s arrogance. But there’s a very close lookalike Facebook page, with scores more criticism. (I can only tell the difference by the taglines: the official one reads “See the Chef/Source Collaboration on the Discussion Page”; the faux one, “We invented food.”) Seems like your average Netizen can figure out which line Griggs took a flying leap over, although she's having some trouble with it.
There’s “official” media coverage, too—LA Times, Washington Post, NY Times, etc. So far Griggs has avoided responding to anyone (except the fausse Griggs on the faux Facebook page), and the CS website has essentially gone static. Probably huddled with her lawyers trying to come up with a spin that’ll get her out of the public pickle and persuade investors that her head’s not as far up her derrière as she’s made it appear.
Now that’ll be something to watch.
Oh, and Judi? My work is copyrighted and not available to you at any price. Put that in your saucepan and cook it.
Instead, she received an email purportedly from CS editor Judith Griggs basically telling her to get over herself, be grateful that her work was deemed worthy of publication by the mag and maybe she could consider how CS improved the piece by editing it. (Gaudio’s post obviously includes text taken from original sources, so it has what we would consider stylistic and spelling inconsistencies. Griggs apparently didn’t actually read enough of the article to twig to that before slapping it into the October issue.)
Besides, Griggs goes on, “[H]onestly, Monica, the web is considered ‘public domain’ and you should be happy we just didn't ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence [sic] and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally.”
Basically, then, it’s not really plagiarism if it’s stolen from the Web, because “if it’s out there, it’s available to everyone, innit?” Like downloading MP3 files or bootleg videos. Or copying and pasting entire pages from an online cooking magazine.
And, besides—all CS writers are ecstatic to work for them for free.
What’s interesting about this—aside from Griggs’s whacked-out view of copyright violations (she stole the entire article, which is copyrightable, not just a recipe, which is not; at least a list of ingredients is not) and her apparent belief that writers don’t really own their work, not like publishers—is the immediate marshaling of Web resources to excoriate her.
The magazine’s actual Facebook page (to which http://www.cookssource.com/ no longer links) has a gazillion comments, most (that I see) not happy about Griggs’s arrogance. But there’s a very close lookalike Facebook page, with scores more criticism. (I can only tell the difference by the taglines: the official one reads “See the Chef/Source Collaboration on the Discussion Page”; the faux one, “We invented food.”) Seems like your average Netizen can figure out which line Griggs took a flying leap over, although she's having some trouble with it.
There’s “official” media coverage, too—LA Times, Washington Post, NY Times, etc. So far Griggs has avoided responding to anyone (except the fausse Griggs on the faux Facebook page), and the CS website has essentially gone static. Probably huddled with her lawyers trying to come up with a spin that’ll get her out of the public pickle and persuade investors that her head’s not as far up her derrière as she’s made it appear.
Now that’ll be something to watch.
Oh, and Judi? My work is copyrighted and not available to you at any price. Put that in your saucepan and cook it.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
They're baaaack...
As you might imagine, I’m dismayed by the outcome of the national elections. The ’Pubs were sullen & strident as the minority in Congress, concentrating on blocking any legislation that might move the country out of this greed-induced economic depression. Now they’re predictably claiming a mandate to trample on everything that slipped through their claws in the past two years.
The tone has been set by House Speaker-presumptive John Boehner, who essentially took out his willie & waved it in wide arcs while trumpeting that there’ll be no compromise with the President…on anything.
I knew this was getting ugly when in the past couple of days I saw the “Chinese Professor” ad, by some group calling itself “Citizens Against Government Waste”. Their site, which I’ll let you find for yourself, claims they’re non-partisan, but this racist Commies-are-set-to-enslave-us message has to come from the vicinity of those wonderful folks who brought us Sarah Palin & bad imitation powdered wigs.
So it doesn’t bode well for civility in any area of government or public life for the next two years.
The tone has been set by House Speaker-presumptive John Boehner, who essentially took out his willie & waved it in wide arcs while trumpeting that there’ll be no compromise with the President…on anything.
I knew this was getting ugly when in the past couple of days I saw the “Chinese Professor” ad, by some group calling itself “Citizens Against Government Waste”. Their site, which I’ll let you find for yourself, claims they’re non-partisan, but this racist Commies-are-set-to-enslave-us message has to come from the vicinity of those wonderful folks who brought us Sarah Palin & bad imitation powdered wigs.
So it doesn’t bode well for civility in any area of government or public life for the next two years.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Crossing the bar
My relief and happiness that my friend Leilah came through surgery and has a positive initial prognosis has been tempered by receiving word that a friend from the UK died last Thursday.
Winston François was a wonderfully kind and generous man. I worked with him in sales support at Newbridge/Alcatel from 1998 to 2001. I never saw him in a flap nor did I ever hear him diss anyone—even when dissing was entirely called for.
I could go to Win for questions about customers or technologies and he always made time for me. He also cleared the way for me to speak with other technical staff.
When I first went over there in August of 1998 to go through the formal interview process, Win spent an evening taking me round estate agent offices in Reading to get an idea of what was available to rent. When I said the approach on this side of the pond was to go to an agency/landlord and state my requirements and ask what they have that meets it, he advised me (accurately, as it turns out) that over there you walk into an agent’s and ask, “Whatta ya got?”
I also remember him calming me down after one frustrating incident, telling me, “Horses for courses, [Bas Bleu], horses for courses.”
Win had a wife and five daughters. He built a conservatory onto their house by himself. He was one of the first to welcome me to the UK and one of the last to see me off. He was a terrific friend and I believe the world is darker for not having this smile in it any more.
Winston François was a wonderfully kind and generous man. I worked with him in sales support at Newbridge/Alcatel from 1998 to 2001. I never saw him in a flap nor did I ever hear him diss anyone—even when dissing was entirely called for.
I could go to Win for questions about customers or technologies and he always made time for me. He also cleared the way for me to speak with other technical staff.
When I first went over there in August of 1998 to go through the formal interview process, Win spent an evening taking me round estate agent offices in Reading to get an idea of what was available to rent. When I said the approach on this side of the pond was to go to an agency/landlord and state my requirements and ask what they have that meets it, he advised me (accurately, as it turns out) that over there you walk into an agent’s and ask, “Whatta ya got?”
I also remember him calming me down after one frustrating incident, telling me, “Horses for courses, [Bas Bleu], horses for courses.”
Win had a wife and five daughters. He built a conservatory onto their house by himself. He was one of the first to welcome me to the UK and one of the last to see me off. He was a terrific friend and I believe the world is darker for not having this smile in it any more.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Be scared...
I can’t think that it’s entirely out of place that Halloween comes this year as close to general elections as they can get. This year’s mid-terms have to be as scary as they come.
And here I am, back in the Golden State to cast my vote. Life is good.
For years after leaving California for the East Coast I voted absentee from here—the ballots are always so much more interesting than any other state. (Don’t get worked up—I only voted here, never in North Carolina or Virginia until I finally moved back from Europe in 2001. And then I stopped voting here. I wasn't double-dipping.)
In California we vote on both referenda (potential laws proposed by the legislature for public endorsement because they haven’t the spine to enact them on their own) and initiatives (grass-roots measures that originate by petition from the citizenry). There’s always at least one measure that’s completely whacked and usually (at least for the past 25 years) something to do with marijuana.
This year that would be Proposition 19, which would legalize (and tax) the general sale of weed, not limited (as it is now) to medical purposes. There’s been surprisingly little advertising about this, although the two major newspapers in the area—San José Mercury-News & San Francisco Chronicle—are both opposed to it.
There’s a good deal more flapdoodle about Prop. 23, which has been funded by oil companies to rescind an earlier law encouraging clean energy. Quelle surprise on that one. Then there’s Prop. 24, which would do something about corporate tax breaks, although I can’t really figure out what, exactly, and is being positioned as a “job-killer” by ads I’m assuming are funded by, you know, business (although, thanks to the US Supreme Court, it’s hard to tell who, exactly, is behind “issue” campaigns).
We have a couple of interesting races, too, which may have made the national press: there are very visible (although not at all enlightening) campaigns for the offices of Governor and of US Senator.
Schwartzenegger has served his constitutional limit of two terms, so it’s a green field for the two major gubernatorial candidates, former Governor Jerry Brown (Dem.) and Internet billionaire Meg Whitman (Rep.). (This being California, there are also candidates from the Peace and Freedom, American Independent, Green and Libertarian parties. Try and match that in Washington.)
A couple of things I find interesting about this race is that there’s been remarkably little advertising on TV (at least on the cable channels) until just a couple of weeks ago. Most of that was by Whitman (who famously has spent more than $140M on her campaign) badmouthing Brown—sadly (for those who’d like to see some civility and attention to issues in these races), her points have frequently turned out not to have a strong basis in facts. Moreover, the elements she trumpets are mostly irrelevant.
Brown has kicked in recently and his ads are equally off-point. Whitman, CEO of eBay (which connection might not be such a positive, as she’s also the head of PayPal) was outed by celebrity-in-her-own-right attorney Gloria Allred (notorious for grabbing headlines for clients’ charges, but we never seem to hear how the cases are settled) for allegedly knowingly employing an illegal alien as a housekeeper. Brown jumped on that for a while before apparently coming to his senses.
Then there’s the fight for the US Senate: incumbent Barbara Boxer (Dem.) vs. challenger and computer billionaire Carly Fiorina. Fiorina was invited to leave the CEO position of HP by the board of directors in 2005 after the merger with Compaq turned out to be not such a brilliant move, but she’s presenting herself (as Whitman is doing) as a take-charge change agent who can go to Washington and turn things around for Californians. Boxer, from what I’ve seen, hasn’t been saying much of anything, until just the past week or so.
(There’ve been debates between these two sets of candidates; but, honestly, it’s still been hard to get any sense of their focus—other than getting elected, of course.)
So it’s kind of hard to choose among them. The major news media across the state have endorsed Brown over Whitman; the Mercury-News has even accused Whitman flat out of being a liar. Interestingly, the Chronicle declined to recommend either Boxer or Fiorina. Their rationale is that Boxer has basically accomplished bupkis in her 18 years in office; and while they reckon that Fiorina actually can get things done, they’d be the wrong things for the state.
Swell.
(I'm only sorry that I’m in the wrong district to cast a vote against Nancy Pelosi, who has turned out to be one of the biggest political hacks to grace the halls of Congress—which has seen some giants of hackery.)
So, dunno what the elections in your state look like; but here in California I’m feeling scared…very scared.
And here I am, back in the Golden State to cast my vote. Life is good.
For years after leaving California for the East Coast I voted absentee from here—the ballots are always so much more interesting than any other state. (Don’t get worked up—I only voted here, never in North Carolina or Virginia until I finally moved back from Europe in 2001. And then I stopped voting here. I wasn't double-dipping.)
In California we vote on both referenda (potential laws proposed by the legislature for public endorsement because they haven’t the spine to enact them on their own) and initiatives (grass-roots measures that originate by petition from the citizenry). There’s always at least one measure that’s completely whacked and usually (at least for the past 25 years) something to do with marijuana.
This year that would be Proposition 19, which would legalize (and tax) the general sale of weed, not limited (as it is now) to medical purposes. There’s been surprisingly little advertising about this, although the two major newspapers in the area—San José Mercury-News & San Francisco Chronicle—are both opposed to it.
There’s a good deal more flapdoodle about Prop. 23, which has been funded by oil companies to rescind an earlier law encouraging clean energy. Quelle surprise on that one. Then there’s Prop. 24, which would do something about corporate tax breaks, although I can’t really figure out what, exactly, and is being positioned as a “job-killer” by ads I’m assuming are funded by, you know, business (although, thanks to the US Supreme Court, it’s hard to tell who, exactly, is behind “issue” campaigns).
We have a couple of interesting races, too, which may have made the national press: there are very visible (although not at all enlightening) campaigns for the offices of Governor and of US Senator.
Schwartzenegger has served his constitutional limit of two terms, so it’s a green field for the two major gubernatorial candidates, former Governor Jerry Brown (Dem.) and Internet billionaire Meg Whitman (Rep.). (This being California, there are also candidates from the Peace and Freedom, American Independent, Green and Libertarian parties. Try and match that in Washington.)
A couple of things I find interesting about this race is that there’s been remarkably little advertising on TV (at least on the cable channels) until just a couple of weeks ago. Most of that was by Whitman (who famously has spent more than $140M on her campaign) badmouthing Brown—sadly (for those who’d like to see some civility and attention to issues in these races), her points have frequently turned out not to have a strong basis in facts. Moreover, the elements she trumpets are mostly irrelevant.
Brown has kicked in recently and his ads are equally off-point. Whitman, CEO of eBay (which connection might not be such a positive, as she’s also the head of PayPal) was outed by celebrity-in-her-own-right attorney Gloria Allred (notorious for grabbing headlines for clients’ charges, but we never seem to hear how the cases are settled) for allegedly knowingly employing an illegal alien as a housekeeper. Brown jumped on that for a while before apparently coming to his senses.
Then there’s the fight for the US Senate: incumbent Barbara Boxer (Dem.) vs. challenger and computer billionaire Carly Fiorina. Fiorina was invited to leave the CEO position of HP by the board of directors in 2005 after the merger with Compaq turned out to be not such a brilliant move, but she’s presenting herself (as Whitman is doing) as a take-charge change agent who can go to Washington and turn things around for Californians. Boxer, from what I’ve seen, hasn’t been saying much of anything, until just the past week or so.
(There’ve been debates between these two sets of candidates; but, honestly, it’s still been hard to get any sense of their focus—other than getting elected, of course.)
So it’s kind of hard to choose among them. The major news media across the state have endorsed Brown over Whitman; the Mercury-News has even accused Whitman flat out of being a liar. Interestingly, the Chronicle declined to recommend either Boxer or Fiorina. Their rationale is that Boxer has basically accomplished bupkis in her 18 years in office; and while they reckon that Fiorina actually can get things done, they’d be the wrong things for the state.
Swell.
(I'm only sorry that I’m in the wrong district to cast a vote against Nancy Pelosi, who has turned out to be one of the biggest political hacks to grace the halls of Congress—which has seen some giants of hackery.)
So, dunno what the elections in your state look like; but here in California I’m feeling scared…very scared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)