Do it!
Carolina Naturally is read in 192 countries around the world daily.
'Secret' Handshake ...
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Today in History
| 363 | Roman Emperor Julian dies, ending the Pagan Revival. | |
| 1743 | English King George defeats the French at Dettingen, Bavaria. | |
| 1833 | Prudence Crandall, a white woman, is arrested for conducting an academy for black women in Canterbury, Conn. | |
| 1862 | Confederates break through the Union lines at the Battle of Gaines' Mill–the third engagement of the Seven Days' campaign. | |
| 1864 | General Sherman is repulsed by Confederates at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain. | |
| 1871 | The yen becomes the new form of currency in Japan. | |
| 1905 | The crew of the Russian battleship Potemkin mutinies. | |
| 1918 | Two German pilots are saved by parachutes for the first time. | |
| 1923 | Yugoslav Premier Nikola Pachitch is wounded by Serb attackers in Belgrade. | |
| 1924 | Democrats offer Mrs. Leroy Springs the vice presidential nomination, the first woman considered for the job. | |
| 1927 | The U.S. Marines adopt the English bulldog as their mascot. | |
| 1929 | Scientists at Bell Laboratories in New York reveal a system for transmitting television pictures. | |
| 1942 | The Allied convoy PQ-17 leaves Iceland for Murmansk and Archangel. | |
| 1944 | Allied forces capture the port city of Cherbourg, France. | |
| 1950 | The UN Security Council calls on members for troops to aid South Korea. | |
| 1963 | Henry Cabot Lodge is appointed U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam. | |
| 1973 | President Richard Nixon vetoes a Senate ban on the Cambodia bombing. | |
| 1985 | The U.S. House of Representatives votes to limit the use of combat troops in Nicaragua. |
America's Top 10 Climate Change Polluters
The top 100 air polluters in America list recently was released by the University of Massachusetts – Amherst.
Did you know ...
About how to fix your job
Joe Gandelman tells us about bigotry and America's got talent
What to ask about your retirement
What could be more democratic than spying on everybody?
Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act in 5-4 vote
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes
the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by
its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By
seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living
in marriages less respected than others." — from the Supreme Court's decision invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act. As per usual this week, SCOTUS Blog is your best source, and they're live-blogging.
Supreme Court alters the Voting Rights Act
Despite what you may have gathered from some of the overwrought
headlines I've seen on social media, the Supreme Court did not
invalidate the Voting Rights Act Tuesday. But it did make some key changes
to the way the Act currently functions. Here's Amy Howe of the SCOTUS Blog, explaining the ruling in plain English (as opposed to legal speak, which is kind of a different language):
In theory, this could be a good thing. Obviously, racism still exists. But it's also reasonable to assume that the practical application of racism on voting rights might look different than it did half a century ago. Some places that had big issues with this in the 20th century might not today, and vice versa.
The downside, though, is the reality that the Supreme Court just handed the ball to Congress — that is to say, it's now the responsibility of a spectacularly fractured institution that can't seem to get even basic budgetary measures passed, let alone something as inevitably controversial as new rules for Voting Rights Act preclearance. And, without that, the whole part of the VRA that is supposed to prevent discrimination in high-risk areas is dormant. It just sits there — a nice idea, and one the Supreme Court says they technically agree with, but now completely lacking any power.
It's not the same as completely wiping out the VRA, but it does change the way the VRA works (at least until Congress acts) in ways that make it harder to prevent voter discrimination. People can still challenge local changes to voting districts or rules under the VRA, but now it's their job to prove that the VRA has been violated — rather than the state or district's job to prove that it has not.
Today the Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. That portion of the Act was designed to prevent discrimination in voting by requiring all state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures, no matter how small. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required.Basically, this is the court saying that the parts of the country that needed preclearance applied to them in 1964 might not be the same parts of the country that need it today, and they've kicked the law back to Congress to decide how to deal with that.
But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.
In theory, this could be a good thing. Obviously, racism still exists. But it's also reasonable to assume that the practical application of racism on voting rights might look different than it did half a century ago. Some places that had big issues with this in the 20th century might not today, and vice versa.
The downside, though, is the reality that the Supreme Court just handed the ball to Congress — that is to say, it's now the responsibility of a spectacularly fractured institution that can't seem to get even basic budgetary measures passed, let alone something as inevitably controversial as new rules for Voting Rights Act preclearance. And, without that, the whole part of the VRA that is supposed to prevent discrimination in high-risk areas is dormant. It just sits there — a nice idea, and one the Supreme Court says they technically agree with, but now completely lacking any power.
It's not the same as completely wiping out the VRA, but it does change the way the VRA works (at least until Congress acts) in ways that make it harder to prevent voter discrimination. People can still challenge local changes to voting districts or rules under the VRA, but now it's their job to prove that the VRA has been violated — rather than the state or district's job to prove that it has not.
No Right to Remain Silent
by
Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
The Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 17 that has been
ignored by most media outlets, despite its devastating effect on one of
the most fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that a person no longer has the right to remain silent as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. In relevant part, the Fifth Amendment mandates that no one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, that part of the Bill of Rights has been excised — and has joined the list of so many other fundamental liberties that now lie on the scrap heap of history.
Here’s a little background of the circumstances of the Salinas case, as told by Slate:
Another terrifying twist to the Salinas decision is that it imposes on a suspect the necessity of invoking specific language before law enforcement will honor the basic civil liberties of a person who is (or historically, was) innocent until proven guilty.
Justice Breyer recognized how this novel necessity places a nearly insuperable barrier to invoking one’s right to remain silent. Writing for the dissent, Justice Breyer asked, “How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words [“I expressly invoke the privilege against self incrimination”] are legally magic?”
Breyer goes on to propose a “far better” way to protect a person’s right to not incriminate himself.
Our Founding Fathers understood how vital the right against self-incrimination was to the pursuit of justice. Consider the following defense of that right offered by imminent Founding Era jurist Joseph Story:
Finally, read the warning issued by Abraham Holmes during the Massachusetts ratifying convention in January 1788:
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that a person no longer has the right to remain silent as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. In relevant part, the Fifth Amendment mandates that no one “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, that part of the Bill of Rights has been excised — and has joined the list of so many other fundamental liberties that now lie on the scrap heap of history.
Here’s a little background of the circumstances of the Salinas case, as told by Slate:
Two brothers were shot at home in
Houston. There were no witnesses — only shotgun shell casings left at
the scene. Genovevo Salinas had been at a party at that house the night
before the shooting, and police invited him down to the station, where
they talked for an hour. They did not arrest him or read him his Miranda
warnings. Salinas agreed to give the police his shotgun for testing.
Then the cops asked whether the gun would match the shells from the
scene of the murder. According to the police, Salinas stopped talking,
shuffled his feet, bit his lip, and started to tighten up.
At trial, Salinas did not testify, but
prosecutors described his reportedly uncomfortable reaction to the
question about his shotgun. Salinas argued this violated his Fifth
Amendment rights: He had remained silent, and the Supreme Court had
previously made clear that prosecutors can’t bring up a defendant’s
refusal to answer the state’s questions. This time around, however,
Justice Samuel Alito blithely responded that Salinas was “free to leave”
and did not assert his right to remain silent. He was silent. But
somehow, without a lawyer, and without being told his rights, he should
have affirmatively “invoked” his right to not answer questions. Two
other justices signed on to Alito’s opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas and
Justice Antonin Scalia joined the judgment, but for a different reason;
they think Salinas had no rights at all to invoke before his arrest (they also object to Miranda itself). The upshot is another terrible Roberts Court ruling on confessions. In 2010 the court held that a suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk, after receiving his Miranda warnings, during two hours of questioning.
Consider the ripple effect of the Salinas decision. Specifically,
imagine how this ruling will alter the entire landscape of rights —
including Miranda — and how they are applied (or not applied) to those accused of serious crimes. Here’s one potential application singled out by the Atlantic:
You know what's a much more recent
wrinkle to the potential precedent effect of today's ruling? A case like
that of the younger Boston Marathon suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,
who reportedly sat through 16 hours of questioning before he was read his Miranda rights. Had
Tsarnaev, who was recovering from serious injuries at the time,
remained silent during questioning without explicitly invoking his Fifth
Amendment, prosecutors could, under the Salinas ruling, now use that
silence to their advantage.
Guilty or not, suspects in the United States no longer have the right
to remain silent. If they remain silent, moreover, that silence will
now be interpreted as guilt and will indeed — despite what you see on
television court and cop dramas — be used against that person in a court
of law. Even, in fact, the highest court in the land.Another terrifying twist to the Salinas decision is that it imposes on a suspect the necessity of invoking specific language before law enforcement will honor the basic civil liberties of a person who is (or historically, was) innocent until proven guilty.
Justice Breyer recognized how this novel necessity places a nearly insuperable barrier to invoking one’s right to remain silent. Writing for the dissent, Justice Breyer asked, “How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words [“I expressly invoke the privilege against self incrimination”] are legally magic?”
Breyer goes on to propose a “far better” way to protect a person’s right to not incriminate himself.
Can one fairly infer from an individual’s
silence and surrounding circumstances an exercise of the Fifth
Amendment’s privilege? The need for simplicity, the constitutional
importance of applying the Fifth Amendment to those who seek its
protections, and this Court’s case law all suggest that this is the
right question to ask here. And the answer to that question in the
circumstances of today’s case is clearly: yes.
In the black-is-white-up-is-down world that we live in, it is no
longer surprising to see constitutionally protected liberties being
championed by the “liberal” bloc of justices, while the so-called
“conservatives” chisel away at the bedrock of freedom.Our Founding Fathers understood how vital the right against self-incrimination was to the pursuit of justice. Consider the following defense of that right offered by imminent Founding Era jurist Joseph Story:
This also is but an affirmance of a
common law privilege. But it is of inestimable value. It is well known,
that in some countries, not only are criminals compelled to give
evidence against themselves, but are subjected to the rack or torture in
order to procure a confession of guilt. And what is worse, it has been
(as if in mockery or scorn) attempted to excuse, or justify it, upon the
score of mercy and humanity to the accused. It has been contrived, (it
is pretended,) that innocence should manifest itself by a stout
resistance, or guilt by a plain confession; as if a man's innocence were
to be tried by the hardness of his constitution, and his guilt by the
sensibility of his nerves. Cicero, many ages ago, though he lived in a
state, wherein it was usual to put slaves to the torture, in order to
furnish evidence, has denounced the absurdity and wickedness of the
measure in terms of glowing eloquence, as striking, as they are brief.
They are conceived in the spirit of Tacitus, and breathe all his
pregnant and indignant sarcasm. Ulpian, also, at a still later period in
Roman jurisprudence, stamped the practice with severe reproof.
In one day the Supreme Court of the United States now dispenses with a right defended by Cicero over 2,000 years ago.Finally, read the warning issued by Abraham Holmes during the Massachusetts ratifying convention in January 1788:
There is nothing to prevent Congress from
passing laws which shall compel a man, who is accused or suspected of a
crime, to furnish evidence against himself, and even from establishing
laws which shall order the court to take the charge exhibited against a
man for truth, unless he can furnish evidence of his innocence.
I do not pretend to say Congress will do
this; but, sir, I undertake to say that Congress (according to the
powers proposed to be given them by the Constitution) may do it; and if
they do not, it will be owing entirely — I repeat it, it will be owing
entirely — to the goodness of the men, and not in the least degree owing
to the goodness of the Constitution.
In the Salinas case, it was as Holmes wisely predicted: The
goodness of the Constitution was not enough to protect one of our most
fundamental and cherished liberties from the assault by an almost
all-powerful federal government.
The Battle for 2014 Begins Today
This is war, folks, and the battlefield is the year 2014. Progressives and Democrats sat on their hands pouting in 2010 because too many believed President Barack Obama wasn’t being progressive enough for their tastes. Yeah, well, we all see where that got us. Next year is the year we cannot afford to lose come November, because if we do then it’s hard to calculate the extent of the damage coming our way.
Yesterday the Supreme Court delivered a hammer blow to more than a half century of civil rights progress when they effectively neutered the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which has stood as the centerpiece of what the movement was about. When African Americans finally got the right to vote, thanks in large part to some ingenious legislative maneuvering and arm-twisting by President Lyndon Johnson, it said that black people were equal citizens just like everyone else, and that we had a right to equal representation in government just like everyone else. We helped build this country, so we deserved to have our voices heard in how it was governed. Yesterday the Supreme Court said that all is now well in the year 2013, so no more need for civil rights protections. Immediately the voter suppression machine kicked into gear, revving up to disenfranchise all those voters in 2014 that it couldn’t legally keep away in 2012. This was what they were waiting for.
So yes, that decision hurt like hell. But then came the next day, and thousands of gay Americans were finally recognized as human beings, and even the conservative SCOTUS recognized that the institution of marriage really didn’t need to be defended from anyone because it was never under attack. When two people who love one another want to be married and spend the rest of their lives together, that is what defends the sanctity of marriage. Meanwhile, in Texas, one lone female State Senator stood her ground in the face of a room full of knuckle draggers and ankle biters to defend the right of women to choose. But then wait, she wasn’t really alone was she? Because right there in the room with her during the closing hours were hundreds of protesters chanting “shame, shame” who lodged what was called a “people’s filibuster’ in support of Sen. Davis, helping her to keep the vote from taking place before the clock struck midnight. They succeeded, and the bill failed to become law.
From the Huffington Post:
Lawmakers had to vote on Senate Bill 5 before the special session’s end at 12 a.m. local time. However, more than 400 protesters halted the proceedings 15 minutes before the roll call could be completed with what they called “a people’s filibuster,”The Associated Press reported.People stood up. And when people stand up and refuse to take it any longer, things change. History has proven that, especially here in America, time and time again. And what that proves is that this is still our country and will always be our country. But only for so long as we are willing to fight for it. And then fight some more.
The crowd of demonstrators in the capitol cried “Shame! Shame!” when Davis’ filibuster was halted by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who ruled that her discussion of mandatory ultrasound testing was off-topic. Then the protesters roared after state Sen. Leticia Van De Putte asked, “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?”
The Reality Of Who Actually Works For Minimum Wage Will Shock You
If you add up the totals in these charts, 75% of minimum wage earners are adults. Let that sink in for a minute. 70% have at least a high school degree, and some have had at least a year or two of college.
Take
a look at the size of the big blue slice in the first pie chart — that
represents adult women who are working for minimum wage, almost half of
the total. This is why raising the minimum wage would make a huge
difference for tons of families, especially those in which women are the
primary breadwinners or single moms.
John Cornyn and the Government Teat
From Crooks and Liars
You know how Texas Senator John Cornyn just hates, hates, hates government? But even worse how he hates people who get "entitlements" like social security and Medicare?
Not so much in his own feedlot.
Come to find out, the man is triple-dipping the government retirement teat.
$48,807- is from the Judicial Retirement System of Texas. He served on the state Supreme Court from 1991 to 1997.
$10,132 in retirement benefits last year from the Employees Retirement System of Texas because he was Attorney General for three years.
$6,444 retirement distribution from the Texas County and District Retirement System because he was a district court judge for three years.
So, my math ain't perfect but he gets about $65,000 a year retirement for 12 years of work. That's probably better than your average social security retiree. Probably.
You know how Texas Senator John Cornyn just hates, hates, hates government? But even worse how he hates people who get "entitlements" like social security and Medicare?
Not so much in his own feedlot.
Come to find out, the man is triple-dipping the government retirement teat.
$48,807- is from the Judicial Retirement System of Texas. He served on the state Supreme Court from 1991 to 1997.
$10,132 in retirement benefits last year from the Employees Retirement System of Texas because he was Attorney General for three years.
$6,444 retirement distribution from the Texas County and District Retirement System because he was a district court judge for three years.
So, my math ain't perfect but he gets about $65,000 a year retirement for 12 years of work. That's probably better than your average social security retiree. Probably.
The republicans Reject The Concept That Every American Deserves Unalienable Rights
The repugicans’ conception of unalienable rights is a far cry from an environment where every American enjoys “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and former presidential candidate Rick Santorum explained the repugican cabal’s penchant for eliminating equal rights. He said, “the idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire,” and apparently it includes when there is no harm to anyone. Santorum was expressing his abhorrence of an individual’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the privacy of their bedroom, but repugicans are attempting to deny a growing number of Americans their unalienable rights in Congress, state legislatures, and where those fail they appeal to the wingnut stacked Supreme Court.
The idea of all Americans having the same equal rights under the Constitution is obviously out of the realm of possibility for repugicans who are fighting to undo hard-fought victories of past generations to give every American the same opportunities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Two of the cases the Supreme Court is deciding, marriage equality and voting rights are the result of repugican efforts to deny a large segment of the population their equal right to vote, or to marry the person they chose as a life partner. Yesterday the High Court refused to rule on whether all Americans deserve the right to equal educational opportunities that necessitated affirmative action laws preventing discrimination based on race. Just the idea that America needed a law to give all Americans equal rights to an education reveals that equality in America was sorely lacking.
The repugicans oppose equal voting rights for all Americans, and failing to achieve their discrimination based on race, they appealed to the conservative High Court to restrict minorities from exercising their equal right to vote. Conversely, repugicans demand equal rights for corporations and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts to elect candidates and lobby legislators while restricting the liberty of people by making voter access more difficult if not impossible. The idea of using the Supreme Court to restrict equal rights is a tactic that exceeds restricting the right to vote or marry the person one loves, and conservatives have been quite open as to their intentions to deny more Americans their equal rights and liberty on a variety of issues by appealing to wingnuts on the High Court.
It is no secret the anti-choice crowd in states are helping repugicans pass abortion bans for the sole purpose of taking a court case all the way to the Supreme Court to strike down the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The rush of personhood laws, forced medical procedures, closing abortion clinics, and attempts to ban contraception all restrict women’s equal right to choose, and anti-choice groups clamor for a High Court appeal to finish off their forty year assault on women’s reproductive rights. Every year evangelical preachers openly defy the IRS mandate that tax-exempt churches refrain from campaigning from the pulpit, and their stated purpose is taking the IRS to court if they enforce the law to strike down the separation of church and state in the first amendment. After the Affordable Care Act became law, states sued in federal courts and appealed to the High Court because the idea of all Americans having equal access to health care is unfathomable to repugicans.
In the U.S. Congress and repugican-controlled states there is an ongoing effort to restrict Americans’ right to a fair wage and equal pay for equal work because they claim corporations and big business’s right to unrestricted profits supersede the labor force. In Virginia, the attorney general is appealing a decision that prevents the state from restricting Virginians from their pursuit of happiness and right to privacy because it offends his personal religious beliefs. In several repugican states the right of students to have a religion-free education is being restricted by including religious-based teaching in science, as well as imposing prayer during school-sponsored sporting events. It is curious that repugicans are adamant that religious liberty of their supporters is never challenged, and yet they have no problem abusing the right to freedom from religion.
The list of repugican assaults on equal rights is unending, and it is not solely about enriching the wealthy or pandering to religion, but like everything repugicans represent, it is about taking everything the American people have; including their equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What Americans are witnessing in repugican policies are extreme right-wing, authoritarian, and intolerant practices that are the hallmarks of fascism that depends on inequality, loss of freedom, and suppression of the opposition by restricting voting rights, personal privacy rights, and economic rights. The repugicans lack the power to enforce their fascist policies through military might, but they are using the next best thing in the wingnut stacked Supreme Court to quash resistance to their stringent socioeconomic controls and centralized authority under cover of religion and no demographic is immune to their intents.
The Founders were aware that given the opportunity, a dictatorial power structure could, and would, gain control of the nation, and the people, so they included protections in the Constitution that have been amended time and again to assuage the next attempt to subvert equality and Americans’ unalienable rights, and repugicans have turned to the High Court to eliminate those rights they failed to achieve in state legislatures. It is sad indeed that after 237 years and several amendments to ensure all Americans have equal rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, an extreme lunatic fringe group of authoritarian wingnuts are openly attempting to dismantle and eliminate what the Founding Fathers and generations of equal rights activists have fought to achieve. Throughout this nation’s history, there have been different groups who were restricted from enjoying their unalienable rights guaranteed in the Constitution, but never before has the majority of the population faced an all-out attack on their equal rights that repugicans make no attempt to conceal. Tragically, with funding from a few wealthy fascists, moral support of religious fascists, and a wingnut stacked Supreme Court backing their bloodless coup d’état’ it is only a matter of time before the concept of equality will be something millions of immigrants once thought of America.
Ten Food Lies We've All Been Fed
Recently, we learned that as spaghetti and meatballs are actually not
true Italian food, which got us thinking about what other things we've
accepted as truths are actually damned lies. Well, here's what we found
out:
1. Baby Carrots Are Actually Made from Grown Up Carrots
In 1986, California farmer Mike Yurosek got
tired of having to throw away imperfect carrots at his packing
plant. In some loads, as much as 70% of the carrots had to be thrown away
because they were twisted, knobby, or otherwise deformed (he couldn't
even feed them all to pigs because after a while, "their fat turned
orange," he said.)
One day, Yurosek bought an industrial green-bean cutter from a frozen-food company that was going out of business, and cut the carrots into 2-inch pieces. Then he loaded them up into an industrial potato peeler to smooth down their edges. What he got was what we now know and love as baby carrots (technically, "baby-cut" carrots).
Oh, and here's the best part about the whole baby carrot business: they sell for much higher price than regular carrots, despite that they actually started as carrots destined for the trash heap.
2. Portabello Mushroom is Actually Just Mature Brown Crimini Mushroom
You pay a hefty premium for large portabello mushrooms at the grocyer store, but did you know
that you're actually buying mature brown crimini or button mushrooms? Yep,
they're the same thing.
3. You Won't Find Fortune Cookies in China
Eat in any Chinese restaurant in America, and you'll be served with a
plate of fortune cookies at the end of the meal. Fortune cookies are so quintessentially
Chinese ... yet you won't find them in China.
The origin of the fortune cookies is controversial, but food researchers pointed to its origin as distinctly Japanese (the modern version of the fortune cookie was supposedly invented by Japanese bakers who immigrated to the United States).
And here's the kicker: In the early 1990s, Wonton Food, the largest fortune cookie manufacturer in the United States, attempted to introduce fortune cookies to China, but gave up because the cookies were considered "too American" by the Chinese.
4. General Tso Didn't Invent General Tso's Chicken ...
*Unlike Colonel Sanders, for example, who wasn't a real colonel in the military. Sanders was a Kentucky Colonel, a title of honor given by the Governor of Kentucky.
5. You Haven't Tasted Real Wasabi
Wasabi root
Unless you've eaten sushi in Japan, or at a very expensive sushi restaurant
elsewhere, you haven't tasted real wasabi. That pungent glob
of green stuff swimming in soy sauce that you think is wasabi is actually a combination of horseradish, mustard
and green food dye.
Real wasabi is made from wasabi root. It is traditionally grated with a piece of sharkskin
stretched over wooden paddle.
6. Two Words: Meat Glue
If you thought pink slime in your burger was bad, wait till you hear about meat glue in your steak.
Meat
glue, or an enzyme called transglutaminase, binds protein together. It
is often used in the food industry to stick together scraps of meat
into prime cuts of steak. After the meat is cooked, you can't tell the
difference.
7. The First Caesar Salad Was Made From Scraps
From its name, you'd think that Caesar salad is a salad fit for Roman emperors, but did you know that the first Caesar salad was made from scraps?
In 1924, chef Caesar Cardini (yes, the salad was named after him), ran out of food in his restaurant's kitchen, so when a customer asked for a salad, he made do. Cardini put together bits of lettuce with olive oil, lemon juice, Worcestershire sauce, egg, garlic, croutons and Parmesan. He then added the dramatic flair of tossing the salad "by the chef" at the table-side. The crowds loved it, and the Caesar salad was born!
8. Salmon Gets Dyed Pink
Wild salmon got its nice pink color from eating red-hued krill, but farmed salmon don't get a chance to eat that. Instead, they're fed ground up fish meal and oils that turn their flesh a dull gray color. So, to make up for that color deficiency, farmed salmon are fed pink pigments.
SalmoFan
Salmon
farmers can even choose how pink is pink enough with this nifty
SalmoFan. It's just like looking at paint swatches at the hardware
store!
9. Chilean Sea bass isn't Chilean. It isn't even a Sea bass.
Chilean sea bass sounds quite nice, doesn't it? That's exactly why it's called that instead of the fish's real name: Patagonian toothfish (man, what an ugly fish!)
Patagonian toothfish AKA Chilean sea bass
In 1977, a fish
wholesaler named Lee Lantz wanted to sell Patagonian toothfish to the
American market, but realized that nobody wanted to eat a fish with such
an unappetizing name. So he tried "Pacific sea bass" and "South
American sea bass" before settling on "Chilean sea bass."
The clever name isn't the only problem with Chilean sea bass: according a 2011 DNA analysis by Peter Marko of Clemson University, 15% of Chilean sea bass sold with eco-labels weren't actually from approved, sustainable stock. Worse, 8% were actually different species of fish altogether!
10. You Can't Tell the Difference Between Cheap and Expensive Wine
Ah, the sweet nose of lies that is wine tasting. If you ever thought that pretentious wine tasting experts are full of it, you'd be right.
Psychologist Richard Wiseman of the Hertfordshire University conducted a blind test in which he asked 578 regular people to tell the difference between a variety of wine, ranging from cheap £3 wines to expensive £30 bottles:
Ah, but that's regular people, oenophiles said. What about experts? Well, the results aren't much better: In 2001, Frédéric Brochet at the University of Bordeaux tested 54 wine experts to rate 2 glasses of red and 2 glasses of white wine. The experts couldn't even tell that the red wine was actually the same as the white wine, but colored by red dye.
If that's not bad enough, wait till you hear what Brochet did next. He took a middling bottle of wine and served it in two different bottles. One bottle had a fancy grand cru label and the other one had an ordinary table wine label. The experts gave the same two wines opposite descriptions: they praised the "grand cru" wine and dismissed the ordinary one as less favorable.
1. Baby Carrots Are Actually Made from Grown Up Carrots
One day, Yurosek bought an industrial green-bean cutter from a frozen-food company that was going out of business, and cut the carrots into 2-inch pieces. Then he loaded them up into an industrial potato peeler to smooth down their edges. What he got was what we now know and love as baby carrots (technically, "baby-cut" carrots).
Oh, and here's the best part about the whole baby carrot business: they sell for much higher price than regular carrots, despite that they actually started as carrots destined for the trash heap.
2. Portabello Mushroom is Actually Just Mature Brown Crimini Mushroom
3. You Won't Find Fortune Cookies in China
The origin of the fortune cookies is controversial, but food researchers pointed to its origin as distinctly Japanese (the modern version of the fortune cookie was supposedly invented by Japanese bakers who immigrated to the United States).
And here's the kicker: In the early 1990s, Wonton Food, the largest fortune cookie manufacturer in the United States, attempted to introduce fortune cookies to China, but gave up because the cookies were considered "too American" by the Chinese.
4. General Tso Didn't Invent General Tso's Chicken ...
... but he did quell a few rebellions in which millions of people died!
General Tso Tsun-t'ang, the man whom
General Tso's chicken was named after, was a real general* in the late
Qing Dynasty, China. He
didn't invent the chicken dish in question - or any Chinese food at
all, for the matter.*Unlike Colonel Sanders, for example, who wasn't a real colonel in the military. Sanders was a Kentucky Colonel, a title of honor given by the Governor of Kentucky.
5. You Haven't Tasted Real Wasabi
Wasabi root
Real wasabi is made from wasabi root. It is traditionally grated with a piece of sharkskin
stretched over wooden paddle.6. Two Words: Meat Glue
If you thought pink slime in your burger was bad, wait till you hear about meat glue in your steak.
7. The First Caesar Salad Was Made From Scraps
In 1924, chef Caesar Cardini (yes, the salad was named after him), ran out of food in his restaurant's kitchen, so when a customer asked for a salad, he made do. Cardini put together bits of lettuce with olive oil, lemon juice, Worcestershire sauce, egg, garlic, croutons and Parmesan. He then added the dramatic flair of tossing the salad "by the chef" at the table-side. The crowds loved it, and the Caesar salad was born!
8. Salmon Gets Dyed Pink
Wild salmon got its nice pink color from eating red-hued krill, but farmed salmon don't get a chance to eat that. Instead, they're fed ground up fish meal and oils that turn their flesh a dull gray color. So, to make up for that color deficiency, farmed salmon are fed pink pigments.
SalmoFan
9. Chilean Sea bass isn't Chilean. It isn't even a Sea bass.
Chilean sea bass sounds quite nice, doesn't it? That's exactly why it's called that instead of the fish's real name: Patagonian toothfish (man, what an ugly fish!)
Patagonian toothfish AKA Chilean sea bass
The clever name isn't the only problem with Chilean sea bass: according a 2011 DNA analysis by Peter Marko of Clemson University, 15% of Chilean sea bass sold with eco-labels weren't actually from approved, sustainable stock. Worse, 8% were actually different species of fish altogether!
10. You Can't Tell the Difference Between Cheap and Expensive Wine
Ah, the sweet nose of lies that is wine tasting. If you ever thought that pretentious wine tasting experts are full of it, you'd be right.
Psychologist Richard Wiseman of the Hertfordshire University conducted a blind test in which he asked 578 regular people to tell the difference between a variety of wine, ranging from cheap £3 wines to expensive £30 bottles:
The study found that people correctly distinguished between cheap and expensive white wines only 53% of the time, and only 47% of the time for red wines. The overall result suggests a 50:50 chance of identifying a wine as expensive or cheap based on taste alone – the same odds as flipping a coin.So, in other words. They guessed.
Ah, but that's regular people, oenophiles said. What about experts? Well, the results aren't much better: In 2001, Frédéric Brochet at the University of Bordeaux tested 54 wine experts to rate 2 glasses of red and 2 glasses of white wine. The experts couldn't even tell that the red wine was actually the same as the white wine, but colored by red dye.
If that's not bad enough, wait till you hear what Brochet did next. He took a middling bottle of wine and served it in two different bottles. One bottle had a fancy grand cru label and the other one had an ordinary table wine label. The experts gave the same two wines opposite descriptions: they praised the "grand cru" wine and dismissed the ordinary one as less favorable.
Obesity Affecting America's Laboratory Animals
Obesity has grown into such a big problem that it's even seen in laboratory animals that live under controlled conditions. David Berreby writes in Aeon:
[...] over the past 20 years or more, as the American people were getting fatter, so were America’s marmosets. As were laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice, as well as domestic dogs, domestic cats, and domestic and feral rats from both rural and urban areas. In fact, the researchers examined records on those eight species and found that average weight for every one had increased. The marmosets gained an average of nine per cent per decade. Lab mice gained about 11 per cent per decade. Chimps, for some reason, are doing especially badly: their average body weight had risen 35 per cent per decade. Allison, who had been hearing about an unexplained rise in the average weight of lab animals, was nonetheless surprised by the consistency across so many species. ‘Virtually in every population of animals we looked at, that met our criteria, there was the same upward trend,’ he told me.
It isn’t hard to imagine that people who are eating more themselves are giving more to their spoiled pets, or leaving sweeter, fattier garbage for street cats and rodents. But such results don’t explain why the weight gain is also occurring in species that human beings don’t pamper, such as animals in labs, whose diets are strictly controlled. In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities. Obviously, if animals are getting heavier along with us, it can’t just be that they’re eating more Snickers bars and driving to work most days. On the contrary, the trend suggests some widely shared cause, beyond the control of individuals, which is contributing to obesity across many species.
Woman Drinks Only Soda for 16 Years
The 31-year-old woman's heart suffered from the long-term
soda drinking but her health was restored after she quit drinking it for
a week.
Ten Days in a Mad House
The World's Most Iconic Lighthouses
Here's a list of the world's most iconic lighthouses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
