STATUS: gettin' real
Music: Mr. Saxobeat by Alexandra Stan
Hi everyone, thought I'd bring this out now as I'm getting close to going forward with a old/new project. Without mentioning too much at the moment (more next week, when the next stage should be close to going live), I'll say that it's a fun story I did a number of years ago now. A bit of a divergence from my usual sci-fi, although not too much, I suppose, if you know me.
Regardless, since I've been having trouble getting serious and I've been wanted to get some projects that can/may bring some money, I decided to dust of some of the old stuff and revise it. In 2006-2007 I wrote three novel drafts: one original sci-fi which might be the project I work on after this one, one fan fiction of Unreal Tournament with original characters which is partially up on LsD, and this story.
Being as this novel is a bit of a different direction from my usual, I intend to self-publish under a pseudynom and have some fun with it. So I'm currently preparing a website and a video trailer, and I'm going to make a KickStarter, or more likely RocketHub (due to international restraints).
I'm a bit apprehensive about the crowd-funding of the book, but I want to try it out for a few reasons. First, I just want to see how it works and whether it might be useful for future projects. Second, and most importantly, since this story is setup as a trilogy, I want to gage whether there might be any interest for continuing the series or whether I should just put this one out and move on to something else.
So, that's about all for this rather cryptic post. If everything is ready by next week I'll have a more complete disclosure then. I promise.
Insight and longevity.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Supersized Sensationalism
STATUS: Under, in, and around the weather
Music: Heavy Fuel by Dire Straits
Sensationalist documentaries are all the thing these days and, like many people, I enjoy watching them. Michael Moore, of course, is the dominant producer in this field with Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, etc., but there are others, like Morgan Spurlock and his Supersize Me! documentary on fast food, that also catch the zeitgeist.
I enjoy watching these movies as much as the next person. They're slick, at least somewhat informative and they make you think. Although they don't always make people think as they should. Because these movies tend to reinforces the zeitgeist of their target audience, that same audience tends not to think much beyond what has been suggested in the movie.
Now, I'm not going to go political here, and explore Michael Moore's movies. That kind of discuss would be for another time and place (incidentally, I tend to support the ideas of his movies, even if/when I believe I can see the motivational logic of the other side). But I'd like to take a far simpler, and less controversial example. Namely, Supersize Me! by Morgan Spurlock.
In Supersize Me! Spurlock goes on a very sensationalized eating routine to explore the effects of eating fast food. He eats 3 meals a day (breakfast, lunch, dinner) at McDonalds. Rules are that all food he eats for the month must be sold at McDonalds, he must have everything on the menu over the course of the month, and he must supersize the meal if asked. Without going through the details, the results from this 5000 calories/day experiment were weight gane of 24.5 lbs in the month, increase body fat, and a host of related health issues. Definitely suggesting fast food is bad for you.
Only, does it?
I'm ashamed to say that I didn't really question this movie much until I watched a Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on fast food recently. There was an especially interesting psychological experiment highlighting how people perceive food from fast food restaurants as worse than food from normal restaurants even, as in the example in their show, when the food is exactly the same (briefly: food from Taco Bell and KFC were passed off as food from a Bistro, people responded favourable to the 'Bistro' food, but not when they knew it was fast food).
So, returning to Supersize Me! I think Spurlock is addressing an important point. But I don't think it's the one he has intended. To me, the real point revolves around eating at restaurants in general and that we are very bad at estimating how much we're eating when we eat out. But to demonstrate this I'd like to see the full experiment completed. What's needed is 30 days eating only at a 'normal', non-fast food, non-specialist restaurant to compare to the results of eating at a fast food restaurant.
A restaurant that serves all three meals. Rules:
1) a 'non-specialist', middle-class family restaurant that serves a variety of food
2) 3 full meals a day from the restaurant for 30 days
3) only food from the restaurant is eaten for the month
4) if options are offered, they must be accepted (i.e. starters, desert, coffee, etc.)
My personal suspicions are that any person attempting this would gain a similar amount of weight and weight-related issues, just as with fast food. After all, 'good food' is often as caloric (or even more so) than fast food. And they're always getting you to buy starters or deserts (we rarely do, but they always ask). So I suspect Mr. Spurlock would be in for another unhealth month if he tried his experiment at a 'normal' restaurant.
And perhaps people would come to understand that the real reason not to eat fast food 3 times a day is that it's deceptively expensive! We believe it's cheap because we're constantly told that. But, while you might be able to feed a family of four with a fast food supper on $20 (if you get a meal deal), you could easily feed a normal family of four for an entire day on $20, all three meals. So the real problem with fast food is that people forget it's is eating at a restaurant. Most normal families would not eat at a restaurant for three meals a day. It would be too expensive. Same with fast food.
Insight and longevity
Music: Heavy Fuel by Dire Straits
Sensationalist documentaries are all the thing these days and, like many people, I enjoy watching them. Michael Moore, of course, is the dominant producer in this field with Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, etc., but there are others, like Morgan Spurlock and his Supersize Me! documentary on fast food, that also catch the zeitgeist.
I enjoy watching these movies as much as the next person. They're slick, at least somewhat informative and they make you think. Although they don't always make people think as they should. Because these movies tend to reinforces the zeitgeist of their target audience, that same audience tends not to think much beyond what has been suggested in the movie.
Now, I'm not going to go political here, and explore Michael Moore's movies. That kind of discuss would be for another time and place (incidentally, I tend to support the ideas of his movies, even if/when I believe I can see the motivational logic of the other side). But I'd like to take a far simpler, and less controversial example. Namely, Supersize Me! by Morgan Spurlock.
In Supersize Me! Spurlock goes on a very sensationalized eating routine to explore the effects of eating fast food. He eats 3 meals a day (breakfast, lunch, dinner) at McDonalds. Rules are that all food he eats for the month must be sold at McDonalds, he must have everything on the menu over the course of the month, and he must supersize the meal if asked. Without going through the details, the results from this 5000 calories/day experiment were weight gane of 24.5 lbs in the month, increase body fat, and a host of related health issues. Definitely suggesting fast food is bad for you.
Only, does it?
I'm ashamed to say that I didn't really question this movie much until I watched a Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on fast food recently. There was an especially interesting psychological experiment highlighting how people perceive food from fast food restaurants as worse than food from normal restaurants even, as in the example in their show, when the food is exactly the same (briefly: food from Taco Bell and KFC were passed off as food from a Bistro, people responded favourable to the 'Bistro' food, but not when they knew it was fast food).
So, returning to Supersize Me! I think Spurlock is addressing an important point. But I don't think it's the one he has intended. To me, the real point revolves around eating at restaurants in general and that we are very bad at estimating how much we're eating when we eat out. But to demonstrate this I'd like to see the full experiment completed. What's needed is 30 days eating only at a 'normal', non-fast food, non-specialist restaurant to compare to the results of eating at a fast food restaurant.
A restaurant that serves all three meals. Rules:
1) a 'non-specialist', middle-class family restaurant that serves a variety of food
2) 3 full meals a day from the restaurant for 30 days
3) only food from the restaurant is eaten for the month
4) if options are offered, they must be accepted (i.e. starters, desert, coffee, etc.)
My personal suspicions are that any person attempting this would gain a similar amount of weight and weight-related issues, just as with fast food. After all, 'good food' is often as caloric (or even more so) than fast food. And they're always getting you to buy starters or deserts (we rarely do, but they always ask). So I suspect Mr. Spurlock would be in for another unhealth month if he tried his experiment at a 'normal' restaurant.
And perhaps people would come to understand that the real reason not to eat fast food 3 times a day is that it's deceptively expensive! We believe it's cheap because we're constantly told that. But, while you might be able to feed a family of four with a fast food supper on $20 (if you get a meal deal), you could easily feed a normal family of four for an entire day on $20, all three meals. So the real problem with fast food is that people forget it's is eating at a restaurant. Most normal families would not eat at a restaurant for three meals a day. It would be too expensive. Same with fast food.
Insight and longevity
Friday, August 3, 2012
Hospital Joy this Week
STATUS: distracted by the olympics
Music: I of Crimson Blood by Amorphis
This was another week of hospital visits, which always seem to take longer than expected (sometimes much longer). Tuesday it was an MRI visit that lasted 1.5 hours and, due to a bad lower back and sensitive feet, was agonizing for the last 10 minutes of the scan. The second trip was to see the consultant about the MRI results. This trip ended up lasting >3 hours, including an unexpected x-ray and some lost paperwork.
Now don't get me wrong, I think the British Nation Health Service (NHS) is great. Once you finally get to a doctor, they generally take great care to listen to you and explain their views (with the rare exception of the occassional GP). If I have any complaints, it's that the support staff often seem to be going through the motions.There are nurses who are very friendly and do their best to help in any way, and their are the type of nurses who make the news for such appallingly bad care that patients can suffer (in some cases, die).
Since coming to the UK, I've been intimately involved with the medical system. Not only is my wife a Consultant, but I had cancer 1.5 years ago, meaning regular visits to Leeds for blood marker surveillance, ACL surgery a year ago leading to regular physiotherapy at the Harrogate hospital, and lately investigations regarding foot pain. Our daughter was also born in England. So we've experienced a lot of the NHS.
In fact, I'm beginning to believe that the orthopaedic and fractures unit, at least, thinks I've been around too much. The last two times I've been there they've misplaced my paperwork leading to delays of over an hour. Imagine an consultant appointment at 9am where I don't leave the hospital until after 12! I've also experience delays of over 3 hours in my oncology visits on occassion.
This all sounds bad, of course, and can be very frustrating. However, I know that in Canada, which also has a national health care system, the waits can be just as long, if not longer. I remember waiting a long time in the A&E after tearing my ACL. Likewise, in Israel, with a hybrid public health care system (i.e. you're forced to buy private insurance), I had a long wait after I tore my meniscus. Worse still, because of my previous knee injury, the menisectomy wasn't covered under the insurance I had been forced to buy (and we were forced to go into their private system for the surgery because the waiting time was too long and I'd planned to be out of the country before the public system could fit me in).
So, all in all, while a lot of my recent life has revolved around hospital visits--the good, the bad, and the ugly--I remain convinced that the UK has one of the best health care systems in the world and, if I need any health care, I'd rather it be here.
Insight and longevity.
Music: I of Crimson Blood by Amorphis
This was another week of hospital visits, which always seem to take longer than expected (sometimes much longer). Tuesday it was an MRI visit that lasted 1.5 hours and, due to a bad lower back and sensitive feet, was agonizing for the last 10 minutes of the scan. The second trip was to see the consultant about the MRI results. This trip ended up lasting >3 hours, including an unexpected x-ray and some lost paperwork.
Now don't get me wrong, I think the British Nation Health Service (NHS) is great. Once you finally get to a doctor, they generally take great care to listen to you and explain their views (with the rare exception of the occassional GP). If I have any complaints, it's that the support staff often seem to be going through the motions.There are nurses who are very friendly and do their best to help in any way, and their are the type of nurses who make the news for such appallingly bad care that patients can suffer (in some cases, die).
Since coming to the UK, I've been intimately involved with the medical system. Not only is my wife a Consultant, but I had cancer 1.5 years ago, meaning regular visits to Leeds for blood marker surveillance, ACL surgery a year ago leading to regular physiotherapy at the Harrogate hospital, and lately investigations regarding foot pain. Our daughter was also born in England. So we've experienced a lot of the NHS.
In fact, I'm beginning to believe that the orthopaedic and fractures unit, at least, thinks I've been around too much. The last two times I've been there they've misplaced my paperwork leading to delays of over an hour. Imagine an consultant appointment at 9am where I don't leave the hospital until after 12! I've also experience delays of over 3 hours in my oncology visits on occassion.
This all sounds bad, of course, and can be very frustrating. However, I know that in Canada, which also has a national health care system, the waits can be just as long, if not longer. I remember waiting a long time in the A&E after tearing my ACL. Likewise, in Israel, with a hybrid public health care system (i.e. you're forced to buy private insurance), I had a long wait after I tore my meniscus. Worse still, because of my previous knee injury, the menisectomy wasn't covered under the insurance I had been forced to buy (and we were forced to go into their private system for the surgery because the waiting time was too long and I'd planned to be out of the country before the public system could fit me in).
So, all in all, while a lot of my recent life has revolved around hospital visits--the good, the bad, and the ugly--I remain convinced that the UK has one of the best health care systems in the world and, if I need any health care, I'd rather it be here.
Insight and longevity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)