19th October 2010

Photo reblogged from Not For Public Consumption with 4,896 notes

notforpublicconsumption:

Relevant.
.
(ceresse)

notforpublicconsumption:

Relevant.

.

(ceresse)

Source: tatermo

28th September 2010

Photo

chemicalfreeskinny:

GENERAL INTEREST: 
Children With Food Allergies Victims of Bullying
Call them the “allergy bullies”:  One scattered peanut butter cookie crumbs in the lunchbox of a middle  school student allergic to peanuts. Another smeared peanut butter on a  high school student’s forehead. 
More than 30 percent of children with food allergies have been victimized by such bullies— teased, harassed, or taunted, according to a study published today in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. 
While verbal abuse is most common, nearly half of the 353 children with  allergies who were surveyed reported being threatened  physically—sometimes touched with their allergen;  other times, having it thrown or waved at them. More than 80 percent of  the bullying episodes occurred at school, and about 20 percent of those  surveyed identified teachers or other school staff as the perpetrators.
U.S. News & World Report
___

chemicalfreeskinny:

GENERAL INTEREST:

Children With Food Allergies Victims of Bullying

Call them the “allergy bullies”: One scattered peanut butter cookie crumbs in the lunchbox of a middle school student allergic to peanuts. Another smeared peanut butter on a high school student’s forehead.

More than 30 percent of children with food allergies have been victimized by such bullies— teased, harassed, or taunted, according to a study published today in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

While verbal abuse is most common, nearly half of the 353 children with allergies who were surveyed reported being threatened physically—sometimes touched with their allergen; other times, having it thrown or waved at them. More than 80 percent of the bullying episodes occurred at school, and about 20 percent of those surveyed identified teachers or other school staff as the perpetrators.

U.S. News & World Report

___

28th September 2010

Photo reblogged from Not For Public Consumption with 42 notes

notforpublicconsumption:

Why don’t men say ‘I’m Sorry’?
heh.  heh.  maybe you no gonna’ like the answer…
_________
Why don’t men say ‘I’m Sorry’?
USA Today
New research on apologies from Canadian psychologists finds that men  have a “higher threshold” for bad behavior, meaning they just don’t see  “wrong” the same way women do, according to a study online in the  journal Psychological Science.
Women apologize more than men, but it’s not because they commit more wrongdoing. They just think they do.
New research on apologies from Canadian  psychologists finds that men have a “higher threshold” for bad behavior,  meaning they just don’t see “wrong” the same way women do, according to  a study online in the journal Psychological Science.
Psychologists at the University of Waterloo in Ontario conducted two studies of 186 people, divided by gender. They  found that men were less likely to be offended than women and were less  likely to think they committed wrongdoing.
“The gender differences just sort of leapt out at  us,” says co-author Michael Ross, a psychology professor. “It was too  big to ignore. It was just very clearly there.”
In the first study, 33 men and 33 women completed  online diaries for 12 days, describing instances in which they  apologized to someone or did something that might have warranted an  apology. That study found women more readily offered up a mea culpa.  But the study also found that contrary to the stereotype, men didn’t  avoid apologizing or refuse to admit they were in the wrong. They were  just as likely to apologize if they believed they were actually in the  wrong.
Another study of 120 participants asked them to  rate specific offenses, how much that action deserved an apology and how  likely they were to say they were sorry for it.
“Men rated the offenses as less severe than women did,” the study found.
“Part of the reason women apologize more is they  have a lower threshold for what is offensive behavior,” says Karina  Schumann, lead author of the study to appear in print in November.
“It’s not that men are always being insensitive or that women are always seeing offenses that aren’t.”
Schumann adds, “It’s a different standard between  men and women on how offensive behavior is, and sometimes results in  men not apologizing for something that the female thinks they should.”
..

notforpublicconsumption:

Why don’t men say ‘I’m Sorry’?

heh.  heh.  maybe you no gonna’ like the answer…

_________

Why don’t men say ‘I’m Sorry’?

USA Today

New research on apologies from Canadian psychologists finds that men have a “higher threshold” for bad behavior, meaning they just don’t see “wrong” the same way women do, according to a study online in the journal Psychological Science.

Women apologize more than men, but it’s not because they commit more wrongdoing. They just think they do.

New research on apologies from Canadian psychologists finds that men have a “higher threshold” for bad behavior, meaning they just don’t see “wrong” the same way women do, according to a study online in the journal Psychological Science.

Psychologists at the University of Waterloo in Ontario conducted two studies of 186 people, divided by gender. They found that men were less likely to be offended than women and were less likely to think they committed wrongdoing.

“The gender differences just sort of leapt out at us,” says co-author Michael Ross, a psychology professor. “It was too big to ignore. It was just very clearly there.”

In the first study, 33 men and 33 women completed online diaries for 12 days, describing instances in which they apologized to someone or did something that might have warranted an apology. That study found women more readily offered up a mea culpa. But the study also found that contrary to the stereotype, men didn’t avoid apologizing or refuse to admit they were in the wrong. They were just as likely to apologize if they believed they were actually in the wrong.

Another study of 120 participants asked them to rate specific offenses, how much that action deserved an apology and how likely they were to say they were sorry for it.

“Men rated the offenses as less severe than women did,” the study found.

“Part of the reason women apologize more is they have a lower threshold for what is offensive behavior,” says Karina Schumann, lead author of the study to appear in print in November.

“It’s not that men are always being insensitive or that women are always seeing offenses that aren’t.”

Schumann adds, “It’s a different standard between men and women on how offensive behavior is, and sometimes results in men not apologizing for something that the female thinks they should.”

..

30th June 2010

Photo reblogged from Not For Public Consumption with 23 notes

notforpublicconsumption:

y, middle of the bell-curve folks, just stay sedated mall zombies. save your thinking for deciding which prime-time network t.v. show to watch.
_______________________
dokkvitki:newrider

notforpublicconsumption:

y, middle of the bell-curve folks, just stay sedated mall zombies. save your thinking for deciding which prime-time network t.v. show to watch.

_______________________

dokkvitki:newrider

Source: newrider

30th June 2010

Photo

notforpublicconsumption:

skinnydipp:

chemicalfreeskinny:

FOOD CHEMICALS:  McDonald’s McNuggets made with ‘Silly Putty’ chemical
_______
What kid doesn’t love McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets? The white meat  chunks are tasty and perfect for little mouths and hands. And while most  parents are aware that McNuggets aren’t perfectly healthy, they  probably don’t know exactly what goes into making them.
CNN has revealed that the fast-food chain makes  this popular menu item with the chemical preservative tBHQ, tertiary  butylhydroquinone, a petroleum-based product. Mcnuggets also contain  dimethylpolysiloxane, “an anti-foaming agent” also used in Silly Putty.
Across the Atlantic in Britain, McNuggets don’t contain these chemicals  and they’re less fattening.
CNN reports:
McDonald’s says the differences are based on the local tastes: In the  United States, McNuggets are coated and then cooked, in the United  Kingdom, they are cooked and then coated. As a result, the British  McNuggets absorb less oil and have less fat.
Dimethylpolysiloxane is used as a matter of safety to keep  the oil from foaming, [Lisa McComb, who handles global media relations  for McDonald’s,] says. The chemical is a form of silicone also used in  cosmetics and Silly Putty. A review of animal studies by The World  Health Organization found no adverse health effects associated with  dimethylpolysiloxane.
TBHQ is a preservative for vegetable oils and animal fats,  limited to .02 percent of the oil in the nugget. One gram (one-thirtieth  of an ounce) can cause “nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears,  delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse,” according to “A  Consumer’s Dictionary of Food Additives.”
Does this mean that you should keep your kids away from McNuggets  altogether?
Marion Nestle, a New York University professor and author of “What to  Eat,” told CNN that the tertiary butylhydroquinone and  dimethylpolysiloxane in the McNuggets probably pose no health risks. But  she added that as a general rule parents shouldn’t feed their children  foods with an ingredients you can’t pronounce.
Try pronouncing dimethylpolysiloxane…it’s not easy.
Do you like McNuggets? Do you feed them to your kids? Does it even  surprise you that McNuggets contain a chemical that’s also used in  “Silly Putt”?
________________(Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?blogid=46&entry_id=66729)

notforpublicconsumption:

skinnydipp:

chemicalfreeskinny:

FOOD CHEMICALS:  McDonald’s McNuggets made with ‘Silly Putty’ chemical

_______

What kid doesn’t love McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets? The white meat chunks are tasty and perfect for little mouths and hands. And while most parents are aware that McNuggets aren’t perfectly healthy, they probably don’t know exactly what goes into making them.

CNN has revealed that the fast-food chain makes this popular menu item with the chemical preservative tBHQ, tertiary butylhydroquinone, a petroleum-based product. Mcnuggets also contain dimethylpolysiloxane, “an anti-foaming agent” also used in Silly Putty.

Across the Atlantic in Britain, McNuggets don’t contain these chemicals and they’re less fattening.

CNN reports:

McDonald’s says the differences are based on the local tastes: In the United States, McNuggets are coated and then cooked, in the United Kingdom, they are cooked and then coated. As a result, the British McNuggets absorb less oil and have less fat.
Dimethylpolysiloxane is used as a matter of safety to keep the oil from foaming, [Lisa McComb, who handles global media relations for McDonald’s,] says. The chemical is a form of silicone also used in cosmetics and Silly Putty. A review of animal studies by The World Health Organization found no adverse health effects associated with dimethylpolysiloxane.
TBHQ is a preservative for vegetable oils and animal fats, limited to .02 percent of the oil in the nugget. One gram (one-thirtieth of an ounce) can cause “nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse,” according to “A Consumer’s Dictionary of Food Additives.”

Does this mean that you should keep your kids away from McNuggets altogether?

Marion Nestle, a New York University professor and author of “What to Eat,” told CNN that the tertiary butylhydroquinone and dimethylpolysiloxane in the McNuggets probably pose no health risks. But she added that as a general rule parents shouldn’t feed their children foods with an ingredients you can’t pronounce.

Try pronouncing dimethylpolysiloxane…it’s not easy.

Do you like McNuggets? Do you feed them to your kids? Does it even surprise you that McNuggets contain a chemical that’s also used in “Silly Putt”?


________________
(Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?blogid=46&entry_id=66729)

12th February 2010

Post reblogged from Not For Public Consumption with 136 notes

What is *Good*? Perception of Quality in the Arts

notforpublicconsumption:

Something to think about….

Washington, DC Metro Station on a cold January morning in 2007. The man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time approximately. 2 thousand people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. After 3 minutes a middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried to meet his schedule.

4 minutes later:

The violinist received his first dollar: a woman threw the money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.

6 minutes:

A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.

10 minutes:

A 3-year old boy stopped but his mother tugged him along hurriedly. The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. Every parent, without exception, forced their children to move on quickly.

45 minutes:

The musician played continuously.  Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while. About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace.  The man collected a total of $32.

1 hour:

He finished playing and silence took over. No one noticed. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days before Joshua Bell sold out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.

This is a true story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people’s priorities.

The questions raised:

*In a common place environment at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty?

*Do we stop to appreciate it?

*Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?

One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this:

If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made.

How many other things are we missing?

___________________________________________

The BIGGER question for which I have done considerable empirical research (and yes, it has been published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals) and am now working on a documentary on:  WHY is it that the mainstream public must insists on behaving like baby birds, mouths open, just waiting to be fed by the media and institutions like the mainstream commercial music, book, and film industries to be told what is “quality” in the arts?  Why have they come to a point where they cannot *recognize* it on their own? This is the sad result of a systemic problem of the commercial, connection-based, profit-driven arts industry and a public who behaves like the drugged, walking dead, preferring to be spoon-fed what is “quality” in the arts.  Wake up, America!  So MUCH quality artistic work in all forms is passing you by!

notforpublicconsumption/plfrank: drpfrank @ hotmail.com for feedback or to be a part of documentary in progress.

__________________________________________

stuffparty (a professional photographer) wrote:

Gasp!

I was about to do a snippy snip on the post notforpublicconsumption posts but, no, I want you to have the whole concept. The thing is that this post touched me in a way and the thing that touched me in particular was this:

In a common place environment at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty?

This is a big part of my photography. Admittedly, I don’t really care about beauty when I photograph but that’s something for another post. Perhaps. But I do care about the interesting in the commonplace and the mundane. All around us are things which are interesting if you only look at them the right way. But you’ll have to slow down or even stop. Which brings me to a thing Dorothea Lange said:

The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.

And that has been true for me. Fiddling with cameras for a couple of years has made me see the world differently and it’s a much more interesting place than it was before.

___________________________________________________
doctorfurious wrote:

People don’t form their own tastes because that means sticking their neck out and risking being wrong.  It’s more important to maintain our artificial schedules than to take a chance on the stuff life throws at you.  We are conditioned to live in fear of those around us.

We are the hollow men.

_______________________________________________

There is part of this that is just natural human distraction with too much information coming into us all day to fully process and appreciate things unless we take a step back, take something in and realize how good it is.  I think all of us have eaten great food, passed by wonderful visual art or listened to great music while distracted and not fully appreciating it.  So we take our cues from others (perhaps too much) to know when to stop and take notice that something worthwhile is going on.  The sad part is that this causes so much great stuff to be missed, it causes all forms of great artistic work to never get noticed or appreciated, and then everybody herds like sheep to the same (often mediocre) things that other people appreciate.

We all need to learn to stop, appreciate, and listen/view things fresh: Do not pre-judge artistic merit based on where somebody plays, whether they have a recording contract, a big name publisher, or film studio affiliated with them, or what the critics or friends think.

But of course at the same time, a lot of people do just have crappy taste even when they try to pay attention.

namastebandar:

philliam:

mamitasalsita:

betterversionofme:

Source: headamongtheclouds