I’d received a link to this particular new journalist screed from some readers back when I was on vacation in Mexico over holiday. Scanned through it, figured Atossa Araxia Abrahamian (nor Marlene Zuk, biologist at U.C. Riverside, who wrote: What Evolution Really Tells us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live) wasn’t really into paleo. Did a quick Google search (about her, not the article), chalked it up to ignorant/big student loan/daddy and/or mommy to please…any, all, or some of foregoing…youth, motivated by “journalism” prestige. I yawned; moved on. Dime a dozen: especially the young hot chicks, ’cause that’s the only place “journalism” is, now. A decent profile pic is dandy, now.
They just keep getting taken for whores; over and over. Are men moving out of journalism? I don’t know and really don’t care to search out a reference, but it would be interesting, if true. The article stayed in the back of my mind. …As an admonisher of just going all the way from statist libertarianism to statelessness, I supposed I’d have to put out a word or two, eventually.
First up, the lie in the title: Natural’s Not In It. It is a lie absolutely, but obvious enough to go unnoticed, taken as hyperbole at worst. But, I haven’t even gotten to the lede, yet. Very simply, whatever errors anyone may ever make as subjects of new articles written, always watch for the lie in the title of a newsy piece. When you know it is, you know the rest of the story is going to be filled with static truths of the most convenient fashion (Famous journalist H.L. Mencken could have taught you this in the 1920s).
Nature’s Not In It is published in “The New Inquiry.” I like the title of the publication on face; should you really live up to it and really do serious “Inquiry.” Otherwise, you’re just cheaper than all who’ve come first who didn’t need to bother to imply a lie in their name.
The tagline, leading to the lede: How do you make a food fad appeal to libertarians? Invoke human nature.
Food fad. Well, at least she reads, too, because that schtick is at least two years old or more. Whilst all of us watch daily, as we go to market and see most people and families filling their carts with sodas, frozen or dried stuff in boxes, cans, more boxes, fruit juice boxes and on and on—while we, differently, channel our inner grandmother or ancient ancestor and fill our cart with meat, fish, fowl, vegetables and fruits we’re gonna take home and cook at home in myriad fashion, maybe pic it—we’re doing the fad thing.
2nd sentence. 2nd lie.
Every dietary preference has its corresponding political stereotype. Vegans are to Ralph Nader as meat-and-potatoes types are to Dubya. Artisanal pickle-loving hipsters gravitate towards the Obamas, and anti-soda activists have a friend in Mike Bloomberg, at least for now. Omnivores, though seemingly agnostic, are split into two camps: those who will truly eat anything, and those who will eat anything so long as it contains organic ingredients their grandmother could pronounce.
Omnivores, lumped in with vegans, people who eat only simple meat & potatoes based, those who eschew sugar, and lumped in with omnivores who’ll eat anything. Which is simply not the same but a single long shot.
…Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t they teach in journalism school that three tight lies in a row = truth, as in, you can sell ’em? Well, if they don’t, they sure should. It works. The rest of the entire article is is just banal filler. You already saw all she had to offer. Three lies. The rest is just a random assortment of various random truths, some mildly relevant, others non-sequitur and I’m sure, one or two tossed in for contravention, to bolster the three initial lies that must stand as truth or the entire article is a bust.
It’s the title, the sub and the lede that’s important. She probably worked more on the rest, but it was all to bolster the three lies, because that’s all most people are going to read and at least half of them just look to the proceeding volume and make the desired conclusion.
Did I use the word whore, yet? Oh, yea, up above.
The filler is a bunch of stuff that taken alone, ought show how wildly varied Paleos are…and she’s 6 months to a year behind (it takes that long to research an article? I’m writing this in the space of a hour), as starches, often plenty of them, are now fairly mainstay for many Paleos. ….We’ve been looking for the catechism like everyone else has, but have yet to find it; and so we keep muttering & puttering along, mired in the morass of our own experience, learning from it, commenting about it on blogs and we’ll be damned but some people take up the charge and take it forward. We learn more and godammit but we’re off again. How so convenient it would be to have a Dietary Guideline(s) for All Americans.
It’s so fucking messy. It’s not neat & tidy. …Like having journalists edited by elites who get to go to important cocktail functions and so on.
So long as we can still buy meat, fish, fowl, vegetables and fruits we cook at home in various proportions that strike our peculiar fucking faddish fancies, we’ll be doing just fine and are happy to leave you to your boxes and journalism—but I repeat myself.
…Well, so much for that huge difference between Democrats & Republicans, but I digress, after having already repeated myself. I’ve already spent more time than a 3-strike liar is worth for a whole blog post. I’ll leave the rest to commenters. Fresh meat. Go for it if you like.