Author Topic: In the New Yorker...  (Read 502988 times)

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #990 on: October 30, 2014, 10:50:35 pm »
I'll have to remember not to blab on about the latest issue until I'm sure everybody has received it.

Oh, you never need worry about that! It's not like we're giving away spoilers here.

Quote
So, has everybody received the food issue (Nov 3)? This issue seemed strange because it was so focused on events within the U.S. borders. I'm not used to an issue where there is nothing about the Middle East or Africa. So far, I have enjoyed John Lancaster's piece "Shut Up and Eat" which launches the issue. We're in the age where we're supposed to laugh at ourselves for being so food-obsessed, which is okay except then we just go on with our obsession as normal. Not about food, but I also enjoyed the article about Bob Dylan's early work.

So I finally I got a New Yorker in the mail today, and I was all set to come here and say at last I had the famous Tom Hanks issue -- except that's not it, it's the Food Issue. I think what happened was that I never got the Oct. 27 issue.

I have a few different piles of magazines (practically one in every room, actually), and although they go back to at least last summer I couldn't find the Oct. 27.

So I think I probably will call customer service and complain. Here's my dilemma: If they give me a choice between getting the Oct. 27 one and adding one at the end, which should I do? Note: I don't particularly care about reading the Tom Hanks thing at this point. Is the Oct. 27 worth it, or should I take a chance that I'd do better at the other end?






Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,453
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #991 on: October 31, 2014, 01:29:53 am »
I would vote for adding one to the end. The issue with the Hanks piece was largely forgettable, although I didn't read the ebola piece, so I'm hardly an authority.
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,177
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #992 on: October 31, 2014, 09:15:00 am »
So I think I probably will call customer service and complain. Here's my dilemma: If they give me a choice between getting the Oct. 27 one and adding one at the end, which should I do? Note: I don't particularly care about reading the Tom Hanks thing at this point. Is the Oct. 27 worth it, or should I take a chance that I'd do better at the other end?

No surprise here, I completely disagree with FRiend Lee about the issue being "largely forgettable."  :laugh:

The Ebola article is completely riveting, and Oct. 27 also has the profile of Billy Joel (but maybe you don't care for his music?). The article on the President and court appointments is important if duty-ish. (I don't even plan on reading Tom Hanks' story).

BUT:

If you can access those articles on line (I probably could but I've never bothered to learn how)--then perhaps you should read them on line and go for an extra issue on the end of your subscription, if you are given that option.

"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #993 on: October 31, 2014, 07:50:12 pm »
the profile of Billy Joel (but maybe you don't care for his music?).

He's OK. True story: my uncle, who was probably in his 50s or early 60s at the time, but was pretty culturally aware and liked music and played the piano beautifully (though mostly classical) was once listing what he thought were the most important figures in rock 'n' roll history. "Elvis, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Billy Joel ..." he said.

I had to hide my amusement. My uncle really liked Billy Joel.

Quote
The article on the President and court appointments is important if duty-ish.

That doesn't sound like it would pass the duty threshold for me. I know court appointments are important, but I just can't get very into them.

Quote
If you can access those articles on line (I probably could but I've never bothered to learn how)--then perhaps you should read them on line and go for an extra issue on the end of your subscription, if you are given that option.

Excellent point. Many of the articles aren't even behind paywalls, and though of course as subscribers we all theoretically have access to all of the New Yorker content on their website. But I absolutely hate using it for that -- I like their blogs and online columns, but not the magazine content, because it's really cumbersome to read. You have to read it in a PDF version on their site, meaning you have to open to the page, then scroll up and down the individual columns as you read because you can't enlarge it enough to read, while keeping it on a whole page of your computer (at least I can't on mine).

Long story short, I'll probably google the Ebola article and if it's not available as free content (in which case it's presented in an easy-to-use html format, all one column) I'll probably skip it.


 

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #994 on: October 31, 2014, 11:05:36 pm »
Update: I just ran across someone else's link to the Ebola story. It's not paywalled.

In case anyone reading this is curious and doesn't subscribe, here's the link: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/27/ebola-wars#



Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,453
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #995 on: November 01, 2014, 11:28:34 am »
Thanks for the link. Yes, it was a good article.
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,177
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #996 on: November 01, 2014, 02:51:04 pm »
You have to read it in a PDF version on their site, meaning you have to open to the page, then scroll up and down the individual columns as you read because you can't enlarge it enough to read, while keeping it on a whole page of your computer (at least I can't on mine).

Eeew.  :(
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,177
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #997 on: November 04, 2014, 02:32:54 pm »
The Food Issue doesn't usually do much for me, but today I enjoyed the piece on cruise-ship dining (though it reinforced my lack of interest in going on a cruise), and I'm looking forward to the article on gluten-free eating.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,177
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #998 on: November 05, 2014, 02:28:49 pm »
Well, I did find Michael Spector's article on gluten interesting, but also confusing. I get it that wheat, rye, and barley contain gluten, but what about corn, oats, and rice?

I was also kind of annoyed by a paragraph that had nothing to do with gluten. Spector denounces margarine as a bad fat, and goes on to say that for decades people were encouraged to eat it because the saturated fat in butter was considered even more dangerous. Then he goes on to say that data from the famous Nurses' Health Study showed that women who ate four teaspoons--teaspoons!--of margarine a day had a 50% greater risk for heart disease than women who ate no margarine. But he doesn't compare the margarine eaters to butter eaters.  :(
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #999 on: November 05, 2014, 08:09:47 pm »
Well, I did find Michael Spector's article on gluten interesting, but also confusing. I get it that wheat, rye, and barley contain gluten, but what about corn, oats, and rice?

I was also kind of annoyed by a paragraph that had nothing to do with gluten. Spector denounces margarine as a bad fat, and goes on to say that for decades people were encouraged to eat it because the saturated fat in butter was considered even more dangerous. Then he goes on to say that data from the famous Nurses' Health Study showed that women who ate four teaspoons--teaspoons!--of margarine a day had a 50% greater risk for heart disease than women who ate no margarine. But he doesn't compare the margarine eaters to butter eaters.  :(

I can see where both would be annoying.

From what I know, I believe the answers are: corn, oats and rice don't have gluten, and margarine is worse for you than butter. Saturated fat is no longer thought to cause clogged arteries or heart disease. You might want to double-check both with Google. For more on the butter topic, look for a book called 'The Big Fat Surprise' by Nina Teicholz, a journalist who spent nine years investigating the standard weight-loss advice to avoid fat.