Bad Press = Good Press?

Last night I curled up on the couch and watched Morgan Spurlock's acclaimed documentary Supersize Me. I watched it for the first time in the fall, and was absolutely amazed at the transformation that Morgan Spurlock went through in a mere month. Being an aspiring journalist myself, I admire Spurlock for embarking on such a courageous and dangerous endeavor in order to show the public the horrible effects that fast-food behemoths like McDonald's have had on American culture. The documentary shows, among other frightening realities, school-age children to whom Ronald McDonald is more easily recognizable than Jesus. There is even one section in which a family cannot properly recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and yet one of them rattles off the Big Mac® slogan verbatim without giving it a second thought. (Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun). I highly recommend the film to anyone who has so much as smelled a french fry.

According to the film's own website:

Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock hit the road and interviewed experts in 20 U.S. cities, including Houston, the "Fattest City" in America. From Surgeon Generals to gym teachers, cooks to kids, lawmakers to legislators, these authorities shared their research, opinions and "gut feelings" on our ever-expanding girth.

During the journey, Spurlock also put his own body on the line, living on nothing but McDonald's for an entire month with three simple rules:

1) No options: he could only eat what was available over the counter (water included!)
2) No supersizing unless offered
3) No excuses: he had to eat every item on the menu at least once

What intrigued me last night, though, as I re-watched the award-winning documentary, was not Spurlock's blatant disregard for his own health in the name of journalistic enterprise. Rather, it was my immediate reaction: I want McDonald's!

It was the exact opposite of the intended effect, but I could not deny my sudden craving for either a Quarter Pounder® with Cheese or an order of Chicken McNuggets®. It made me wonder: although the documentary may have caused many a fast-food aficionado to seek healthier sustenance, how many people saw it and then ran out for a Big Mac®? To what extent does the old adage ring true, that any publicity is good publicity? Not assuming, of course, that McDonald's needs any assistance in the publicity department. I don't eat fast-food (of the McD's variety) very often, but I do enjoy it on occasion.

As a matter of fact, my stomach is beginning to rumble. McDonald's, anyone? I'm Lovin' It!

Further vs. Farther

I was walking to grab a quick lunch yesterday on a break from my internship with one of the producers when he started to tell me about the best places to eat in the area. He told me about a good Thai place, a good burrito place ("good burritos" is an oxymoron in New York City, though I take it with a grain of salt and understand "good" to be a relative term), and some good sandwich places. Then he said, "And a little bit further down 9th Avenue," and then he stopped, and added, "farther?" I smiled internally: these are the kinds of questions that make me tick.

For the record, this situation does not represent a dilemma. A dilemma is a situation or problem in which both possible options are unpleasant or uncomfortable, and one is forced to choose, essentially, the lesser of two evils. One of the most common examples of this is the Prisoner's Dilemma. When in a state of deliberation between two things that aren't necessarily bad, the correct terminology is quandary. But I digress...

Last night Suzanne and Steve took me out to eat sushi at Wasabi Lobby, which is no farther than two blocks from my apartment, to celebrate my summer internship with the CBS Evening News Investigative Unit. Before I go any further, and while I'm on the subject of Wasabi Lobby, I must add that although the sushi rolls they serve are unique and delicious, I was extremely disappointed when I noticed that the menu offered "Chiken Teriyaki." I wouldn't be me if I didn't at the very least make mention of the obvious typo. Moving on... Over quite possibly the best specialty tuna roll I've ever had, Suzi asked that I blog about further vs. farther. Since I had already encountered the question once that day, I decided I had better address it.

Quite simply, farther refers to physical distance while further refers to abstract distance or depth. In The Elements of Style, my trusty friends Strunk and White explain it this way:

Farther. Further. The two words are commonly interchanged, but there is a distinction worth observing: farther serves best as a distance word, further as a time or quantity word. You chase a ball farther than the other fellow; you pursue a subject further.

I'll close with this: though I'm much farther away from my family now that I'm in New York, I think the move was well worth it so that I could further my education. I certainly don't see myself moving back any time soon. Did I take it too far?

This Bud's For You

"This is the famous Budweiser beer. We know of no brand produced by any other brewer which costs so much to brew and age. Our exclusive Beechwood Aging produces a taste, a smoothness and a drinkability you will find in no other beer at any price."

So reads the Budweiser manifesto. It is the often memorized, constantly recited, always recognized extended slogan, or pledge, that graces the packaging of The King of Beers. In fact, I typed it from memory. It's a bit of a phenomenon, really, that three sentences could have such far-reaching - cult-like, even - implications. I am a loyal Budweiser aficionado, and therefore thought it necessary that I post a link to some great Budweiser literature. It is a rare event that something costs nothing, but the case of this blog posting is the quintessential example of free advertising, and it's even better than what they pay for.

Without further ado, for your educational gain (and an "I told you so"), read this. It's guaranteed to make you a bit weiser.

Guilty Pleasure

Here's a little treat that I find often amusing and always educational. Every Sunday in the New York Times Sunday Magazine is a delicious and fun column from veteran William Safire called On Language. He discusses virtually all things linguistic, and I quite enjoy his tone.

I think the column he wrote this past Sunday presents the perfect opportunity for me to mention him, because he devotes the piece to one word: pleasure. His column is a guilty pleasure of mine, and I encourage all who are interested to check it out each week.

E-mail Trail

My mother always told me never to write anything down that I wouldn't be comfortable with the world knowing. Considering I became a writer, this is quite difficult, especially considering that I journal quite often. I do, however, exercise the utmost caution and realize that it is necessary to keep a tight leash on any personal diaries.

Now that e-mail has perhaps become the preferred method of communication, I think it is imperative that people realize that the old adage holds true. An article in the May 14 issue of Fortune, which can be viewed online here, discusses the problematic nature of the e-mail trail. Everyone, from the highest coprporate honcho to the lowest intern on the totem pole, should beware. The article was written by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe of Fortune, whose new book Send: The Essential Guide to Email for Office and Home was reviewed in the New York Times Sunday book review. Check out the review here .

There's even a list of executives who got axed on account of their questionable e-mail practices.

Moral of the story? Don't write (type, dictate, blog, e-mail, etc.) anything you wouldn't be absolutely comfortable with the entire world knowing. Thanks, Mom!

So There.

I was asked to post a blog about there, their and they're, and I'm certainly happy to oblige. My aunt was driving along the Katy Freeway in Houston, Texas, and saw a billboard for Taco Cabana (how I miss Taco Cabana!) that read,"There Back!" It was referring to beef flautas or something, she said, but she was appalled that this glaring mistake made it to print, and in such a giant form, mind you! Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens all the time. First, take this Quiz to test your mastery of the difference.

There is perhaps the most common of the three, and is most often used as an adverb. It usually refers to being in or at a place or at a certain point in an action or speech. For example: He went there yesterday.

Their shows ownership of an object or objects by more than one person. For example: He went to their house.

They're is a contraction, and stands for they are. For example: Do you know what they're doing?

I quite like this explanation, from the website of Professor Paul Brians of Washington State University:

Many people are so spooked by apostrophes that a word like “they’re” seems to them as if it might mean almost anything. In fact, it’s always a contraction of “they are.” If you’ve written “they’re,” ask yourself whether you can substitute “they are.” If not, you’ve made a mistake. “Their” is a possessive pronoun like “her” or “our” “They eat their hotdogs with sauerkraut.” Everything else is “there.” “There goes the ball, out of the park! See it? Right there! There aren’t very many home runs like that.” “Thier” is a common misspelling, but you can avoid it by remembering that “they” and “their” begin with the same three letters. Another hint: “there” has “here” buried inside it to remind you it refers to place, while “their” has “heir” buried in it to remind you that it has to do with possession.

It seems elementary, but it's surprising how often people use there, their and they're incorrectly. So there.