In which we look at the history of lunch, the breathtaking inanity of the NYTimes’s Style section, what kills us then and now, the latest tempest in the blogging teapot, and some of the best songs from one of my favorite bands.<\/p>\n
————<\/p>\n
As late as 1755, according to Samuel Johnson\u2019s definition, lunch was simply \u201cas much food as one\u2019s hand can hold\u201d \u2014 which, as Laura Shapiro, culinary historian and co-curator of the New York Public Library\u2019s new Lunch Hour NYC exhibition, recently explained to me, \u201cmeans that it\u2019s still sort of a snack that you can have at any time of the day.\u201d And it wasn\u2019t until later still \u2014 around 1850 \u2014 that lunch became a regular fixture between breakfast and dinner, added Rebecca Federman, the exhibition\u2019s co-curator, Culinary Collections Librarian at the NYPL, author of Cooked Books, and a star panelist at Foodprint NYC. Finally, by the turn of the century, \u201clunch was taking place between 12 and 2, more or less,\u201d concludes Shapiro. It was a real meal at last, with a time associated with it, and particular foods and places assigned to it.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
We at Gawker have warned you previously that the New York Times Style section exists solely to introduce you to society’s biggest shitheads, and yesterday’s profile of the Brant Brothers is no exception. At this point, it feels as if the Times is going out of its way to troll us all. No one at that paper could possibly think these two teenagers\u2014who have yet to contribute anything meaningful to society\u2014are inherently interesting. A much more reasonable explanation is that someone at the Times Style section sits down every week and is like, “Oh hey, how can we piss off everyone this week? I KNOW! Let’s profile a pair of privileged dipshits!”<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
A look at the top causes of death over the last 100 years, and how they have changed. The paper’s pretty dry, but the interactive bar graph is awesome.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
SciCurious asked for my thoughts on the matter, and what follows is very close to what I emailed her in reply this morning. I should note that these thoughts were composed before I took to the Googles to look for links or to read up on the details of the particular controversy playing out. This means that I\u2019ve spoken to what I understand as the general lay of the ethical land here, but I have probably not addressed some of the specific details that people elsewhere are discussing. Here\u2019s the broad question: Is it unethical for a blogger to reuse in blog posts material she has published before (including in earlier blog posts)?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
[T]he legacy of the most explosive Whigs records \u2014 Congregation and Gentlemen in particular \u2014 is practically written in blood. Lyrics detail emotional warfare, crumbling relationships, infidelity, sexual humiliation, and a never-ending stream of lies. But even the worst lines come from a place of vulnerability: Dulli needs to hurt because he hurts. Listening is a harrowing, addictive experience. Now that the Afghan Whigs have officially reformed and begun releasing new material (check out last month\u2019s simmering rendition of Marie Lyons\u2019 \u201cSee And Don\u2019t See,\u201d the time is ripe to revisit the band at their characteristic best, which means digging into their emotional worst. Here are 13 of the most vicious Afghan Whigs songs, spanning their entire career \u2014 strap yourself in for a hell of a ride.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In which we look at the history of lunch, the breathtaking inanity of the NYTimes’s Style section, what kills us then and now, the latest tempest in the blogging teapot, and some of the best songs from one of my favorite bands. ———— Lunch: An Urban Invention As late as 1755, according to Samuel Johnson\u2019s… Continue reading Links for 2012-06-25<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-links_dump","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7256\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}