Oh, Hey There! We've Moved!

Sunday, April 22, 2012 | |

Update!: We now have a website which we think is pretty spiffy. You can come say hello to us over at Kleiner Eisbar here!

Hey There!

I've stepped out for a bit.

You can find our website here: http://kleinereisbar.com/ We make fine, hand bound albums, sketchbooks, and other awesome stuff and you can keep up with us there.

If you'd like to follow me in the interim, where I post about art, fun things, and the stuff I make, feel free to keep up on Tumblr here.

I've started a business with my wife making books, prints, cards, and other fun goodies. We blog about what interests us there, and also any projects we're in the middle of.

You can find us on Facebook as well. We appreciate likes, since that's one of the few metrics we have to gauge interest on Facebook. You can find us on Facebook here.

Also, if you'd like to visit our shop on Etsy to purchase anything, or to request a custom item, head on over to Etsy and visit us by clicking this link right here.

At some point, I look forward to blogging about milk and politics and such, but for now I mostly have my hands full with those projects. I do still blog about politics and milk on Tumblr from time to time, though, so hey, you might find us interesting over there too.

Again, if you want to get in touch with us, Facebook is an excellent way. We tend to update and check into it regularly, and it's a great way to interact with you.  And if you have any ideas or commission, don't be afraid to get in touch with us through Facebook or Etsy. We're pretty easy going, and we don't bite.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Dennis (and Krissy) of Kleiner Eisbär

Cheers!

Why Michele Bachmann Is Wrong To Ask Iraq For Reparations

Sunday, November 13, 2011 | |

Michele Bachmann says Iraq should pay us back for giving them freedom. They should also pay each of the 4,000+ families "million of dollars" for their loss of family members there.

Okay. Fair enough.

But then we should pay the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq the same debt.

Sounds like a wash to me. Or a pretty easy way to increase our debt exponentially.

Michelle Bachmann is not a stupid woman, but she does nothing but say stupid things.

Whitney Is A Terrible Show

Thursday, October 13, 2011 | |

I'm watching Whitney.

This. Show. Is. Terrible.

I've watched all four episodes now. I wanted to like it. I've liked her on the various roasts on Comedy Central, so I was pretty optimistic about her eponymous show.

The show says it's filmed in front of a live audience. This means that every sentence  is followed by a long pause, and the audience gives a very poor quality laugh track (I'm sure there is some Sweetening involved, here). I don't blame them, nothing in the show is really funny enough to laugh at. I'm not even sure there's much humor in the show at all.

The show is ostensibly about Whitney, a photographer, (who doesn't hold a camera properly, mind you) and her live-in boyfriend of five years. They are not married, because they're not the marrying folk. Or something. Whitney appears to be some sort of feminist too. Or maybe she just likes being macho; I'm not entirely sure.

The Pilot consists of Whitney going to a sex shop to buy a costume. Apparently their sex life is in a lull. She's not hot enough on her own, she needs to dress in a plastic/latex nurse costume. Her boyfriend ends up in the hospital, and they realize that their relationship isn't picture perfect, but it works for them. Gawker posted a video of Whitney saying "okay" over twenty times, or, once a minute. I suppose they needed more filler.

The next episode is First Date. Whitney realizes that she and her boyfriend have never been on an official first date. Of course, they've been on dates before, so this is a lie. She means that they didn't have a normal, romantic one. Like you see on TV and movies. On shows like Whitney. But, Whitney doesn't even seem to care about that sort of nonsense throughout the show, so it sounds like she's really just trying to make her and her boyfriends life miserable.

This is the only logical conclusion I can make since that is exactly what happens. She takes the First Date pseudo-seriously, and her boyfriend kinda doesn't take it seriously at all. She gets mad at him, and they go home. But she decides to be funny and tells him she doesn't go home with guys on the first date. Her boyfriend, Alex, takes this time to point out that, in fact, she does. She closes the door on him, and he sleeps at a friend's apartment. They spend the rest of the episode apart scheming against each other with the help of their friends. You know, like normal people. Wait, you mean you don't do this kind of crap to your significant other? Hmph, must just be them.

The next episode is called Silent Treatment and centers around Alex looking at another girl. You see, in TV world this isn't allowed. Certainly one should never gawk but what would most likely be a rather mundane part of everyday life turns into an entire episode that takes place over an entire day.

Whitney questions Alex and he lies. He figures Whitney doesn't want to hear he looked at another lady. Apparently, she's the only pretty person in the world now, all other women are ugly. I suspect that if he had looked at an "ugly" lady, she wouldn't have made an issue of it. Needless to say, she doesn't believe him that he didn't check out said lady and she gives him the silent treatment. The episode names they come up with on this show are awe-inspiring.

She soon realizes that her voice is really quite grating, and that she is actually rewarding Alex by not speaking to him. She's usually yelling and has a pretty monotonous voice, after all. Now, she ups the ante, and tortures her boyfriend by actually talking to him now. We all know that in the real world there is no greater punishment than having to listen to your significant other speak. To you. Regularly.

Right?

Whitney decides to annoy and harass Alex until he confesses that he checked the lady out, and proceeds to point out all the other good looking women at the bar-like place they always hang out. Naturally, Whitney does not approve. I don't remember how they settle this. He probably won't tell her when he sees an attractive lady, and she probably will try to ignore it. That's always the best way to solve problems--sweep them under the rug and ignore them.

Also, apparently their friend, Roxanne, wants to make her ex jealous and takes slutty Myspace pictures of herself.

This brings us to tonight's episode.

Basically Whitney and Alex try to be romantic. Again. They go on an awkward date. She deals with her friend's crisis. Her friend, Lily, is afraid that her boyfriend, Neil, is going to propose to her. She wants him to, so basically she's upset over nothing.

Alex and Whitney's date eventually takes them to where Neil is proposing to Lily. The entire time, Whitney complains and is a jerk to Alex.

That's really what makes this show terrible. Whitney is essentially about a couple that is bored and can hardly stand each other. But they love each other in some weird way for some strange reason. But they don't want to get married because Whitney's parents divorced.

Whitney is always rude to her boyfriend Alex. Alex is always pretty ambivalent to Whitney. There's nothing here to draw you in. None of the characters are even likable. I could care less what happens to the characters. This is a bad thing for a television show. The magic of shows like Friends or Community is that you care about the characters. All of them. You are interested in them and invested in them. People hoped for years that Ross and Rachel would get together. Sort of how people hoped Dawson would end up with Joey (but didn't).

The Problem With Getting Rid Of Free Checking

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 | |

Free Checking. It's one of those wonderful ideas of the last, oh I don't know. However long it's existed. Banks so wanted our money, they'd bribe us with things like coolers and other junk just to get us to sign up for free checking. So free checking was basically free (plus a present!) checking.

But now banks are in a tizzy because they're being "regulated." Personally, I think it's a joke, and they should be more heavily regulated, but that's neither here nor there. The problem is, they claim they can't make money, so they need to axe free checking. After all, how are the banks supposed to make money, now that overdraft fees aren't automatic? You know, I wanted that juice to cost me 35 extra dollars. I can think of very few times when overdrafting makes sense. Even being late on payments usually doesn't cost you $35, buying a soda certainly shouldn't. Then Dodd-Frank cut in half the amount of swipe fees they could charge per swipe on Debit card fees. So now they charge for the privilege of spending your own money.


So let's see. Free checking. How does it work?


In the beginning, I give a bank what money I have. Any future money I might hope to earn will also go in their vaults. I can/will do this up to $250,000.


With my money, and the money of millions of others, they make loans. They loan people my money and charge them interest. Auto loans, mortgages, small business loans, etc. These loans (I'm not a financial planner) will likely vary from 3% to 15%. Maybe even higher, who knows. Lines of Credit, I'm sure, have even higher rates. Many banks even offer credit cards with rates in the 20-30% range.


Now, they don't get my money for free. They actually pay me some interest too. It's an amazingly high rate of .01%. Basically, I could travel in time 10,000 years and I'd still be poor (not even accounting for inflation). They also give me wonderful extras like Bill Pay (oooh) and Customer Service. Also, now that I'm a "customer" I can utilize their other services, like loans and stuff.


But now, this model is apparently unsustainable. The banks just can't turn a profit anymore because of free checking. Well, actually, that's not true. They'll keep your checking account free if you have a minimum balance varying from $1,000-$15,000; utilize direct deposit; or some other stipulations (like using Bill Pay a few times a month).


I don't agree with this. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be paid for their services. But the bank isn't exactly doing anything for me here. All they do is protect my money. Well, that's not true, if they are robbed, insurance covers the loss. If they make terrible bets with my money and lose it all, the FDIC will give me what they lost, up to $250,000.


They don't give me checks, either. I don't use them, but if I want them, I have to pay for them. I want to buy something with my debit card? They get money. 


The fact is, simple checking accounts should be free because they aren't worth that much; the value just isn't there. Having a checking account isn't some magical vessel that transforms my money into anything--it just lets me pay people. And 99% of the time I pay people, my bank gets money. The bank uses my money to make money.


But you know what the absolute worst part is? This is a fee for not having enough money. I literally just opened up a piece of mail stating that if I do not maintain a minimum daily balance of $100, I will be charged $15 a month. Sure, I may not be making the bank much money at that small a balance, but I'm not costing them anything either. So if I were living pay check to pay check (which I'm currently not, anyone want to hire me?) and had a balance hovering around $100, it would take five months before my balance was brought down to $10. And anyone living paycheck to paycheck with a small monthly balance could run into this problem, for example, senior citizens.


It's a shame the letter just mentions regulatory changes, but doesn't actually say which. I have a feeling the changes don't affect free checking accounts.

Who Wouldn't Want These Jobs?!

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 | |

Seriously.

We are a growing Marketing company that is looking to hire their 4th graphic designer. We are looking for someone that wants to gain experience and grow with the company. The job opening is for part-time or full time. We are willing to train, but you must have some experience with CS3 or higher. The position will consist of design work as well as some secretarial work. Must be an out going friendly person that is willing to get their foot in the door for $8-$10.00 an hour.
I totally wish I'd went to school for graphic design so I can earn what is essentially minimum wage. What I find odd is this is either in addition to three other graphic designers, or they have burned through three already. The English is ambiguous. Maybe I'm not being totally fair. They are willing to train.

Graphic designer for print shop. Must have experience with Indesign, Illustrator, Photoshop and Fireworks. Position also requires customer contact. Must have reliable transportation.
This one pays $15-$18 an hour, but it's in Fairfield, CT. That's like getting paid $15-$18 in Manhattan. Fairfield, CT is expensive. In fact, on Craigslist, it's under New York, despite being firmly planted in Connecticut.

LOOKING FOR A PHOTOGRAPHER LOOKING TO BUILD THEIR RESUMES AND PORTFOLIOS AND WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE SHOTS OF MODELS AND MUSIC ARTIST FOR THEIR PORTFOLIO.PLEASE SERIOUS APPLICANTS ONLY  
You can tell they only want serious applicants because they used all caps.

Looking for a really great pair of legs and feet to model privately for me. Please be very clean, inshape and send a pic. No Sex or Drugs. Comp.
No compensation was listed. No gender is listed. I'm intrigued by the line "Please be very clean."  It makes sense though, (s)he wants to look at some legs and feet, not dirt.

Seeking an actor to play a homeless man for a very brief film shoot (30 minutes or less) to be part of a silent film segment for a music video. No experience necessary. Please reply with a photograph. If you have young children, they are welcome to join you - this is a kid-friendly project. Shooting will take place at a local park. Thank you for your time!
This casting call is for Waterbury. I'm sure they could find a real homeless person there (especially given their property taxes.) They'd get more realism that way and potentially help a person eat a meal.


On The "Rich" And The "Job Creators"

Monday, September 26, 2011 | |

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession. - Alessio Rastani

To begin with, I'm in favor of taxes, and taxing wealth. I think people deserve to keep what they earn, but earnings are not the result of a windfall, they take time to mature into wealth. My views are unorthodox, but I'd tax exceptional incomes at exceptional rates. Nobody on earth is going to try to earn less money simply because it's taxed more--especially the people who love money the most.

Short term gains should be taxed at the highest rates. Long term investments should be taxed lower. Wages, actual, honest wages should be taxed at the lowest rate since they are the most "earned." I'd still tax income progressively, though, and my top tax bracket would not be $250,000.

A lot of the rhetoric in politics lately talks about the rich and the job creators. Frankly, this gets us nowhere. There's no unilateral definition for "rich." Even job creator as a class is ambiguous. Rich in Connecticut is different than rich in Florida. Rich in Greenwich, Connecticut is different than rich in Derby, Connecticut. Most people would agree that $10 million is rich, but some wouldn't. Some people find this whole conversation irrelevant, because their money is theirs. Period.

Job creator as a title is equally ambiguous. Anyone who has hired someone is a job creator. And referring to a class of people as a job creator doesn't do anything for the national conversation. Should we tax job creators? Absolutely. Should we encourage them to create jobs? Absolutely. Does offering tiny tax cuts to businesses do it? No, not really. But cutting their taxes entirely won't either.

The logic is that if the corporations and rich have more money, they will hire more. The Job Creator Fallacy. The problem with this logic is that corporations are hoarding trillions of dollars in loans from the treasury, and they aren't using it to hire people. They are sitting on it. They are buying their competitors with it. And they are buying patents with it. This actually gets rid of jobs with things like consolidation and excessive litigating. Congress recently passed a law to "reform" patents. This did nothing to solve the problem, though. Google shouldn't be spending $12.5 billion on patents, they should reinvest it, or create jobs. The same is true for every other tech company battling over patents.

The problem with this whole conversation is how polarized and politicized it has become, however. Liberals see the rich as a bunch of assholes hoarding the wealth of this country while taking a massive dump on the rest of Americans. Conservatives see the rich as benevolent job creators who want to reinvest their money in their companies and create jobs, if only their taxes were lower. If only America wasn't such a high-taxed, terrible place to house a corporation. Lower their tax burden, and the jobs will come.

Liberals would counter that this "race to the bottom" gains nothing. Sure, there are jobs then (maybe) but what kind of job? All jobs aren't created equally. There are good quality jobs and terrible quality jobs. And wages are only a very small part of the quality equation.

Conservatives would counter that liberals in favor of taxing the wealthy and spreading their wealth constitutes socialism, and socialists are very, very bad. Why should they have to give up what they earn to lazy, incompetent people who don't want to work, they'd argue. It's a valid point, but who says the poor don't want to work? Maybe no one will give them a job. It's one big circle jerk, where the poor man on the totem pole isn't getting his, but ends up with everyone else's "egg" on their face. And I'm not exactly referring to trickle down "economics."

I don't care where you are on the map of conservative or liberal views, but people like this deserve to be taxed. This person deserves to be taxed at the standard rate up until $75,000 (and I'm being very, very generous. Anything after that should be taxed at 100%.



Some gems in case you don't want to watch the whole five minutes or so:


The governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.
The savings of millions of people are going to vanish" in less than a year
This economic crisis is like a cancer, if you just wait and wait thinking this will go away, just like a cancer it's going to grow and it's going to be too late
Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession.
When the market crashes... if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.
For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it
Until next time.

Would You Like Some Cheez Whiz With That Whine?

Thursday, September 8, 2011 | |

There's a storm a brewing, and the mommy/food bloggers are not happy. You see, this is what happens when you replace a longstanding professional trade or career with amateurs.

I am not a journalist. I could never hope to be one on my own. I don't have access to Lexis Nexis, nor do I have information gathering services like that of NBC. I just like the stuff. I follow it where I can and do my due diligence to verify what I read.

In this same regard, food bloggers are not professionals (in the traditional sense). You can learn to cook on your own; almost everyone learns this way. But curating a food blog does not a professional make. I'm the worst person to critique food since I can't actually, you know, eat most of it.

If you truly wanted to be a critic of anything seriously, you really have to prepare. Can I critique photographs? Sure. But my reading Strobist hardly makes me an expert. Seeing movies doesn't make me an expert capable of critiquing them either. And making dinner every night and posting about it on my blog doesn't make me a foodie or an expert on foods.

Does it matter what non experts think? Of course! That's why Adam Sandler cranks out movies that critics hate. Because the rest of america loves them. But Punch Drunk Love, Spanglish, and Reign Over Me (the last one in particular) are great movies that critics loved. And they all failed at the box office.

Recently, some food bloggers got an invitation to a dinner hosted by the one and only George Duran. You know, that guy who hosts Ultimate Cake Off. The one you want to kick only slightly less than the tool that hosts Cupcake Wars.

Photo from Food Network Canada
Yeah, that guy. Food is serious business.

Apparently, some bloggers are upset because they feel like they were lied to and duped into eating free food they would not have otherwise eaten. I don't want to sound like a douche, so here's what went down (objectively).

An invitation was sent to a select few bloggers; it looked like this:


The bloggers were told that this restaurant was essentially a pop up shop of restaurants and would be open for only five days. The bloggers were allowed a guest/date, and were allowed to have a giveaway on their blogs for dinner at Sotto Terra.

I'm not familiar with how this sort of thing works, but I'm something of a skeptic. And I research pretty much everything. I don't think I am normal like this, but I'd think anyone with a large audience would at least research places they were going to blog about.

Is it normal for a restaurant to open for only five days? Restaurant equipment is exorbitant. I'd think that five days would make very little sense for a restaurant. A pop up fashion or letterpress shop? Absolutely! The amount of overhead is much lower for those businesses. Not to mention food permits, etc.

I didn't even know George Duran was a chef, so I Googled him. Turns out, he is. Go figure. He went to NYU for Communications, worked as a producer, so on and so forth. Then, he went to France to learn how to cook. To me, this is important, we'll see why later.

Next, I'd Google Ketchum. This person I'm supposed to reply to works there (or at least has an e-mail address there). Oh, they are a marketing and PR firm. That's odd, but hey, maybe that's normal. George Duran isn't going to give you his personal e-mail. For all we know, Christine is his assistant. Or his agent or something.

The invitation states that they will be dining at an Italian eatery, learn about food trends from Phil, talk to each other, and sample George's Sangria while eating a four-course meal hosted by George Duran and Phil Lempert.

A few points. This is an Italian restaurant. George Duran studied French cuisine. His specialties are French, Armenian, and South American. I'm sure he can make a decent enough Lasagna, but I would be more excited about being served Italian food by someone who's known for cooking Italian food. In the celebrity chef scene, Mario Batali immediately comes to mind. Needless to say, this is yet another red flag.

But wait, the invitation refers to George and Phil merely as hosts. I don't think it implies that they will be cooking. In fact, the only time it mentions them in relation to food is when it says they'll be served Chef Duran's Sangria. You know, something South American.

So let's read what some of the bloggers had to say.

Over at Mom Confessionals, there's this:
Our entire meal was a SHAM! We were unwilling participants in a bait-and-switch for Marie Callender’s new frozen three cheese lasagna and there were cameras watching our reactions. I’ve got a sense of humor so I was okay with it and I had been enjoying myself up until that point, but I could tell that the rest of the participants were not. Everyone feigned weak shock and faked approval of the frozen meal.
I feel like "bait-and-switch" gets thrown around a lot. This is one of those times. This was not a bait and switch. They promised a four course meal hosted by George Duran and delivered. Also, bait-and-switch is kind of excessive considering that the food was free. It's not like Best Buy having an ad for a free monitor, then not having it and convincing you to buy something else.

All in all, this blogger seemed a bit annoyed, but mostly because her guests were duped.

Next up is the very poorly named blog of Chubby Chinese Girl (cuz she's, you know, kinda skinny).

First, I'd like to commend her for being the only one who took decent photos. The crop of the invitation came from one of her photos, in fact.
Then the focus shifted to healthy eating, fresh and local, seasonal, reading our labels, so on and so forth. Sort of like a Food Inc. panel if you will. I pointed out that the reason I ate organic, fresh and good food was because my calories are very precious to me, so I want to use them wisely.
(emphasis hers)

Okay I have some problems with this. Lasagna and Razzleberry pie don't exactly conjure up words like healthy or calorie conscious to me. I honestly can't take something like Razzleberry pie seriously. It sounds like something out of Willy Wonka or (yes) Marie Calender.



The reading labels thing throws me off, though. Eating fresh, local, and seasonal [ingredients] doesn't really involve labels. I'd hope a serious chef (or food blogger) would use as little prepared foods, except maybe ones they'd made themselves.
I'm NOT their target consumer and they were totally off by thinking I would buy or promote their highly processed frozen foods after tricking me to taste it. I'm not saying I ONLY eat/write about healthy and organic foods, but what unhealthy stuff I choose to eat/write, at least I was aware of it and it was my decision to do so.
But this is hardly new. Companies have been doing this for decades--getting people to try something they'd say they dislike (Think Coke and Pepsi).

I don't think they thought that the bloggers would do nothing but praise them either. I think they wanted to give them food they'd otherwise shun because it's processed and see what they think. If they all hated it, they'd know to change the recipe or whatever. I don't think they were thinking, "Let's woo some food bloggers with a big name like George Duran, some sangria, and free lasagna. This will get us tons of free positive publicity. Nothing could possibly go wrong." No, when giving people food, you always run the risk of a negative review. Food critics always get free food, and negative reviews abound. If a food blogger thought, "I won't say anything bad, I'll be polite" then they ought to not be reviewing food. Personally, if they found it so disgusting at Sotto Terra, they should have spoken up.

If I was a foodie and expecting a home made meal from a big name chef and it was only so-so, I'd certainly at least say something to the people around me. I wouldn't call the chef out on it because I'm just not that extroverted. But hey, if I had thousands of readers who took my opinions to heart, maybe that'd be different. Who knows. But I'm sure there was at least one loud mouth (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way) in the group. Why didn't anyone say "This Lasagna tastes like crap, who the hell taught you to cook?"

But Chubby Chinese Girl was again mostly upset at having eaten processed food. She seemed more upset than the first blogger, but seemed to take it mostly in stride.

The people over at Food Mayhem, on the other hand, were nonplussed.
To Mr. George Duran:
On behalf of the the culinary world, we hereby revoke your dodin bouffant; apron; and most of all, your right to call yourself a ‘chef’. You sir are an embarrassment to those in the culinary industry working hard to maintain and enhance a culture of food as one of the best parts of living.
hyperbole, hyperbole, hyperbole. This is the equivalent of people calling each other tea baggers, libertards, or any other sensationalist garbage. This hardly disqualifies chef Duran as being a chef. He's just doing his job as a spokesman for Con Agra Foods. Anyone who has watched the Food Network (and they all do) would see Food Network chefs promoting products during the commercial break.

Normally, I'd run down a response to an entire blog post like this, but it's so filled with sensationalist, angry bitterness that I'm not even going to bother. (some examples, just so I don't look like a sourpuss):
Let’s consider a more personal hypothetical: George, how would you feel if invited to my home, fed chicken cordon bleu, and then afterwards informed that we had secretly stuffed the cavity with entrails of rats found in the street, cleansed using various chemicals from the utility closet, such as bleach (also food safe in small quantities).
because excessive salt and food coloring is just like bleach and dirty rat innards.
After several minutes, your partner-in-crime Phil Lempert addressed the group...
Crime? What crime? Inviting you to dinner? Giving you free food?
What good P.R. teams do not do is lie to build attendance. Lying to media makes it that much harder for legitimate P.R. teams to achieve their goals. Build trust, not facades.
P.R. teams lie all the time. This is what people refer to as spin. Sure, maybe it's not really lying. But it's just like advertising. Lying wrapped with a pretty bow. And I wouldn't consider food bloggers media any more than I'd consider myself the media. Sorry, maybe it's nit picky, but no.

This line is probably the closest to a sane point made in the post and even it is pushing it:
Whether a belief is grounded in religion or science or completely random, part of your job as a chef is to support it. This is not taste preference, such as putting ketchup on steak tartare, this is what one chooses to eat. Would you feed beef to a Hindu? Swine to someone kosher? Or, chicken to a vegan? I am none of those, but would never force them to do something against their belief.
No. Seriously, no. Do not compare this to feeding beef to a Hindu. Or non kosher pig during Passover. Or even vegans. This is an insult to them.

Believing in natural products that haven't been processed is a fair belief to have. I, too, think there's way too much unnecessary shit in our food. There's absolutely no reason for high fructose corn syrup in bread, for example. But this is not an appropriate analogue.

But let's be clear here: this should not have even been a surprise. All these bloggers needed to do is a little bit of legwork. The last blogger actually referred to the group as "the media." Well, the media actually does research beforehand. What would a little research have uncovered?

George Duran is a spokesman for Imusa, selling things like pressure cookers and cookware.

At least as of January of this year, George Duran has worked with Con Agra Foods. There are even pictures of him. Seriously, this is not that hard.


Of course, not everyone who attended was as flagrantly pissed off. Kimberly Coleman took it all in stride and didn't get bent out of shape.
We were all shocked. You could have knocked us over with a feather, because we never saw that coming. Personally, I found it hilarious. I turned to my friend who came with me and said, “Oh my gosh…I feel like Justin Timberlake on Punk’d!” (I didn’t almost cry/totally lose my street cred for a minute though…but that’s another commentary.) In any event, from what I observed (and I could totally be wrong/people could have went home and had totally different reactions) the group on my night thought that it was a fun way for MC to prove their point that their new lasagna was as good as homemade lasagna. (I couldn’t stop teasing my Italian friend for not knowing the difference though…he grew up on his grandmother’s authentic Italian food!)
But you know what they say. One person's hilarious joke is another person's hellish nightmare. Or something like that.

This all kinda reminds me of this episode of Penn & Teller in a way


P.S. Don't get me started on bottled water.
P.P.S. Maybe this from Consumer Reports was just too late for some bloggers.