Ace Of Cakes

No, not a parody of Motorhead's "classic" single (please feel free to name four others) but a wonderful series The Devil & I discovered on UKTV Food. It's basically about a cake making company - Charm City Cakes - in Baltimore, Maryland.

There's the slightly insane head chef, Duff Goldman, his organising, phone-call taking business partner Mary-Alice (sister of the Clutch lead singer, Neil Fallon) and the rest of the cake making staff. And the series follows them as they go about their work making weird and wonderful cakes for various people.

And that's it. There's no moralising, no "interesting" back stories about the staff or their customers, not even any actual recipes for the cakes.

But it is weirdly addictive entertainment. The show has brought Food Network (the US channel which commissioned it) some of the highest ratings it has ever received for a prime-time program. The June 4, 2008 episode had higher ratings than the NHL's 2008 Stanley Cup Finals. Which probably says more about the sad decline of hockey.

The reason I mention it now is because of a conversation between The Devil & myself last night. There's a guy called Geof who works for Charm City Cakes, and he is a hugely amusing man. And scary. And he has the most perfect voice for reading scary stories to kids. Geof could read ANYTHING and make it sound scary to a kid, as he has the oddest intonation when he speaks.

Bizarrely though, he also writes lyrics, plays guitar. And sings. Ladies & gentlemen, I give you, Geof Manthorne.

The New Puritanism

Obviously keen to follow up their campaign to make smokers into a demonised section of society - latest plans show that smokers won't be allowed to adopt or foster children - the Government are now going after the other big revenue generators: drinkers.

In the past month I've seen proposals to increase the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to 21 (and hasn't that worked out brilliantly in the US?), for there to be a separate area in shops for alcohol so that customers have to queue twice (so that their "alcohol purchases can be scrutinised by other shoppers") and in Scotland, a proposal that while you can buy alcohol in pubs at 18, you can't buy it in a shop until you're 21 (which won't cause any confusion at all, will it?)

This is on top of the on-going campaigns the Government have to get fat people to eat less, and everyone else to eat what the Government decides is healthy and good for them. Combined with the recent call, by Ed Balls, to ban the opening of fast food outlets within a certain radius of schools, and you would suspect the Government are actively going after the Nanny State title.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are both still legal, yes? Burger King, McDonald's and the like aren't force-feeding anyone, are they? We're not in some weird Arab state run by keep-fit non-smokers, are we? At least not yet, at any rate.

So why the hell are the Government insistent on interfering in people's lives to this extent?

You'd think that with the current financial crisis - nothing to do with Gordon Brown's management of the economy over the previous decade, oh dearie me, no - the Government would have less time to fuck about in the petty areas they seem to love. But no. You'd be quite wrong. Because the Prime Mentalist himself waded into the "scandal" of Jonathan Ross & Russell Brand's radio show to give his two pence worth.

Despite it being FUCK ALL to do with him - although handily deflecting public glaze from his general cockpuppetry - Brown demanded action be taken.

Why, you incompetent fucksock, are you getting involved? Oh wait, I know. It's because he's a fucking Puritan dictator.

He's the one who will decide what is good for us and what isn't. Anything that is bad will be banned, and the only things that are available will be those that are personally allowed by the Prime Minister. We people, you see, aren't pure enough of mind or deed to be allowed to make these choices for ourselves. We're too stupid to see the benefits or failings ourselves, so we *need* someone to tell us what to eat, what to drink, not to smoke, to do more exercise, to believe in a vengeful God who will punish us for not looking after the planet properly, to understand that the Prime Minister is doing a good job and not destroying the economy single-handed.

He is, in short, a cunt. A righteous cunt. A complete and utter righteous cunt.

Well here's something from me to you, Gordon. I will drink & smoke as I please and I will die when I'm supposed to. There's nothing you can do to stop me, because I am the revolution, and I want my fucking liberties back.

Stop Having Children Or The Planet Dies

From the Register, an article about the attempt of two doctors to reduce the population of the UK. Sadly, there's no Harold Shipman type slaughter of the elderly being proposed. Wonderfully, however, they do recommend a reduction in the number of children - so it's not all bad news after all.

And while I would normally support such a call for less children, I have some reservations. Because the doctors are suggesting that controls are needed because kids cause carbon emissions and, therefore (at least in their eyes) climate change. The ecopalypse! Noes! We're all going to die!

Sorry, I got a bit carried away there. The two medics suggest that choosing to have a third child "is the same as buying a patio heater or driving a gas-guzzling car" and that "GPs should advise their patients against it". Yes, you did read that right - Doctors are comparing children with consumer goods. How splendid is that? It makes my heart swell to hear the medical profession talk in such loving terms.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, John Guillebaud (emeritus professor of of family planning at UCL) and Pip Hayes (a GP) raise the spectre of global population explosion, and suggest that the children of the developed world are a particularly severe carbon burden.

You think? I have three words to say to you: Too. Fucking. Late.

There is no "spectre" of a population explosion, there's already been one. If you're over 40 years old (and thankfully I'm not quite old enough to be in this group) the population of the planet has DOUBLED since you were born. I am old enough to remember being taught there were 5 billion people on Earth - the figure now is around 6.75 billion.

There are too many people on this damn planet. To quote Bill Hicks; "How about we take a moment out of our frenzied rutting to work out the whole food/air deal, huh?"

While some - China - have set limits on the number of children a family can have, and the birth rate has fallen in most Western countries, family size in third world/developing countries has actually increased.

In 1984, when Band Aid exhorted us to "thank God it's them instead of you", there were 42 million in Ethiopia and 8 million of them were starving. There are now 78 million people in Ethiopia, and 10 million are starving. When Band Aid suggested we "feed the world", I think they would have been better advised to teach family planning.

From the Country Studies site of the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress (as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998) a short paragraph giving some insight into why this may have happened.

In 1990 officials estimated the birth rate at forty-five births per 1,000 population and the total fertility rate (the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime) at about seven per 1,000 population. Census findings indicated that the birth rate was higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Ethiopia's birth rate, high even among developing countries, is explained by early and universal marriage, kinship and religious beliefs that generally encourage large families, a resistance to contraceptive practices, and the absence of family planning services for most of the population. Many Ethiopians believe that families with many children have greater financial security and are better situated to provide for their elderly members.

Analysts believed that reducing the population growth rate was a pressing need, but one that could only be addressed through a persistent and comprehensive nationwide effort over the long term. As of early 1991, the Ethiopian regime had shown no commitment to such a program.

Funny that, as feuding tribes (and Ethiopia was at war with two different countries during the 90s) don't really like this option. Unfortunately, religions don't like this option either. Both for the same reason, weirdly. If there's less people on your "team" then there's more chance of you being taken over/killed by the opposition. This "breeding for God" approach does no-one any favours.

Sadly, using the fear of the ecopalypse to encourage people to breed less also fails to do much good.

Racist Toddlers

When "Yuck" can be a racist phrase, apparently.

Via Mr Eugenides, comes this rather depressing report from the BBC about a 336-page guide(!) aimed at helping 'identify potentially racist attitudes in youngsters'.

The guide says: "A child may react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying, 'Yuck!'". That may indicate a lack of familiarity with that particular food, or "more seriously a reaction to a food associated with people from a particular ethnic or cultural community".

Guide author Jane Lane said: "The book is about being alert and asking questions, being sensitive and never attacking a child, but always trying to think about why they may have said or done something."

Because of course, the child wouldn't just say "Yuck" because you were trying to feed it something it didn't like, would it? No, they're all racist! That's the thing with children, they are inherently racist and can immediately tell if you're Muslim as well. Plus, they *just know* that the curry you've given them doesn't come from the right part of India, the organic muesli is an anachronism & the hand-knitted mung beans are fucking disgusting.

For the sake of fuck. Please pass me my gun.

What culinary tradition does the UK actually have? Chicken Tikka Massala is one of the most popular dishes, Thai is increasingly the only option in pubs, fatty foods are frowned upon and nowhere South of Durham does a decent stottie. When was the last time you actually went out for 'an English'?

Shopping Amuses Me

Was just in Morrison's getting some stuff and saw this rather enticing offer:



Being a royal pain in the arse, I had to tell Customer Services that technically, 2 for £1.50 was *worse* than BOGOF, as buy one get one free would actually be a penny better.

Surprisingly, I haven't been barred.

Cook Yourself Thin

Tragically not a show about basting yourself in your own fat while sat in a large oven.

No, much, much worse. First of all a perfectly fine looking woman is shown with the title of "Size 16". Then some funky looking female chefs, again with their dress sizes. Although to be honest, you know how TV is supposed to add 20lbs to you? Well, the victim who was supposed to be a size 16 (these are all UK sizes btw) looked a perfectly fine size 14 at most. Three of the chefs looked at least one size more than their title said, and one of them (who is either really short, or all the others are REALLY tall) is apparently a size 10. But if she was, it wasn't in a good way.

And I'd like to point out, if the show hadn't shown the sizes, they wouldn't have even entered my head. But no. That's the way the show sets itself, so that's where I'm going to start. I couldn't care less what dress size someone is, if they're happy and not going to die from being over or underweight, then I'm not going to be the one telling them to lose/gain weight. So yeah, opening credits horror show.

Then the cooking started. The victim loves her full Sunday roast. So the funky chefs have to re-create it, but with fewer calories. So instead of roasting big potatoes with the skins off, roast new potatoes with the skin on. Fair tip, I'll let that one pass.

Instead of some fairly reasonable looking carrots and peas, some oven roasted squash and onions. Okay, don't really see the point and you have used olive oil where the original used only water, but fine you crack on. Yorkshire Pudding? Oh, you seem to have ignored that completely. Right, continue and show me how you deal with the Beef. Ah, of course, you've cooked chicken instead. And thrown away the skin.

Call me old fashioned, but that's cheating. Of course there's going to be MUCH lower calories in something that doesn't have Yorkshire Pudding or Beef! You bastards! This exact sort of thing continued throughout the show.

Carbonara too high in calories? Think this show will help? Nope, they'll make an entirely different sauce for pasta and count what the calorie content of that is instead. Eating too many chocolates? Make a big bowl of truffle mix, stick it all in your fridge after you've rolled it into balls and covered it in cocoa powder, but only eat two a day. Right, not forgetting to assume that the person has self control over food and doesn't eat them all at once, feel terrible and make themselves throw up in shame, obviously.

But the tips don't stop/start there, oh dear me no. Having apple crumble? Have you considered having less crumble and more apple? Well, get this, if you do, you'll eat less calories! Similarly, and this is a suggestion of my own, if I just maybe don't pile the food on my plate and stop eating so quickly, then I'll actually eat less which similarly reduces my calorie intake. But there was more from the funky chefs!

"I'm going to use Fructose rather than sugar", "Oh, why's that?", "Well it's sweeter than sugar so you'll use less of it". Oh good. That'll be the same fructose that has been linked to increased likelihood of weight gain, is it? The same stuff that causes "the liver (to go) bananas and stop everything else to metabolize the fructose" according to the Miami School of Medicine? I'll stick to sugar if that's okay with you, funky chefs.

Oh, and possibly, as you mentioned in very small text and in a very quiet voice, I might just do a bit more exercise as your victim was instructed to do.

Funnily enough the victim was revealed to have lost two whole dress sizes by the end of the (I care not how many) weeks. And she still looked pretty much the same as she had at the start of the show, ie perfectly fine. Wankers.

Gillian McKeith, Why Aren't You Dead?

Witch-faced scottish coprophiliac food-nazi (but to be fair to her at least she's stopped calling herself Doctor) Gillian McKeith isn't my favourite person by any stretch of the imagination. She has, however excelled herself this time by actually irritating the shit out of me (which she would no doubt examine very closely for no obvious reason) before the programme has been broadcast.

"Three Fat Brides & One Thin Dress" irks me by its title alone. The concept however is even more nauseating. McKeith chastises three overweight women who are planning to get married in the near future, to lose a spectacular amount of weight in order to win a free wedding dress that they can't currently fit into. And she decides which one of them "deserves" the dress. How very considerate and condescending of you Gillian, helping all these poor fat people, you money making freak.

I'd personally like to volunteer to make the wedding cake for any of the would-be brides that punch her in the face, or shit on her, or both. And I don't care how much you weigh on your wedding day - as long as you're happy, good luck to you. The person you're marrying obviously doesn't care, so why should I?

Vegetarians Beware

Particularly those amongst you who like the odd bit of chocolate. Mars, the manufacturers of, well, Mars and various other bits of chocolatey goodness have decided that they will be using animal rennet in their products.

I only discovered yesterday just what animal rennet actually was, and that put me off eating anything with it in, and I'm not a vegetarian!

Why Mars are doing this is beyond me. It doesn't seem to make sense from an economic point of view to actively reduce the potential number of buyers of your product (by stopping the increasing number of vegetarians from purchasing it) or to stop using a product (non-animal rennet) which has increased in supply (thus reduced in cost).