Review: Three Oreo Flavors

What makes a good Oreo cookie? The cookie can't be too "crumby," the taste of both the cookie and the cream must be well-balanced without either one overpowering the other, it can't be too sweet, too rich, too creamy, or too dry...does it sound like I'm being overly picky? Does it seem like too much to hope for in a cookie that has been long loved for its simplicity, hailed as "milk's favorite cookie?"

Actually, it isn't. The Oreo company managed to create such a cookie that fit all of the above criteria and still managed to retain its simplicity. It was the Marshmallow Crispy Oreo cookie. It was fantastic, and especially comparing it to two other Oreo flavors really put it into perspective. The packaging was flawless and the taste was excellent--the only thing lacking in this cookie was its ability to hold itself together as I bit down on it. Still, it didn't bother me much because, I mean, all cookies leave crumbs and fall apart eventually.

Presentation/Packaging: Perfectly packaged with an appetizing picture of a giant Oreo cookie dipped in snow-white milk, the presentation of the Oreo cookie is fantastic.

Texture/Firmness: The moment I take the cookie from the perfectly packaged box, it breaks in half. Each time I bite into the cookie, it keeps breaking apart in my fingers until I am holding a mess of crumbs in one hand. It’s too fragile, too “crumby,” and falls apart easily. But then again, pretty much all cookies do that.

As for the taste, each flavor had its own unique sensation.

The Good:

Marshmallow Crispy - The creamy marshmallow sandwiched in-between the two cookie pieces is the perfect balance between the sweet, frosting-like taste and the vanilla flavored cookies. They complement each other perfectly, neither overpowering or being overpowered by the other.

Stars: 3/4

The Bad:

Lemon - The sweetness of the lemon cream explodes in your mouth the minute you bite into the cookie. However,  it’s overly sweet and rich--almost like syrup or medicine, leaving you with a queasy feeling in your stomach.  It reminded me of kids' toothpaste, the sweet, fruity kind that parents buy kids who protest that the paste is too minty. The sweet, syrupy taste of the lemon cream overpowers the taste of the cracker--in comparison, the cracker is tasteless and bland.

Stars: 1/4

The Ugly:

Berry Burst Ice Cream - Even the name is misleading. Ice cream--who doesn't like ice cream? Just thinking about it is appetizing. Even sweeter than the lemon Oreo, this cookie is also dominated by the syrupy, overpowering taste of berry. You can’t taste the cookie, and about halfway through, your mouth and stomach tell you you’ve had enough--you want to stop, feeling queasy.
Stars: 1/4

I had such a nice moment with my Marshmallow Crispy Oreo, I was actually eager to try the other ones, hoping they'd be just as good. I almost groaned in disappointment as soon as I bit into them--like a second movie sequel that just isn't as good as the original, these other two flavors were a complete let-down. Sometimes it really is best to keep things simple. The Marshmallow Crispy Oreo won three stars in that it successfully balanced out the taste of the sweet marshmallow cream with the vanilla flavored cookie with just the right amount of sweetness and just the right degree of hardness in the cookie.

Response to Alan Richman's restaurant review of Gato

Alan Richman is a renown food critic with multiple awards and titles to his name. His review of the restaurant Gato in the GQ magazine was extremely detailed and thorough. He first talks about his initial expectations, how he was doubtful because of his experiences in the past with "celebrity chefs" and because the famous chef who founded Gato, Bobbie Flay, never seemed to be around. He analyzed every aspect of the restaurant--the first impression when walking in, the atmosphere, the service, the pricing, the interior, and every single piece of food he ate during his visit. His descriptions of the food are vividly written and easy to picture: "Slivers of seared duck liver, not foie gras, were mildly accented with black pepper." He displays great, in-depth knowledge of the ingredients in each dish, listing one by one and explaining how it contributed to the overall taste. He certainly isn't afraid to talk about what he didn't like in the meal, and when he does give negative criticism, he gets straight to the point without any sugarcoats, identifying exactly what he didn't like and why. He mentions the feedback on the restaurant he had heard from other people who had eaten there and whether or not he agreed. To top it all off, he threw in bits of information about the chef, the man behind the cooking, and quotes from his interview with him. In each review, Alan Richman makes his credibility and over 20 years of experience in the business clear. This is how a food critic should write.

"Rabbit Seasoning" Review

The story revolves around three characters. Daffy Duck, trying to get through duck season without getting shot, posts signs that say, "rabbit season" everywhere in the woods so that the hunters will know to hunt for rabbits. Elmer Fudd, the little hunter, is trying to shoot a rabbit when Bugs Bunny comes out of the rabbit hole. He cleverly twists the duck’s words, mixing up his pronouns to get the hunter to shoot the duck. Daffy Duck keeps tripping over his words, trying to get the hunter to shoot Bugs Bunny but saying, “shoot me now! Shoot me now!” instead, constantly getting shot in the process. It is one repetitive action throughout the whole short film, but each time he gets shot, something different happens to the arrangement of his break and he keeps having to set it back.

Daffy Duck's exaggerated rage is also sure to give the audience quite a laugh. We can tell that he will never succeed in getting Elmer Fudd to shoot Bugs Bunny, but the things he tries and the effort he puts into it is hilarious when matched with the repeated failures.

While that was all fine and dandy, what about the characters? It's no question that Bugs Bunny's clever ways that get him out of trouble make him a lovable character. But what are children watching this going to learn from him? The sly, clever way to trick people into stepping on their own traps? Taking pleasure in watching another person suffer the consequences of trouble as long as it means they themselves are out of it? They're going to begin enjoying the world of trickery and deceit. And what about Daffy Duck? Is his uncontrollable rage really the way we want to get kids to laugh nowadays? Anger issues?

The cartoon opens with a string of words that say: "If you're looking for fun, you don't need a reason, all you need is a gun, it's rabbit season." This phrase is essentially saying there is no reason, no boundaries when you want to have fun. It promotes aimless, shameless fun. The youth of this generation are going to grow up thinking it's okay to do whatever you want in the name of fun. They should be learning that there are risks to certain activities and even though they might think they're fun at the moment, if they're dangerous or harmful or destructive, it's not worth it.

Movie Reviews: Toy Story 3

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/movies/18toy.html
This movie review by A.O. Scott analyzes all aspects of the film Toy Story 3, including the plot originality, the messages it gives to the audience, the script, the visuals, and the fluency between the first, second, and third films in the series. It begins with a reflection on the author's reaction to the opening scene which could be seen in a negative light by some critics--he presents a counterargument regarding the possible claim that the opening scene may seem too cliche or appear too much like a "flashy commercial blockbuster." He then smoothly introduces the central message behind the film, which is supposed to focus on the inexhaustible imagination of children that we can all relate to having at some point in our lives. "Perhaps no series of movies has so brilliantly grasped the emotional logic that bind the innate creativity of children at play to the machinery of mass entertainment," he says. The importance that the film places on imagination allows children to relate directly to the moments they spend sprawled out on the floor of their room with their toys, creating our their own stories and scenarios to act out. It gives adults a wave of nostalgia, reminiscing about the days when innocence allowed them to express their creativity. The author then explores other messages in the movie, such as the value we place on technology and the materialistic mentality that has consumed us. He touches briefly on the movie script and what specific lines that characters say may hint at, and then he goes into the visual aspect of the film, complimenting the cinematography, color, lighting, and angles from a professional point of view. He sums it up cleanly at the end of the review, saying, "In providing sheer moviegoing satisfaction--plot, characters, verbal wit and visual delight, cheap laughs and honest sentiment--Toy Story 3 is wondrously generous and inventive."

Wow. What a review. It's thorough, informative, explanatory, and persuasive. By analyzing all aspects of the film and giving it clean remarks, the reviewer has me all set to spend two hours on watching this movie.

http://nypress.com/bored-game/
I was surprised to find some rather harsh views on some of the same aspects of this movie in Armond White's review of Toy Story 3, which he titled "Bored Game." While A.O. Scott appreciated the message the movie presented about taking a stand against this generation's materialistic ways to preserve childhood innocence and creativity, Mr. White found that "Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imagination--the usefulness of toys--and strictly celebrates consumerism." It's interesting to see how the exact same aspect of the same movie can appear so differently to different people. Mr. White also had a problem with the movie's plot, but that was only because he personally didn't like the whole toys-coming-to-life story. He believed it to be cliche, overused, and uninteresting. He thought the romance between Barbie and Ken was a chick-flick digression that made humans appear weak. Overall, he closed the review by saying, "The Toy Story franchise isn't for children and adults, it's for non-thinking children and adults. When a movie is formulaic, it's no longer a toy because it does all the work for you. It's a sap's story."

Mr. White should consider that this movie is directed towards children. He analyzed it in the perspective of a technical, practical adult--no wonder he wasn't grasping the underlying messages about childhood innocence and imagination. He was looking at the surface, the superficial things about the movie and didn't go the extra step into connecting personally with the movie's plot. When reviewing a movie, it's important to keep in mind the audience and who it was created for. Even if you are a professional critic, you must adjust your mindset and perception of the movie to match the audience for whom the movie was created. Only then can you represent the viewpoints of the general public who will see the movie and provide them with an accurate, helpful review.

Where is the justice?

In Egypt, more than 680 people have been sentenced to death following a trial that lasted only a few minutes. These people, the majority of whom are part of a Muslim brotherhood, have been accused of being connected to the killing of a single police officer during a riot last summer. Despite the lack of concrete evidence, at least one member of every extended family has been charged with this crime in the town of Edwa, a move by the Egyptian government that many people are viewing as a public threat to Muslim radicals.

This mass death sentence is the second one given by the same court over the course of merely a month. Of the hundreds sentenced to death in the ruling last month, 37 were confirmed and 492 were transferred to life in prison.

The fact that this is the second time such a massive death sentence has been issued in the space of a single month is unthinkable. At this rate, a violent, bloody civil war is almost inevitable.

While most of the people of Edwa are unspeakably enraged by this unjustified act by the government and the apathy of the police officers who know that many people have been wrongly accused, some residents remain quiet, maintaining that it is the decision of the Egyptian judicial system, which must be trusted. How can it be that in the face of such an inhumane, savage action some people still believe they must trust the government? This shows how brainwashed the people have become under a corrupt government. In the words of the White House, the ruling "defies even the most basic standards of international justice."

But if we really think about it, is our own justice system really that much different?

Yes, it is true that we don't sentence massive amounts of people to death at once without lack of clear evidence and without any efforts to find plausible cases. But our hands aren't exactly squeaky clean either in terms of court rulings. I have had the privilege of sitting through a trial at a local court in which the judge actually fell asleep. The judge would not make an effort to listen carefully to the evidence laid forth by both sides, pay attention to the witness testimonies, or rule on objections from the attorneys of either side. At the end of the trial, the judge took a mere 3 minutes to decide the case and give the ruling.

The sad reality is that that wasn't the only case of a mistrial that we've had in this country. People need to be more aware that our justice system is becoming more corrupt as time goes on. If things continue on like this, will there be a day in the future when justice is no longer even in the courts of the world's nations anymore? We cannot let that happen.

Special Education teachers

One of the challenges that my family has had to face for my brother his whole life was finding teachers that knew how to deal with him. Although there are many special education teachers in the world, each student has a different disability and it's hard to know exactly how to meet their individual needs in every circumstance. I've always had a tremendous amount of respect for the teachers who committed to work with children with special needs. It's hard emotionally, physically, and mentally to walk into a building everyday full of kids who have some sort of restriction on their thinking, their speech, or their movement. It's even harder when you don't know exactly how to help them overcome their difficult circumstances to reach their goals.

I am extremely grateful to the teachers who genuinely try to work for the good of their students despite the hardships they face in a classroom where every student needs an extreme amount of attention but all have different needs. However, it angers me when special education teachers fail to realize the importance of their job and neglect their responsibilities as teachers of kids who really need extra care. If you don't have the patience, gentleness, perseverance, and determination to reach out to these students, you shouldn't become a special education teacher in the first place. It's not meant to be a last resort, "backup job" that you go into if all your other career options fail. It is a real, meaningful, and demanding job that isn't just for anybody.

We need to change our view towards special education teachers. They are too often overlooked, left in the shadows, their work unrecognized. No one really understands how hard it is to go to work every day when your students can't tell you face to face if your teaching is making a difference, if you're helping them in any way. It's a job with very little fruit that takes a very long time to sprout.

Teachers, please do not give up on those students. What they need is love. Teach them with love, believe in them, and little by little, you will see the fruit of your work. We applaud you for the efforts that have gone unnoticed for so long.

In support of Sting's stinging presentation at TED

The TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference is an annual, global set of meetings with the slogan, "ideas worth spreading," in which various speakers address a wide range of topics within the research and practice of science and culture. It is a culturally enriching experience for all who speak and watch the conference.

David Brooks wrote an opinion article in the New York Times responding positively to the presentation that rock star singer Sting gave. He mentioned a barren period in the middle of his career when he was unable to write new songs. During this period, all he could recall was his childhood, about poverty and those unspeakably harsh nights when as a child he had to live on a street that led to a shipyard. Ironically, reminiscence over his difficult childhood years were what led him out of this unfruitful stage and revived his creativity.

Brooks was drawn to Sting's presentation because unlike most TED talks, which are all about the future, Sting's was about going back into the past and finding things that seemed bad at the time but turn out to be good in the long run. Brooks found Sting to be "circling back and coming forward." 

He said, "Sting's appearance at TED was a nice reminder of how important it is to ground future vision in historical consciousness. Some of the [other] TED speakers seem hopeful and creative, but painfully and maybe necessarily naiive. Sting's talk was a reminder to go forward with a backward glance, to go one layer down into self and then after self-confrontation, to leap forward out of self. History is filled with revivals, led by people who were reinvigorated for the future by a reckoning with the past."

It wasn't that Sting said all this during his presentation at TED. Brooks was able to draw meaning behind the very fact that Sting was sharing about his past experiences at a conference that was predominately centered around the future of the world. He looked beneath the surface, and shared what he got out of a rock star's presentation that we could all learn from.