(Page 2 of 2)
“Fast foods are dangerous because they bring about the homogenization of taste, because there is no cultural diversity,” he said. “But there is no sense in demonizing them,” he added.
Unfortunately for those cosmopolitans who crave cultural diversity, when cultures are allowed to deteriorate one ends up with fewer of them, not more.
THE POLITICS OF FOOD has never been more intriguing. With the release this month of the documentary Super Size Me, in which its director embarks on a no-holds-barred fast food feeding frenzy, many are attacking “corporate culture” for shoving junk food down their throats. The bigger problem could be that they are allowing this polymorphous corporate culture to take the place of a genuine culture and tradition — including any fundamental beliefs and values — they lack.
And so the Great Relearning in the culinary realm will have to begin. If the Italian communists who founded the Slow Food Movement really want to preserve their gastronomic culture and health-obsessed Americans really want to improve their diet, instead of focusing on the black celery of Trevi and the Ischia cave rabbit of Campania or worrying about what McDonald’s executives want them to buy, they would do well to protect a way of life that values more than the exotic and the expedient.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online