Michael And Rochelle's Site We're crazy (in love) and we want to share it with you!
About Us   Contact Us   Events   Newsletter   Photos   Site Map   Search

Newsletter

WEDDED BLISS The Newsletter for Michael and Rochelle's Marriage Volume III, Number 6 -- November 6, 2000 Table of Contents: We're Back! Food Binge Photos Leather Jacket Challenge Results Political Rant, Part II   We're Back! We're back from our Chicago Food Binge, which we enjoyed tremendously. We learned a few lessons, about food, about eating, about ourselves, and we wanted to share the Top 10 with you (plus a bonus 11th): 11. Ann Sather's (Chicago cinnamon bun goddess) is highly overrated 10. Garrett's Popcorn is not 9. Chicago bus drivers are happier than SF bus drivers 8. From all the stuff we saw while shuttling to and from our hotel and restaurants, we suspect there's a lot to do in Chicago 7. Anywhere in Wicker Park is the place to eat 6. Chicago has great architecture 5. Chicago has sucky public Internet access 4. There is a difference between actually being hungry and just not feeling stuffed -- but we only know it when faced with a new meal 3. There is a god, and his name is Charlie 2. We can binge on food for 5 days, but not 7 days; it's nice to know we do have a limit 1. MUST ... HAVE ... THE ... FOOD ... CHANNEL Here's the Top 10 list of things we did in Chicago when we were not eating: 10. Art Institute and Field Museum (world class museums, we sorta had to go) 9. Architecture Tour (we took the bus tour) 8. Stumbled around in a Food Coma, eyes glazed over, muttering "we can walk it off..." 7. Shopped at cool architectural salvage stores 6. Looked for the crap magnet on N. Milwaukee Street 5. Watched the Food Channel 4. Practiced on improving our "married 20 years" bickering skills 3. Orchestrated our marital duties for the 5 minutes we weren't bloated and in danger of booting. 2. Tried to think of ways to embarrass and aggravate Dan and Hilda, 'cause they got used to us taking photos of food sooner than we thought they would 1. Dissected our last meal, and fantasized about our next meal   Food Binge Photos As promised, we uploaded a lot of our photos of our trip, while we were on the trip. We hope at least a few of you followed along. For those who waited, most of our trip is online at: http://www.michaelandrochellessite.com/photos/chicago/viewer.html?TopicID=chicago We were not as diligent about doing it every day as we'd intended, though, and even today, we haven't put everything up. We're missing the comments for Arun's, all of Charlie Trotter's, and a few miscellaneous non-food photos we took. Everything else is up. Look for us to finish by the end of next weekend. (Michael wants the chance to hack on the photo catalog software some more, to make it a little more controllable, e.g., put photos in the right order, better formatting for descriptions, etc., so blame him for the delay.)   Leather Jacket Challenge Results As you might know from reading some of the photos and their descriptions, Rochelle managed to beat the Leather Jacket Challenge (by 2+ ounces) and Michael did not (by 2+ pounds). What you are probably wondering, though, is what kind of damage did we do on our eating vacation? The answer is, not a lot. Rochelle gained one pound, and Michael gained 2-3. In other words, we're both still well below where we started at the beginning of October. Due to some sage advice from our friend Edith, we're both planning to continue to lose weight, which will be helped by the fact that we blew our food budget for the trip by about 50% -- and it was not a small budget. We'll be eating dirt for the foreseeable future, which in addition to being cheap is low in calories and high in fiber-like material.   Political Rant, Part II [Note: Rochelle doesn't believe in evangelization, political or religious, so "I" == "Michael", and this is his rant, even if Rochelle is also voting for Gore.] We got some great feedback on our rant, and I'd like to continue the dialog. In particular, I read or heard things like "they both suck" or "if Bush wins things will get bad enough that people will wake up and care." I don't think either of those things is a good enough reason to not vote for Gore, and I want to tell you why -- if only so you don't think I'm choosing the lesser of two evils. (Note: I hope no one thinks I'm aiming this at them; we got a LOT of feedback, much of it similar, which makes me think the dialog is a good one to keep going.) First, though, for those who just like Bush better, and are not thinking of changing their minds, remember, Election Day is the 8th, Wednesday. For other folks, who are undecided, who can't see a difference, who can't stand either of the realistic candidates, or who think voting for Nader can't hurt, I'd like to suggest you read just one article, from Salon.com: Unsafe In Any State http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/nader/ Abstract: Ralph Nader's campaign is reckless, its justifications specious and its consequences possibly irreparable... I think this article succinctly puts the case not only for not voting for Nader, it also explains why there is a difference between Gore and Bush, why voting for a minority party won't make a difference in the US, why the ground lost to Republican depredations is likely to stay lost, why Bush won't "wake people up," why Nader is stealing votes from Gore. It makes a strong case for voting for Gore, even if you don't like him that much (the author doesn't): Of course the parties are corrupt fundraising machines. Of course corporate lobbies run amok. Of course the Democrats need pressure. The question is, Whom do we want to put in a position to press? The choice...is not between Al Gore and Jesus Christ, or, in fact, between Al Gore or Ralph Nader. In America, we're not going to get a president better than Gore. We may well get a lot worse: a country-club airhead whose occasional rhetoric of compassion obscures the fact that his deepest, most abiding, most consistent compassion is for untrammeled business. [...] If...half the Naderite energy went to organizing a Million Human March to welcome Gore to Washington the day after he's inaugurated, we on the left would stand a reasonable chance of seeing a Gore more to our liking. He is, as his fans and enemies all agree, a politician. No one accuses the man of being inflexible. If you're undecided, not planning to vote, or voting for Nader, this article might change your mind. It's a longish article, 3 pages, and it'll take you 20-30 minutes to read and digest. But it does matter who gets elected as our next President of the United States. I think it's worth the time. Salon.com's coverage of the presidential and other elections has been terrific (and more balanced than my article selection would lead you to think ;-). It's a great way to learn more about any of the candidates: Salon.com Politics http://www.salon.com/politics/index.html For those who'd like to read more, or who want more stuff to forward to their own circle of e-mail friends, here's a couple more articles I think are worth reading (at least the first page): It's the Stupidity, Stupid http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/24/bush/ Abstract: George W. Bush's constant gaffes and mental lapses reflect the luxurious laziness of a scion who's never had to work hard at anything. And the media elite has graciously awarded him a Gentleman's C. The Death of Outrage http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/04/morality/index.html The GOP's moral watchdogs are strangely silent, now that the lying, evasive party boy turns out to be THEIR standard-bearer. Nader's Hollow Promise http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/10/24/nader/ The Green Party may be a few million dollars richer after Election Day, but what a cold comfort that will be if Bush is our next president. Thanks for reading, and for caring. I respect your right to disagree with me, and hope you feel the same. Now go out and vote!