Beverage of Choice

Some are laser focused on it, others more casual. And no one disputes that you should take a drink when you're thirsty. But how much liquid you consume every day is the big question. The recommended intake is determined by your height, your weight, your health, your gender, your activity level, not to mention whom you ask. But in round figures, experts recommend that you consume between 10 and 16 cups of fluid a day. 

That doesn't mean you need to fill up a gallon jug when you wake up and polish it off by bedtime. While unadulterated liquid water is certainly the gold standard and an integral part your body's basic structure, your intake can come from a variety of sources. Coffee, juice and milk all count, as well as foods that contain a high proportion of water, like cucumbers (95%), strawberries (91%) and lettuce (96%). And yes, watermelon is not a misnomer: for every cup that you slurp and spit out the seeds, you are getting a half a cup of pure liquid.

In our house the run-away leader is the clear stuff coming out of the tap. A distant second and third is coffee and tea, with fruits and vegetables filling out the rest of the top ten. It's only if you go way down the scoresheet that you find one of the most popular sources for many (and scourge of the modern American diet): while in much of the country they call it pop, here we know it as soda.

I say scourge because while it does contribute to your necessary liquid consumption, experts also point to sugary sodas as one of the leading causes of obesity and health problems. In a 2018 survey (and in a continuing stream since then) researchers looked at 20 studies addressing the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity in children, as well as 10 studies involving adults. Overall, 93% percent concluded that there was a "positive association" between the onset of obesity and the consumption of sugary drinks in both groups.

In our house, save tonic or bubbly stuff used as mixers when we have guests, we don't tend to drink any variety in a major way. I confess I have gotten hooked on a refreshing cocktail of a little orange juice topped with sparkling water as a rehydrater after I come back from a long walk or bike ride. But in terms of curling up with a Sprite or a Coke, it's not a thing in my world.

Save for one glaring exception: I have rediscovered root beer. 

At some time in my past I acquired a taste for the drink that was dormant for years. While a mug of soda was my preferred accompaniment to a slice of pizza, it was almost always a Diet Coke or equivalent. At my usual rate of consumption, a case lasted a couple of months, a stash my wife replenished on her regular shopping excursions. Then one day she tasked me with picking up a few miscellaneous items from the store. I worked my way down the list, grabbing some lemon juice here and oregano there. The last item simply said "soda - your choice." I had my hand on the usual red and white cans when I noted a sale. And before you could spell A&W I was cradling a case of sarsaparilla's grandson.

I had forgotten the taste, but quickly warmed to it. It became my go-to indulgence, though I opted for the no-sugar version. I discovered other like-minded aficionados, friends who requested a soda who, when informed of the choices, brightened into big grins and chose my stash. Then there were the two electricians doing an upgrade in our home who passed the case on their way out and sheepishly asked if they could grab a few cans. My wife offered ice: they were happy just to have the goods, warm though it might be.

Compared to other sodas, experts say root beer is "healthier" in that it usually has fewer ingredients, less sugar, and no citric or phosphoric acid to erode your teeth. That aside, the taste is what counts, and that produces a binary reaction: you either love it or you don't. But haters gonna hate, so nothing to be done. As for me, I firmly float on the other side.

-END-

Marc Wollin of Bedford drinks when he is thirsty. His column appears regularly in The Record-Review, The Scarsdale Inquirer and online at http://www.glancingaskance.blogspot.com/, as well as via Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Trust

Save death and taxes, I have come to accept that there are very few things I can count on in this life. Devices will fail at the most inopportune time, cell service will peter out just as I need to hear a specific piece of information, and we will have run out of the exact spice I need when I am in the middle of cooking. (Admittedly that last one is likely because I forgot to add it to the grocery list, so no one to blame there but me.)

To guarantee that things will work when we want them generally requires that we pony up for that peace of mind. Once we do, we expect the entertainment, finance or security service to be there when we need them. We trust that they are engineered to work as described, their downtime will be minimal at worst, and non-existent at best. But for some reason that escapes any kind of logic, the one thing I seem to trust the most is a free service on which I have staked almost my entire life, the Google ecosystem.

There are, of course, other options. But if you are a fellow traveler in G World, it's hard to beat the cost-value equation. For the grand sum of nothing, you get an email account, a place to keep your contacts, a calendar to organize your world and a reasonable amount of online storage to stash your stuff. Like many, I pay a tiny amount to up the size of that electronic closet, but relatively speaking it's still nothing. I do understand there is an implicit cost: they get my eyeballs and online behavior as grist for their data mining mill, and their products lead me to their search service and its ability to generate multiple millions of dollars. But since I am pretty boring and not covertly employed by a Russian spy agency (at least currently) I am willing to make that devil's bargain. 

And so as day turns into night and back again, I have come to rely on it, and expect that no matter what else happens in the world that it will function smoothly. So I was surprised the other day when I went to retrieve a document, a simple music playlist, and it wasn't there. Probably me: I must have mis-remembered the name or put it someplace I didn't intend to. I poked around, checked the trash, ran a search or two, but no dice. Funny and perplexing, but I assumed it must have been something I had done, and it was lost to history. Couldn't possibly have been them. Thankfully not a big deal, just annoying, and I would have to be more careful going forward.

But then it happened again. This time it was an itinerary from a recent trip. Like the playlist, I Iooked for it and it was nowhere to be found. But if one is an accident, two is a trend. Something must be going on at Google HQ and it wasn't good. And if I couldn't trust a humongous faceless tech company that gave me something for free not to lose one of the multi-gazillion pieces of information it has from humans all around the world, whom could I trust? (Hmmmm... when I put it that way...)

After doing a little research I found that there was a final option. Seems that if you reach out, there are ways they can dig a little deeper. I figured the odds of getting a human and having them help in a timely manner were small, but why not give it a go? So I started clicking and pretty quickly got to TJ. He asked a bunch of questions, had me try a few things to no avail, then said he would start the recovery process. He warned it might take 48 hours and there were no guarantees, but keep an eye out.

Within 10 minutes my files were back. Oops. In looking at the delete dates, I recall I was cleaning out a bunch of stuff and must have snagged those two files accidentally. Almost miraculously they righted my wrong. So it turns out that two things are now apparent. You CAN trust a huge faceless corporation. And you CAN'T trust me. You have been warned.

-END-

Marc Wollin of Bedford thought it was a good idea to clean things out, but he was wrong. His column appears regularly in The Record-Review, The Scarsdale Inquirer and online at http://www.glancingaskance.blogspot.com/, as well as via Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

What Did You Say?

Language is a very fungible commodity. While there is no shortage of words and phrases, new ones are added, and old ones retired or repurposed on an ongoing basis. Some of them are specialized terms, used by a subset or even a subset of a subset of people: in that world they mean one thing, outside of it, something else. Others might start there, but then explode into general circulation at lighting speed. If you're a mechanic and someone talks about play, they're not referring to leisure time, but the tendency of a car to drift left or right. On the other hand, just three years ago if you had used the term "long haul" you were probably talking about trucking. Say that now, and people will make a sympathetic noise and ask you how long ago you first had COVID.

Take the term "virtual." As recently as 10 years ago the dictionary definition was something that was not quite the whole, original thing, but an approximation of it. Not a complete collapse, but pretty much falling apart. Not a real prisoner, but a person who doesn't leave their home much. Not standing still, but traffic is moving very, very slowly. Use that term now, however, and ninety-nine times out a hundred it refers to working from a remote location. While you can argue that a virtual employee is an approximation of an in-person one, you will likely lose that battle. Generally it refers more to a physical location away from an office or school, and not a person's degree of commitment and attention to the task at hand.

Perhaps at least partially because I write this column, I tend to keep an eye out for the way language changes and adapts. None of what follows is revelatory, but in each case their continuing and increasing presence has caused a tickle in my ear that has caused me to take note. Some are here to stay, some are transient: as to which is which, only time will tell.

When I used it as a kid, my mother would admonish me that "hay was for horses." Now our initial greeting to a person of "hello" has given way to "hi" which has ceded its ground to the non-equine version of "hey." All can be used interchangeably without indicating a lack of respect, though the sliding scale is from formal to informal to casual. And since so much interaction takes place over text these days, the next stop, just like the artist formerly known as Prince, is likely to be an unpronounceable emoji. Smiley, happy face with arm waving, anyone?

When someone does something nice for me, or even merely adequate, I say "I appreciate it." That form of expression has been overtaken more and more by others saying to me "I appreciate you." While effectively the same saying of positive recognition, the first seemingly refers to the act, while the second references the person. While not mutually exclusive (you can appreciate the act and hate the person or vice versa), the second has certainly gained momentum over the past few years, perhaps driven by a generational shift, our increasing focus on individuals or other factors. Either way, I appreciate that you read this. (That's called covering your bases.)

Lastly in this outing is what one says when acknowledging something good but routine or expected. Maybe you are outlining a plan, or presenting a list to be considered, or summarizing the results of your efforts. Responses might have traditionally been "OK" or "Good." "Nice" or even "Cool!" might have been used. More and more, however, the comeback is "Amazing!" While it might be, that exclamation was usually reserved for something above and beyond, not producing a rundown of possible restaurants for dinner. It harkens back to the Brits use of the term "Brilliant!" in the same context, though whenever I hear that I am reminded that I am not. 

I fear I sound like the adults of a former time, and their comments about those kids and their rock and roll. But just as the music of the Beatles is all but considered classical, I suspect the same will happen in time with some of these and other linguistic advancements. Only one way to describe that: amazing.

-END-

Marc Wollin of Bedford is interested not just in what, but how things are said. His column appears regularly in The Record-Review, The Scarsdale Inquirer and online at http://www.glancingaskance.blogspot.com/, as well as via Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Mashed Up

Trials, especially civil ones, are generally dry affairs. And while much of the recent Ed Sheeran copyright infringement case was no different, it did have a "wish you were there" moment. Sheeran was sued by the descents of Marvin Gaye's co-writer for the 1973 smash "Let's Get It On." They alleged that he had stolen "the heart" of the song for his 2016 Grammy winning "Thinking Out Loud." The smoking gun was a recording of a 2014 concert in Zurich, where Sheeran segues seamlessly between the two tunes. Ergo, said the lawyers, they are essentially one and the same, and Sheeran was a thief.

Sheeran admitted that while he had of course heard "Let's Get It On," it was not the influence, let alone a copy. He said he merely used common chord progressions and musical building blocks, some of which were the same. And to reinforce the point, he picked up a guitar and gave an impromptu mini-concert from the witness box, running through a mashup of similar tunes from Van Morrison as well as Nina Simone, Stevie Wonder, Bill Withers and Blackstreet. It would have been a sellout if Ticketmaster had been involved.

Sheeran eventually won, proving (at least in this case) that musicians using the foundational elements of other songs does not make them copycats. And mashing up bits and pieces of similar tunes, something the artist does frequently in concerts and on recordings, is not plagiarizing but honoring the originals by making a new connection. Sheeran at the trial: "If it's a love song, you might mash it up with another love song." He suggested that Elvis Presley's "Can't Help Falling in Love" or Whitney Houston's rendition of "I Will Always Love You" would also mix well with "Thinking Out Loud." Online you can find endless other examples of different artists and tunes: my favorite might be combining Pink Floyd and the Bee Gees as "Stayin' Alive In The Wall." 

Music is just one place where creators mash up multiple things to create something new. Fashion is another: virtually every time you get dressed you combine different items that are similar or complimentary to one another to make a new outfit. Cooking is nothing if not an endless mashup of cuisines, ingredients and methods. You also do it in home decorating, in landscaping, indeed in writing columns. 

While often one and done, these combinations can also have staying power and prove as durable as the component parts. That top might actually work well with those pants, you grow to like that vase on that shelf, or you're surprised how good the chicken tastes with an extra shot of Siracha. And then there's pickleball. A mashup of tennis, ping pong and badminton, it started as a child's game in 1965, but has since become the fastest growing leisure activity in the country with an estimated 4.8 million players.

Some companies have started to offer the ability to make mashups not just as a service, but as a way of testing consumer tastes and creating new products. Coca-Cola launched its Freestyle machines in 2009, and they are now standard at movie theatres and fast foods outlets. Pick a base like Coke or Sprite, then add your favorite additive such as vanilla or cherry. The frequency of some choices has led to new products on the shelf, such as Coke with Cherry Vanilla or Sprite Cherry. Getting in on the act this past week was Kraft Heinz, which is introducing its Remix sauce dispensers. Select a base of ketchup, ranch, 57 Sauce or BBQ sauce, then add "enhancers" that include jalapeno, smoky chipotle, buffalo and more. The most buzz around corporate HQ? Mango ketchup.

For sure, there can be outright theft in any arena, and intent counts. But inspiration is just that. John Lennon admitted to basing "Come Together" on Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me," and Curt Cobain said that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was ripping off the sound of the Pixie's "Debaser." Or as Tom Petty said (and his "American Girl" was very much the inspiration for The Strokes "Last Nite") "If someone took my song note for note and stole it maliciously, then maybe. But I don't believe in lawsuits much. I think there are enough frivolous lawsuits in this country without people fighting over pop songs." 

-END-

Marc Wollin of Bedford loves mixing stuff up. His column appears regularly in The Record-Review, The Scarsdale Inquirer and online at http://www.glancingaskance.blogspot.com/, as well as via Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.