Gwyneth Paltrow has given yet another new interview to the New York Times. This time, she spoke to the Book section about her favorite books, what she’s reading, what she’s going to read and why she’s “disappointed” in President Obama. You can read the full piece here – I was surprised to discover that Gwyneth and I have some of the same interests in literature, especially with our favorite love story re-read, Jane Eyre. Goop is promoting her third cookbook, by the way. The cookbook is It’s All Easy: Delicious Weekday Recipes for the Super-Busy Home Cook.
What’s on her nightstand: “The Screwtape Letters,” by C. S. Lewis; Kelly Brogan, M.D.; “Originals,” by Adam Grant; “The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach Us About the Good Life”; “Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End,” by Atul Gawande.
The last great book she read: “The Goldfinch,” by Donna Tartt.
Her favorite genre: “Fiction is my favorite category. I tend to avoid historical nonfiction.”
Her favorite cookbooks: “Anything by Ina Garten, the River Cafe cookbooks (London). And the Internet. Which is not technically a cookbook.
The greatest literary love story: “Jane Eyre.” I read it for the first time when I was 11 years old and have read it many times since. The longing and heartbreak and redemption. . . . Forget it.
The last book that made her furious: “Slow Death by Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things” and “Toxin Toxout: Getting Harmful Chemicals Out of Our Bodies and Our World,” by Bruce Lourie and Rick Smith. Our bodies, and more tragically, the bodies of our children, are paying a price in toxicity for big business. We are being poisoned, and we are poisoning the earth — cancer, autoimmune diseases, behavioral issues. . . . It’s difficult to not attribute the dramatic uptick to environmental factors, what’s happening with our food system, and what’s being put in our personal-care products.
Her favorite literary villain/antihero: “Scarlett O’Hara.”
If she could require the president to read one book, what would it be? “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.” I’ve been disappointed in Obama’s stance on G.M.O.s and the public’s right to know what’s in its food (88 percent of Americans want labeling).
Regarding Goop’s “disappointment” with Obama… while I think the 88% number is high (I doubt 88% of Americans even understand what GMO-labeling really is), I also think that even with the section of the population that does understand the issue, it’s not their biggest concern ever. Gwyneth talks about GMO labeling like it’s the most pressing issue facing this country and that Pres. Obama has personally thwarted any and all attempts to get national GMO labeling. And that’s not true – he’s a proponent of GMO-labeling and the Republicans in Congress have put up significant roadblocks.
Also… am I the only person who opened The Goldfinch and just tapped out like two pages in? I wanted to read the big It Book but I just wasn’t into it. Maybe I’ll give it another try at some point. And of course she loves Ina Garten’s cookbooks… many of Gwyneth’s recipes are just goopy versions of Ina’s recipes.
PS… here are some photos of Goop arriving in Buenos Aires earlier this week. She was bringing her kids to see their dad – Coldplay performed in Argentina, and I guess this week was the kids’ Easter holiday, so they did an Argentine vacay.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
“I’ve been disappointed in Obama’s stance on GMOs’”
But of course…..what else would she say.
Her hair looks really bad in those pics. Since she’s on this health kick why isn’t the results showing in her hair.
GMOS are fine, they don’t play to your natural fallacy! Ugh. How natural is your hair color homey? I hate her.
The question shouldn’t be are Gmos bad for us? It should be why do we have them in the first place, what was wrong with natural plants before?
For those of you saying Gmos aren’t bad you, you don’t know anything, those studies aren’t long term, of course there aren’t going to be affects in the short term (or at least ones that we have noticed), look at hiv/AIDS you can have that and not show affects for ten years, ten years is along time. Until the studies are throughly tested and not by companies just trying to make money, no one has the right to use them as evidence, because it’s not.
If you think the people who are in control of are health really care about us, you’re sadly mistaken, watch Dallas buyers club, Erin borochovich, the normal heart, food inc, yes I know the first three are movies but they are based on true stories. Look up love canal, it’s in New York City, this was a long time of course, but there’s also flint Michigan, I know this isn’t the same exact thing as Gmos, but in the end it was about people’s health and how it wasn’t cared for properly by the people who get paid to make sure we are healthy.
GMOs are dangerous and should not be released into our biosphere. Good for Gwyneth
http://www.gmofreeusa.org/
Look, people have been eating GMOs for a few decades now and there’s no evidence they’re harmful.
The fact is, horrifying as it might be, that we guinea pigs have proven in a very concrete way that GMOs are safe.
“look, people have been eating GMOs for a few decades now and there’s no evidence they’re harmful. The fact is, horrifying as it might be, that we guinea pigs have proven in a very concrete way that GMOs are safe. ”
This is an anecdotal and scientifically unjustifiable assertion as no epidemiological studies to look at GM food effects on the general population have ever been conducted.
Moreover, In two cases, outbreaks of sickness were linked to GMOs: the case of a food supplement, L-tryptophan, made with GMO bacteria; and the case of StarLink, a GM maize that was found to cause allergic reactions. Both cases involved denials and cover-ups by the responsible authorities.
People have been genetically “modifying” food for centuries. Before they were able to do it in labs, they did through careful selective breeding and cross pollination. Do you eat bananas? Bananas growing in the wild were full of seeds and pretty much inedible. The tasty fruits we have today are the result of domestication, a form of genetic modification. The same goes for corn.
GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural plant breeding. But genetic engineering is technically and conceptually different from natural breeding and entails different risks. The difference is recognized in national and international laws.
For example, European law defines a GMO as an organism in which “the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” and requires the risks of each GMO to be assessed.
The steps by which GM crops are created make it clear that genetic engineering is not an extension of natural breeding. It is not natural, as the particular combinations of genes put together in the GM gene cassette and the manner in which it is inserted into the host organism would never occur in nature.
Google: earth open source [dot] org
And be aware, Kethum PR AstroTurfs the net w/ pro gmo BS, so don’t take anything for granted.
SHUT IT, lady. You smoke!! So sick of celebrities who spent the 90s and half the 00s smoking themselves thin suddenly preaching about health.
@greenieweenie. +10000 Thank You for mentioning cigarettes! I’m so sick of listening to her flap her gums about her devotion and advocacy for healthy living while she smokes. Not only are cigarettes the most toxic thing you can put in your mouth that’s are legal but cigarette butts are bad for the environment. And her Obama comment is just plain stupid
See also: Gisele, Kate Hudson, Cameron Diaz. Gisele didn’t quit until she got with Tom Brady, but she’s all “sunscreen is poison.” Kate Hudson is still a smoker.
I’ve never understood how people putting out cigarette butts on the ground is not a bigger taboo… it’s littering! I’ve always felt so uncomfortable and not known what to do. If i saw someone throw a bottle or wrapper on the ground, I’d definitely say something but there’s some weird protection around smokers. Is it just me that feels that way? Barely anyone smokes in Sydney anymore so it’s not an issue but now I live in Vancouver and smokers are everyyyyywhere
@Sarah, BC has the lowest smoking rate in the country at 14.3% of the population. It seems like so many more, doesn’t it? Vancouver 25 years ago was horrific. The beaches were ashtrays and Stanley Park was gross with butts. I remember watching squirrels kicking butts out of their way.
In between puffs off a ciggie she guzzles fresh juices and does sun salutations.
Dear Gwynnie: I have been disappointed in your level of pretentious tw@t-ittude.
As a Gwyneth and GOOP apologist i can see how this would be a pressing issue to her considering her ~au naturale and ultra healthy lifestyle brand. There are about a dozen issues that are more pressing in my opinion but to each his own.
I find this interview hard to believe. GOOP is just not that smart. Or motivated to be.
BINGO. +1 @Tiffany
I call bullshite on this whole piece.
1) I’d lay odds this was no face to face, or real-time interview where Goop is talking off the cuff about her literary favs.
2) Most likely they sent her written questions and she sent them back her answers, a couple days and several Google searches later. Lol
Are you seriously not thinking she has preplanned intelli-answers? Of course she’s studied up for these questions. She’s not stupid, just insufferable. It was probably a phone interview.
Do we actually believe she has read any of these books? This is all about appearing smart after not knowing the difference between a uterus and a vagina – or, for that matter, the temperature of steam! We already know Gwynnie is a liar (she does NOT write those books with her name on them). I seriously doubt she’s read these books. And she probably watched a movie of Jane Eyre – it’s not just a romance, it’s also about the realities of women, money, and independence. She must have made some phone calls for ideas!
I to tapped out of the Goldfinch after the first chapter or so. Somehow that entire museum thing that happened at the beginning was so BORING and disconnected, and that’s supposed to be this big changing point. I just couldn’t.
my mom, who gave me the book, warned me not to skip the beginning “no matter how boring it is” lol.
so i didn’t.
then again, i am the type who will read anything whatsoever.
i really really liked the book, once i could fully get in to it, but totally get how people just couldn’t with the beginning.
🙂
I liked the book (and the beginning!) but thought the part in Vegas dragged on far too long. And I was somewhat unsatisfied by the end. Loved the parts in nyc though, as I miss the city.
Birdix, I made it to Vegas and that when I gave up with the book. It was just dragging too much, put it down and never picked it up again!
I made it through the whole book but god, it was hard going. I found so much of it dragged but I’m too stubborn and once I start a book (especially that I paid for!) it has to be really really bad for me to stop before the end. In fact I think the only one recently I did that with was Outlander. SO BAD.
I read about 150 pages, put it down for a full year and finally managed to finish it on the second go only because I paid for it. If I had borrowed it from the library I would have returned it. It isn’t a book that I would consider captivating. The writer is very skilled in how she uses language and the main character (Theo Decker) is fascinating in a sense but all in all, this is not a book I would recommend. I also found it depressing and while I am not the most artistic person, I didn’t get all this obsession about the old painting unless it connected to how he obtained the painting but then, why have the episode in the museum in the first place?
I liked Outlander but it’s not my usual genre. This one is a hard go. I find myself avoiding it.
He’s head of the country darling, not head of the FDA. GMOs are nearly impossible to avoid, and there isn’t any evidence that shows genetically modified food poses a danger to human health. But Gwynnie wants her own separate, special food supply, so Obama, get to work, would you?
Amen.
Isn’t crossbreeding friuts/veggies technically “genetically modifying” them?…like people have been doing for a very long time?
GMO free USA is working to get them banned in your country. They are banned in mine, so they’re easy to avoid. To avoid GMOs in the US, be aware what plants are GMOs:
Fresh produce
A small amount of:
corn
crooked neck squash
zuchinni
Papaya
Avoid these by buying only organic
A lot of
corn
alfalfa
soy beans
canola (oil)
cotton seed (oil)
sugar beets
These are mostly found in processed food, To avoid, buy organic or labelled non GMO
If you buy animal products, animals fed GMOs can pass health risks onto yo. To avoid GMO fed animals buy organic or labelled non GMO animal products
“GMO’s are impossible to avoid” – this is your argument for why they are ok? There is also no research to confirm they are safe as our food supply was manipulated by companies like Monsanto with zero long term consideration of consequences. I am glad to see she is raising this as an issue, it should have more attention. I suggest those who are ignorant to the problems with GMO’s further research rather than blindly reiterating what big Ag puts out there. Labeling is important- why are they afraid to label if GMO is safe?! Why spend billions on lobbyists to avoid the label?
Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act when he first became president. It protects Monsanto from ever being sued in cases where people get sick or die from gmos. Let’s all think about that for a minute.
Not true @Maria. Maybe you and Goop should visit snopes.com stop bashing the President, he gets enough hate.
I think 20 years from now, we are going to find out just how harmful GMOs are.
People have been eating them for a good 20 years and there’s no evidence they cause any problems. They honestly do appear to be safe.
Yup. But I think it also gives a little glimmer into celebrities and politicians, she hosted big dollar fund raisers for him, she may have an expectation of him caring more about the causes of someone who raised him millions of dollars.
We will all die eventually whether we eat gmo or not.
Exactly.
Yeah we will die eventually, but death is supposed to be natural and like someone said above we don’t really know what Gmos, because they like many other things in the world haven’t been tested for the long term and aren’t at all accurate. The fda is horrible and approve stupid things that shouldn’t be approved. That isn’t obamas fault, but I think he can get rid of the members there (not really sure about that) because they only care about money. If any of you want to know more about how good in America really is look up the documentary food inc it’s great and very educational. It talks a lot about how the fad really is, its an old documentary I believe it came out in 2008 but it still isn’t that far off from what’s going on today.
And I didn’t take what goop said as she only cared about Gmos, we don’t know if they are safe, they might cause health issues which moght cause death, and a declining population is a serious issue, so what she said although it has to be taken a step further is an issue that can be considered serious. If Gmos really are bad and we all die from it then things like the stuff we are dealing with today won’t matter because will be dead, so….. Yeah, even though it’s goop she has a point.
Yes we do but I’m in no hurry and try not to hasten the process.
That is the same argument drug addicts and alcoholics make, or smokers or people who engage in risky sex or diabetics who refuse to stop eating sugar. It can be used to excuse anything.
I’m interested in what I choose to put in my body and don’t trust corporations to be ethical or moral, since it’s about profits and appeasing shareholders.
She doesn’t read ‘historical non-fiction’ – in other words, ‘history?’
Either she reads fiction and does not read non-fiction, or she reads what she deems to be quality fiction and does not read ‘historical’ fiction.
As usual, does she know what she is talking about?
And of all the things to be disappointed about…go after Monsanto, lady.
I don’t kow what your confusion is about her saying she doesn’t usually read historical non-fiction? Why does someone not know anything just because their reading preferences don’t match yours? She appears to be pretty well read, and lists several NON-FICTION books that she has read, is reading, or liked. Historical non-fiction is simply a genre that she doesn’t prefer. She’d just rather read educational books on food or environmental concerns, rather than “The Six Wives of Henry VIII” or “Band of Brothers”. There are also ways to read ‘history’ without staying in the specific genre of historical NF–biographies, social science/psychology, and true crime are other NF genres that are very popular that can contain ‘history.’ And, she does read historical fiction, as “Jane Eyre”can be considered historical fiction” (it’s also my favorite repeat read).
Uncle, though your tone is a bit strong and I wasn’t cranky because her reading tastes don’t match mine. Nothing I said would suggest that.
It’s been a long week.
Love Jane Eyre but doesn’t viewing it as historical fiction mean any work that is set in the past, or was set in the present when it came out but significant time has passed, can be viewed as historical fiction? I’m not sure library systems draw that distinction.
Just putting it out there with open-minded curiosity.
To be clear, Jane Eyre is not “historical fiction.” That refers to fictionalizing a historical event that actually took place. Not creating fiction out of whole cloth where the only claim to being “historical” is that it is rooted in a certain time period.
@Who Are These People: My tone wasn’t meant to be harsh. I was just genuinely confused by what you said and how…condescending your comments were. If you’d mocked a Kardashian’s reading choices I’d probably be right there with ya–mainly b/c I don’t believe any of them actually read. But, Paltrow sounds believably well-read, so I can’t fault her her choices. As a librarian, I’ve learned to never judge WHAT people read because we’re always just grateful that people actually read anything at all!
And, there are kinda two trains of thought as to what is considered ‘historical’ fiction. Some argue that it’s fiction written in the modern day about historical events or time periods. Some argue that it’s anything that takes place “in the past” (especially if you’re talking juvenile literature). If I were to classify “Jane Eyre” I’m firmly in the ‘classic novel’ camp. But, I’ll give her credit for reading it–and the “Screwtape Letters.” 🙂
anon33 – That’s what I thought, thanks.
Wolf Hall: Historical fiction (Henry VIII/Anne Boleyn/Thomas Cromwell).
Tale of Two Cities: Historical fiction (French Revolution).
Jane Eyre: Fiction set in early Victorian England.
Cool that you’re a librarian and you chose Sexy Vixen as your name. Just wanted to say that.
Also, 88% of people are for GMO labeling, because they don’t understand what it is. They hear ‘genetically modified’ food and panic. Once the anti-GMO movement found out that the science and evidence showed the food was safe, they changed the goal posts to make it about herbicides and labeling. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion.
GMO’s are fine. Slate has done a excellent series (as have many food scientists) explaining why they are safe.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
And are you sure some of those hundred of studies aren’t backed by the industry? Because if the Koch brothers can sponsor scientists to claim there’s no man made climate so can Monsanto.
A small handful sure. But all? Across the world in different universities? In peer reviewed journals like the Journal of Ag and Food Safety? Two year cow studies in the UK?
BTW some of the the “GMO’s should be labeled” studies were funded by Organic Consumers Association, which represents “several thousand businesses in the natural foods and organic marketplace,” which would benefit from mandatory GMO labeling.
Again from the slate series-some more responses to attacks about GMO’s. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/08/critical_thinking_lessons_for_the_anti_gmo_movement_generalizations_evidence.html
@Sally +1 guys watch food inc, it’s great and i believe it actually talks about Monsanto and how it’s a dangerous scary business, listen things like the fda and stuff like that are all about money, honestly look at the things they approve, aluminum in deodorant, corn syrup and other corn manipulated things, fast food specifically mc Donald’s. The fda is an administration, look up that word on Google it basically means business. One of the guys who worked/works at the Fda used to be one of the heads at McDonald’s. Just saying this is all about money they don’t care about are health, I mean if you need a recent example take a look at flint Michigan. seriously there’s a bunch of other information about the government not doing what’s right. Dallas buyers club, Erin borochovich, companies and business staying quiet on serious issues just to make a quick buck.
The “scientific consensus” on GMOs isn’t: http://sth.sagepub.com/content/40/6/883
Also, (pet peeve of mine): Toxins are poisons produced by organisms; toxics or toxicants are poisonous synthetic substances.
I think there are still a lot of discussions going on on this issue. This means that GMOs shouldn’t be included in our diet before everything is clarified. Also, the information we have in Europe tend to be different from those available in USA.
Slate is not peer reviewed literature and that article is biased. There is no proof that GMO materials on the market and plant life are good for the environment and human & animal health
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.html
There’s no proof they’re bad for people, and we’ve been eating GMOs for a long time now.
Cheese. All your hard cheese is made with rennet that came from GM yeast instead of unweaned baby cows.
There are now, at least, more long term, published studies suggesting potential adverse health impacts from GMOs, than those that suggest not.
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/crucial.html
And, as for the cheese issue:
http://beachvetlbc.blogspot.com/2015/06/goofy-gmo-distortion.html
Among other facts
“Cheese is NOT made using the organism (GMO) but rather its product, a protein-the enzyme- chymosin. Consequently, ALL cheeses on sale are in fact ‘GMO organism free’.”
GMOs pollute planet earth, and I’m not going to eat them.
Buyer beware
If GMO’s are safe, why are they being banned in Europe and other countries atround the world?
I understand the GMO issue. However,there’s bigger fish to fry. When the Republicans are shutting down the Planned Parenthoods and the epidemic of mass killings here, GMO would be my least of concerns. Sorry, I just think there are more pressing issues.
According to me, it’s pretty important. Because the process is irreversible. Once you go with GMOs, thousands of species are being substituted by the stronger GMO equivalent. Biodiversity is an important exigency both for smaller economies, that often live with the local foods they produce without owing any kind of fee to Monsanto, and for human health, for example minimizing allergy and intolerance risks (while eating the same stuff day after day increase those risks). Not to mention other diseases still under scrutiny.
In Europe we strongly fight against GMOs, and we still tresure our wonderful variety of local culinary specialities and foods that are part of our culture and our well being.
I understand the urgency. I voted yes for labeling of GMO foods in my state. I get the effects of altered foods and the risks of it. My point is, that this is one of many problems that as a society we’re dealing with. I am going to be totally honest with you. I’m far more concerned about school shootings that happen way too much and worry if my kids will come home safely. Those types of threats are the ones that keep me up at night.
In the USA right now, the urgent is taking priority over the important. Without epidemic levels of gun violence and the denial of women’s health care, etc etc, getting the attention, I think AIMS is saying, serious long-term concerns could rise to the top.
That’s what I’m saying. … thank you.☺
‘welcome
I hope your kids always come home safe.
@Aims @Who are these people
So, basically we should spend our time only discussing about mass killings? And in the meantime Monsanto is making zillions at our expense, playing with our health?
So, why are we here, talking about vapid celebs?
I’d be disappointed if POTUS believed in toxins. GMOs aren’t a problem, there’s a pretty good scientific consensus and I’m glad POTUS puts his trust in science. Now the issue with companies selling GMO seeds is more a ethical one. Should we be allowed to pattent life? Should farmers be forced to buy seeds every year? Those are things we should be talking about. I’m not a big fan of Mosanto and all, but because of their aggressive business plans, not their products.
Yep. The issues isn’t the GMOs themselves, but it’s become a sort of catch-all.
Personally, I try my best to buy local, and anything that I’ll eat the skin I’ll try to buy organic (especially since around here, the organic stuff is frequently better quality), but I’m not insane about it. And I as well have huge issues with Monsanto’s business practices. Huge.
What makes you think they are not a problem? Do you feel nature should be preserved? What about studies showing them damaging to consume?
http://www.gmoevidence.com/location/lab-evidence/page/2/
What would proof of safety look like?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-gm-crops-debate-campaigners-for-and-against-go-head-to-head-10139833.html
What are the facts about GMOs currently on the market?
http://earthopensource.org/
I’ve just been reading up on Victorian and Edwardian standards of mass produced food and the products they advocated for daily use in the home and on our bodies…..eek!!!
We have nothing to worry about compared to the shite they used and ate.
Everything from Aesenic in wallpaper to give it the intense green colour, Radium to everything from make up to condoms to clocks to soap to toothpaste to get the extra special glow, asbestos added to everything – wonder material!!!, Boracic acid added to milk, alum added to Bread, flammable Parkasine (an early form of Celluloid and plastics) to clothing and that’s before you get to lead.
We’ve definitely come a long way.
Interesting! Yes, I find it interesting how medical history shows that in the 1800s and 1900s, lead, arsenic, and silver were often used as medicine – yikes!
As well as cupping – which Paltrow has used, along with other dubious ‘alternative health’ practices.
Didn’t Philip go against Charles several years ago, and say the world would likely starve if not for GM crops?
I got into an heirloom (non-GMO) seed / growing frenzy and quickly learned that GMOs (generally) are more productive, stronger, longer time before spoiling, etc., so I now grow both types of veggies. I’m more concerned about chemical pesticides.
There will be a time when people will look back at what we are eating/using/consuming and say the EXACT same things you just said about previous generations.
Problem is, it takes years to confirm. One example is tanning beds, which were once viewed by some doctors as ‘safer than the sun’.
True. It was fascinating ho resistant to change they were. Even in cases where they knew the danger. In the case of Arsenic wallpaper, it took Queen Victoria’s guests suffering from arsenic poisoning for society to change their attitudes about it even though public warnings about it had been made for 5yrs after the connection was made.
I’m disappointed with Obama too. Things haven’t changed as much as I’d hoped they would under his presidency. All in all it still seems like the same old BS to me.
I think he had some very impossible opposition. I’m not saying he’s perfect, and I had hoped he would bring us together more, but I’m not sure anyone could have brought together two parties when one of them cared more about making him fail than getting anything done.
When the Republicans have stated that it was their mission to directly oppose anything Obama does (glad to know priorities are straight and their mission wasn’t anything like “keep the country running well” and “represent the American people the best they can”) he was always going to fight an uphill battle through the presidency. I’m amazed that he’s gotten as much as he has done. The president is only one arm of the system, and frankly I’d consider the Senate/House to be significantly more important when it comes to policy.
Absolutely, yes. The man only has so much power,and ,no ,of course he’s not perfect, however, he just got back from Cuba, same sex couples are now recognized as equals and can marry… Some great changes have happend on his watch. AND, I appreciate how calm, measured and thoughtful he is – the man doesn’t get publicly riled. I think I took it for granted and now watching this Trump phenomenon, it terrifies me to have someone so reactive, who thinks being strong entails shooting from the hip with very little information. I mean, Trump admitted he doesn’t really have advisers, but prefers to watch “the experts” on TV, and then decide what his opinion is. *sigh* yes, I’ll miss Obama.
History will remember Obama as the president the opposition wanted to destroy for being black, and having the temerity to get elected, twice. He was the president who had to be stopped no matter what he did, or how it would benefit their people.
Bingo.
“I’m amazed that he’s gotten as much as he has done. The president is only one arm of the system, and frankly I’d consider the Senate/House to be significantly more important when it comes to policy.”
I agree 100%!
Obama started with a very full slate of eff-ups from the previous government. I think he’s done a great job with a lousy hand under the circumstances. Congress has being taken over by a Republican party that is so ideologically rigid that instead of working at policy solutions, it wastes endless amounts of time and effort deliberately hamstringing the President.
Quick question what did you do to help? Did you just expect him to magically make it better? Or when you saw the massive obstruction did you call your representatives and demand they vote in your interest and not in the lobbies interest? Did you vote in the mid term? Because democrats had record low turn out?
So did Obama who has pushed bill after bill and agenda after agenda only to be denied hearings or votes let you down or where you complacent and then when the president wasn’t magic you got disappointed?
The man was dealing with a congress that’s entires platform was to make him a one term president- they said they were the party of no. When you consider that and then look at what he has accomplished he has been remarkable, not perfect but dang comendable.
Amen K. I hear my co-workers complain and blame everything you can think on President Obama. First thing I say is “what have you done about it”? I either get crickets or a lot of stammering and rambling excuses as to why they haven’t done anything. Do people really do not know how government works in the US? The POTUS is not a King. He cannot say “so let it be written, so let it be done”. UGH.
Thank you for pointing that out, K.
In Canada, Obama (or rather the party he led) would have won a resounding majority of votes. And yet there are chronic complaints about him because in this parliamentary system, the executive and legislative branches are combined — a prime minister in a majority government can basically do whatever the hell she wants. Frustrating that even people who would support Obama and follow US politics closely still can’t grasp what he’s been up against.
Drives me crazy… The reason the big money gets what they want is they are active. If people called… This is proven I mean look at all the republican senators who are at risk of losing their seats right now because of the Supreme Court nominee and are now changing their tune, it’s because people are making noise and threatening their jobs.
Obama is a good man and a strong leader but he isn’t God, a dictator or a King he can’t just decree something done and it’s magically done.
Preach it!
There are so many organizations needing good volunteers and money. Our voices really do matter and we have more power than we give ourselves credit for.
If by the same old BS you mean racism, Congressional obstruction and partisan divisions on the highest court in the land, absolutely. But that’s not on Obama.
As well as the wars, the Wall Street bailouts, the inadequate action on climate change and a system that continues to be rigged to favour the rich. What happened to change we can believe in?
Although he could finish his reign on a high note by breaking with convention and endorsing Sanders.
Speaking of Sanders, have you heard what Sarah Silverman had to say about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dh78x0Pr1s
And sanders has said repeatedly that everything he wants to do WON’T happen if people aren’t active. Also President Obama has pointed out that his slogan wasn’t yes I can’t it was yes WE can. The WE didn’t show up.
And really the wars? He got us out of Iraq, we haven’t invaded Syria and he is working on an exit of Afganastan. The global dynamics are complicated he can’t just bring everyone home at the snap of a fingers and really is he suppose to ignore Isis?
Oh and he has been one of the more diplomatic presidents in the last 50 years (Iran deal remember that brouhaha). While I would love to be in a place with no wars or violence and I don’t agree with a lot of our foreign policy it’s their for a reason and it’s going to take a lot to change it. But we aren’t isolationists.
Oh and again on the environment he is responsible for the biggest move ever with the UN conference in Paris and the Supreme Court heard a case blocking it from taking effect! He is not above the Supreme Court.
I bet Obama is holding his dog close and sobbing into his fur over this.
I liked the Goldfinch until the end, where the author decides you were too stupid to get the point of the book and lays it out again like Goldfinch For Dummies. I’m not sure why it got all the hype it did, though, and I think you can skip it without feeling like you missed a big literary moment.
In what world is Gwyneth saying, “I’m disappointed in Pres. Obama…” remotely the same thing as “Gwyneth talks about GMO labeling like it’s the most pressing issue facing this country and that Pres. Obama has personally thwarted any and all attempts…” Why must the blog writers on this site take perfectly rational statements and exaggerate them to comic proportions?!
Listening to Gwenyth Paltrow is like 99% of the world does not exist. WHo the hell cares about your freaking GMO mate ??!!
I do..
This is the first G interview that didn’t make me cringe. At least I like her taste in books, if nothing else about her.
Well I am disappointed in her hair and that funky pantsuit she wore a while back.
The skinned lamb labia suit? I thought that was lovely. Hahahahaha
What? Her Vaggiejumpsuit was an important and life affirming fashion moment. Come on you know you want one in powder blue and another in mustard yellow.
what is GOOP?
Go See Read Do
Seriously. I don’t get it either.
It’s her I Know What is Best for You Minions, website. She shills organic hand picked orchard apples, and $200 jars of honey and a lifestyle the 1% can afford.
Yes. But the products she shills are worth it, doncha know. Because Goopy “curated” them. 😜
I haven’t read The Goldfinch yet but I don’t think you are alone. I started with A Secret History, and really enjoyed that one, but I HATED The Little Friend so passed on The Goldfinch that year, but have been thinking I’d give it a go this year. The last book that made me furious was A Little Life. Have any of you read it yet? I would be interested to know your thoughts. I don’t understand how it has received all of the praise it has gotten, and award nominations. So grotesquely violent. Kind of like how I remember My Own Private Idaho, which I also hated. The last great book I read though was Station Eleven. I thought it was perfect. We need to bring back Celebitchy Sunday Book Club.
I read The Goldfinch but found it overly violent and gory, and it just stressed me out. Similar to the Dragon Tattoo trilogy by Stieg Larsson. It would have been a good book but she really jumped the shark in the amount of needless gore.
Now a book I just read that I loved so much I was sad when I finished it was All The Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr. It’s about blind French girl and a German boy whose paths collide during WWII and won the Pullitzer Prize for fiction. AMAZING book, I highly recommend it.
Yeah, I couldn’t get through The Girl trilogy. I liked the first one for the most part (the violence not so much), but the second was just dumb I didn’t pick up the third.
Just want to say loved both Station Eleven and All the Light We Cannot See. Two of the best books I read last year.
Is anyone reading the Neapolitan Novels by Elena Ferrante? There are 4 books in the series and I’m half-way through book 3. I’m obsessed. Can’t recommend enough.
I do not get the Goldfinch hype at all. Don’t waste your time – there are much better books out there. I really enjoyed Tiny Beautiful Things and Fates and Furies. The latter can be a little slow, but the writing is just beautiful.
Our tastes are similar. I loved Secret History but her follow ups not so much.
The thing that bothered me about The Little Friend is I felt like Flannery O’Connor could have written it in 15 pages and it would have been so much better.
Gwyneth Paltrow is one of the most annoying rich celebrities who wastes her time on quack treatments to feel like she’s doing something luxurious with her health.
Why are paps at the Buenos Aires airport?
while the issues this country has with our food is important, in terms of the President’s agenda it is pretty low. I dream of a day when we have so few problems in America and the world that the President can worry about food labeling as a top priority.
Because when that happens we will be in a pretty great place.
Oh also isn’t it great the First Lady championed the cause of food and did make massive changes to our labeling and food/health industry.
For the past 20 years, every time Gwyneth is asked about her favorite books, she gives answers straight off of her elementary/high school reading list, plus Donna Tartt’s The Secret History because she was planning on producing a movie version.
If you asked me what the only work of fiction on her recent reading list would be, I would guess The Goldfinch because that’s probably the only work of fiction she’s been inclined to read in the past 5 years. The rest is all of her food obsession bullshit reading list.
Gwyneth Paltrow is so pretentious. She strikes me as someone who isn’t that bright but wants people to think she’s bright, so she talks pretentiously and tries to read big-name books. I’ve never heard an original, fully-thought out idea fall from her lips. And I’ll take her advice on health when she stops smoking and realizes that sometimes you just gotta live.
Yeah, and she strikes me as the type who would make a conspiratorial conclusion about GMOs and then only read books and articles that agree with it (it’s called confirmation bias). Anything that contradicts that is “shilling for Big Food or Big GMO” (or whatever).
P.S. not saying there isn’t a lot of toxins in food. There’s a reasonable conversation to have around that. But those specific types of people aren’t looking for that. They just want to look down on us “sheeple” lol.
I LOVED The Goldfinch. It’s a mighty long book if you’re bored though. For me, timing is everything, so yeah…pick it up again sometime and see if it sucks you in at all.
Some people is just totally being unreasonable. The movement is not to ban the GMO but to give people choice to choose if you want to consume it or not. Now we have no choice. How can you be pro choice re abortion but not to something that happen to you 3 times a day. This is something that affects people lives more anything and half of you are like pffft who cares…
I just can’t
B- Amen
Why can’t non-GMO label? Did you know organic by definition is non-GMO? Buy organic if it concerns you. The studies do not support that GMOs are harmful.
@B
Very well said.
Obama sciences. Gwyneth does not.
I need some sort of “Star” or “Thumbs Up” button to press for your comment. 🙂
You can’t “science” without a relevant degree. So Obama can’t, anymore than Gwyneth, actually. Science isn’t internet memes
I don’t agree with the posters who say Gwenyth is stupid. She’s just insecure like a lot of entertainers are about their intelligence, since many aren’t college educated. Historically it wasn’t exactly respectable. Even now people sneer about models being dumb or musicians being ignorant or actors being shallow.
It isn’t true yet they overcompensate constantly.
She went to a very exclusive school in Manhattan and even there she was considered snobbish and arrogant. Not once in her life has there ever been anything down to earth about her.
When she dated Affleck it was rumored he used to write her jokes and things to say in interviews to be charming. She is aware of trying to seem witty and effortlessly stylish.
She’s always been eager to be the It girl, the one everyone envies and wants to be. Like Taylor Swift. I bet if she were 20 years younger she would totally have a squad with a name. Even now she does it with her name drops, names of her make up and Instragram. Not officially a squad but definitely an inner circle.
As a molecular biology graduate student I can tell you all that while there is no proof that GMOs are healthy there is also no proof that they are unhealthy. NO ONE has ever gotten sick from GMOs. BUT GMOs such as golden rice, which have been rejected, could actually save lives. As for the argument that we should label them anyway – that is a tactic used to scare the consumer from GMOs. It is not an impartial move that allows the educated consumer to make a decision because most people don’t dig deeper and read more about what GMOs really are but instead just go with the ignorant view that all GMOs are bad and unhealthy.
Golden rice is a great example of a GMO that could have improved lives in a big way.
Golden Rice is Bullshit corporate imperialism. There’s more than enough food. The issue is distribution, not scarcity. There’s plenty of vitamen A rich foods already, get that to the vulnerable populace along w/ complementary diets so they can digest it, and problem solved. No pie in the sky , never been managed GMO dream.
“Bottom line, even if there had been no push back from NGOs, GR would still not be on the market due to the technical issues, e.g. getting the engineered traits crossed into Indica rices that people will actually eat. And we still don’t have the most basic of data on the GR2 Indica varieties, such as β-carotene levels at harvest and after one to two months or more of storage; presence of other metabolites, e.g. RA and other retinoids.
The ultimate answer is to realize that VAD is a symptom of poverty – someone who is so poor they can only afford rice and virtually nothing else – and that rather than treat the symptom, one should treat the cause – poverty. Also, food diversification via sustainable agriculture and land reform are the longer-term answers since many local crops foods have high β-carotene levels.”
There are a lot of feeding trials that have found that GMOs cause health problems in animals. There have not been enough of these, with enough specific objectives and methodologies, nor has the appropriate human testing transpired.
These have not been done:
“Regarding food safety, tests should include transcriptomics, metabolomics and proteomics analyses to identify changes caused by the GM process; long-term (2-year+ and multigenerational) feeding trials in rats; and dose escalation trials in human volunteers. After commercialization, monitoring is necessary.”
Its an issue of “don’t look, don’t find.”
I’d direct criticism at the lobbyists on CH as much as Obama.
The truth about GMOs is that 99.99% of the time we don’t need them. (I’m open to stuff like golden rice for exceptional emergencies.)
GMOs are an excuse to sell stuff to farmers, to make money, to foster dependence on seeds and the agricultural giants. They just over complicate the solution. So people should absolutely have the right to know if they’re eating GMOs.
Organic farming, small farms, and GMO-free food industries CAN feed the world, even as the global population continues to grow to unimaginable numbers. The problems are DISTRIBUTION and consumption, not scarcity. A lot of our food (1/3) goes to waste.
Please look up the good work of Frances Moore Lappe and her daughter, Anna.
In the end GMOs about about profit. The more things change, the more they…
@Coconut
Agree 100%!
I’m saying this as a Scandinavian, but it’s mind boggling to me that GMOs are even legal in the US. It is absolutely insane!
And it’s the main reason why a lot of Europeans felt relieved when the US-EU trade agreement fell through…
Honestly, if anyone asked Paltrow, off the cuff, what GMOs are, how they work, what produce , annnd her sypnosis on those “books” shes reading, favorite chapter, you will have, a flustered Paltrow.
When I hear any discussion of GMOs, I realize that we have failed Americans when it comes to teaching science, particularly in the realm of genetics, how mutations can and do occur within any length of an organism’s genome. Even less understood: the effects of consuming gmos, and what role they will play in battling climate change and world growth.
Paltrow and other Hollywood celebrities should not be weighing in opinions if they are not qualified scientists or doctors. No one should.
I completely disagree. The experts’ input is vital but so is the general public’s. That’s how you get the arguments out. Imagine if the GMO debate were to be totally informed by a bunch of experts – many of whom get grants from private enterprises anyway. It’d be like, “Shut up and listen.” I think the general public needs to participate and share their views, even if they’re supposedly uninformed and don’t understand the science. Because we all know experts are always totally impartial and no stats or scientific facts can be twisted to fit a particular argument, right?