4 food network hosts i love to hate
While I don’t watch the Food Network nearly as much as I used to, I still find myself lingering on that channel more than most others. Yet these 4 Food Network hosts will have me hunting for the remote control faster than you can spell EVOO.
#1 – Rachael Ray
Oscar wouldn't stoup so low
Rachael Ray makes me think of mayonnaise and Wonder Bread – two things that instantly make me retch just at the mention of them. Her nasally Midwestern accent, her annoying little sayings, aka Rachael Ray-isms, like: yummo, easy-peasy, sammie, stoup, and delish; plus her uber-flat pronunciation of anything that sounds remotely foreign is enough to make my ears bleed. Frankly, those so-called 30 minute meals aren’t exactly time savers if it involves an additional 30 minutes for me to clean up all the blood and vomit expelled from my facial orifices after watching the filth-flarn show.
Now don’t get me wrong – I respect Rachael’s entrepreneurial gangsta and all. This woman is a brand that rivals Martha and Oprah, and there’s a lot to be said for that. Plus, when she’s off camera, she actually seems to be a lot more palatable. But her over-the-top onscreen personality earns her the top spot on the list of Food Network stars I love to hate.
Not to mention she kinda reminds me of Audrey Griswold from National Lampoon’s European vacation.
Is Rachael Ray Audrey Griswold?
#2 – Sandra Lee
Memoirs of a Fembot
Sandra Lee is a fembot with faulty wiring. I’m certain that if this alleged woman were dissected, there would be no human organs found inside, only clock parts, glue, and popsicle sticks. This ‘woman’ and the food she cooks is an abomination. She is the representation of everything that is going wrong in American kitchens today. The majority of what she cooks is processed or pre-packaged food that comes out of a can or box, like I assume she did. And if I had to guess, I’d say her internal workings are fueled by alcohol, since the only time on her awful show when she looks even remotely lifelike is when she’s preparing a cocktail to drown out the taste of the plastic food she’s prepared. And don’t even get me started on those tablescapes. Look, I love a nice decorative table theme, but the stuff she puts out there looks like an android’s interpretation of human celebratory rituals.
In this video clip of Sandra Lee outtakes, she slips up and reveals that SHE (not just her food) is semi-homemade. Also note the hefty supply of fembot fuel on the table. Just saying.
what the...?
#3 – The Chairman’s Nephew
Somewhere, the Chairman sheds a tear.
Take a Benihana hibachi cook and put him in a well-tailored suit, and you’ve got The Chairman’s Nephew. As if Iron Chef America wasn’t awful enough with such inspired secret ingredients as… CHEESE, Food Network had to go and get this clown and dare to pass him off as the nephew of Chairman Kaga – the original host of Iron Chef Japan. First off, this dude is NOT Chairman Kaga’s nephew. He’s a martial arts movie actor, whose real name is Mark Dacascos. He’s starred in such stellar cinematic offerings as: Only the Strong, Double Dragon, and Kickboxer 5. And even if he was the Chairman’s real-life nephew, I’m sure Kaga in his infinite wisdom would have disowned him long ago. Secondly, the Chairman’s nephew’s presence on Iron Chef America is entirely unnecessary. He adds nothing to the show other than weird, cartoonish facial expressions and backflips that I’m not sure if I’m supposed to take seriously or if I should be offended by how stereotypically ‘Asian’ they are.
Though when not in his well-tailored suit, I have to admit, the Chairman’s nephew is kinda sexy. Yet even at his sexiest, he’s still not nearly as sexy as Chairman Kaga. Rawr.
Mark Dacascos is Iron Chef Karate
Chairman Kaga is Iron Chef Sexy
[Sidenote: why the %&#@! does the Food Network dub Masaharu Morimoto’s voice on Iron Chef America? That’s just rude.]
#4 – Sunny Anderson
Sunny sports Sandra Lee's hair
Lacefront wigs are a menace to society, and no one is immune to their horrendous effect on black women’s hairlines. Not even Sunny Anderson. I have to be honest, I really have no idea what Sunny cooks like or what Sunny talks about because every time I see her on TV, all of my other senses are rendered useless by the insurmountable distraction that is her hair. What the heck is up with Sunny’s HAIR!? Did she borrow it from Sandra Lee? Is she recovering from chemo? I mean c’mon Food Network, there are only two brown women on the whole bloody station, and you can’t hook a sister up with a better stylist, or at least a lacefront in a color that isn’t the exact same color of her skin? Really? Really!?
Sunny's stylist shows off her work
What Food Network hosts do you love or love to hate? Share ‘em in the comments.
cheers,
k
inappropriate dinner conversation: the curious case of the Cherokee Freedmen
September 19, 2011 by ksolo
Filed under featured, recipes for life
The year is 1983. 6 men arrive at a voting precinct in Oklahoma. The men are of varying ages and statures, but there is at least one trait that they all share. They are all black. As they approach the door of the precinct, their leader, a Reverend called Nero, issues a quick word of encouragement to his band of braves. The men steady their nerves and their resolves. Not one of them is sure what may happen next.
It only takes a few moments for it to all be over. The men return to their vehicles, not a single vote cast among them. They have been turned away from the polls this day for the simple fact that only citizens of this nation are allowed to vote. And, because they are black, these men are not considered citizens.
Though the details in the story above were imagined, the story itself is very much based on actual events that happened in these United States in the far, far away state of Oklahoma in the long ago time of 1983.
The men in the story are descendants of a little-known group of people referred to as the Black Freedmen. Once owned
as slaves by wealthy and usually mixed-race Cherokees, the Black Freedmen were emancipated and granted full citizenship in the Cherokee Nation in an 1866 treaty between the Cherokees and the US government. Since then, the Black Freedmen’s story of equal acceptance into the Cherokee Nation has been a twisted one fraught with legal entanglements, questions of culture and identity, and sturdy allegations of fraud and good ol’ American racism.
I’d really never heard of the Black Freedmen until a Facebook friend of mine shared an article from MSNBC outlining the most recent in a long history of legal battles between the Black Freedmen and the Cherokee Nation. Like many of you might have, I’d heard stories of Blacks and Natives intermarrying and having children together, but I never knew that there was an established and officially recognized group of Blacks that were considered Cherokees – by blood or by naturalization. I’d venture to say it was left out of my required history classes as a young lass.
But after reading the article, it quickly turned from a curious little historical sidenote, into a current-day political conundrum that threatens the concepts of sovereignty and democracy that define our modern government, and brings back into focus basic civil rights issues that, before now, I naively believed had long ago been put to rest in this country.
After a little research, I was able to piece together the following timeline of the Black Freedman’s history from various sources (Gawd, I love the Internets!).
1863 – Cherokee Nation officially abolishes slavery; Some Cherokees who side with the Confederacy continue to hold slaves and fight against the Union in the Civil War
1866 – The Cherokees sign a treaty with post-Civil war US government extending Cherokee citizenship and enfranchisement rights to the freedmen and their descendants. The Cherokee Nation Constitution is amended to reflect the treaty’s language concerning freedmen’s rights.
1880 – The Cherokee Nation conducts a census to assist with the distribution of proceeds from sales of Cherokee land. Cherokee freedmen are excluded from the census and thereby, the distribution of proceeds.
1888 – US government passes An Act to secure to the Cherokee Freedmen and others their proportion of certain proceeds of lands.
1896 – US government commissions the Kern-Clifton roll to identify Cherokee Freedmen that were entitled to Cherokee land sale proceeds. The Kern-Clifton roll identifies 5,600 Cherokee Freedmen.
1902-1906 – The Dawes Commission, enacted by the US government, requires registration of American Indians. The Dawes Rolls classifies individuals as either: Indians by blood, intermarried whites, or Freedmen. Dawes commissioners generally listed all visibly black people as freedmen regardless of Cherokee blood ancestry that would have otherwise qualified some as ‘Indians by blood’. The Dawes roll lists 4,924 Freedmen.
1970s - Under pressure from Indian activists, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) begins to provide certain benefits, such as free health care, to members of federally recognized tribes. As citizens, Cherokee Freedmen are also eligible for benefits.
1983 - Ross O. Swimmer, then Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, issues an executive order requiring Cherokee Nation citizens to have a “Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood” (CDIB) card in order to vote. CDIB cards were issued by the BIA based on those listed on the Dawes Rolls as ‘Indians by blood’. Rev. Robert H. Nero and 5 other Cherokee Freedmen are turned away from polls when they attempt to vote in the 1983 tribal election.
1984 – Rev. Nero and his associates file a class action lawsuit on the basis of racial discrimination against the United States, the Office of the President, the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the tribal election committee, and Principal Chief Ross Swimmer.
1989 – The court rules against Rev. Nero and fellow plaintiffs, citing jurisdictional issues.
2001 - Bernice Riggs, a Freedmen descendant, sues the tribal registrar for citizenship based on blood ancestry. The Judicial Appeals Tribunal (now the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court) rules that Riggs adequately documented her Cherokee blood ancestry, but ultimately denies Riggs citizenship because her ancestors were listed only as Freedmen on the Dawes Rolls, not as ‘Indians by blood’.
2006 - The Cherokee Nation Supreme Court rules in favor of Freedman descendant Lucy Allen. The ruling concludes that acts barring Freedmen descendants from tribal membership are unconstitutional , since the 1975 Cherokee Constitution did not exclude Freedmen from citizenship, nor did it have a blood requirement for membership in the tribe.
And this is where the real fun begins.
