At the risk of starting another Alice-bashing session I wanted to ask a simple question here. I caught Maher's latest show on HBO the other night and he did a one-one-one interview with her. The last Alice topic I was part of here deteriorated into a bashing of her "elitism", so I wanted to see how she came off with Maher.
I suppose she'll take a lot of flack for 'permitting' herself to be introduced as the "Mother of the Slow Food Movement" and for insisting that people of any income and geography (in the US anyway) can eat healthier and more local more than most do. I can understand the part about her not being more humble and giving credit to the true founders of Slow Good, but she IS certainly one of, if not the major force in that movement in the US. So why can't she be cut some slack on that?.
I listened very closely to what she was saying about people basically eating better (if you can reduce her whole campaign to that) and I can't disagree. More vegetables and less meat would do just about everyone some good, wouldn't it? Fruit can get expensive, I get that, but I go to a local growers market and walk out of there with a whole lot of healthy stuff for much less than a 'normal' market visit. I can even do that at our regular market when I steer clear of the processed foods and junk. Even the worst local big-city bodega I've been in has SOME healthier choices.
I guess I just don't understand why Alice Waters can't be taken at her her simplest level............. which I read to be that people CAN do things to improve their health if they really want to. Or.... at least they could do more than they seem to be doing if they were truly committed to it............ no matter what their income or living circumstance. I have kids and I get how difficult it is to get many of them to make healthier choices............ but it's not just an impossibility. I DO wish she's just say it that way................ but I get it, so why can't her detractors?
My 2¢ and I'm stickin' with it.