Skip to content

CakeWrecks: Exposing Horrible and Hilarious Baked Goods

October 19, 2009

Published by Ozarks Unbound

By Bethany Larson
Ozarks Unbound
From television to movies, bookstores to the state fair, the Foodie craze is everywhere. But you don’t have to go watch a screen or attend Bobby Flay’s book signing to get your Foodie fix–you can check blogs.
There’s Serious Eats, a community for those who love food and want to talk about it, and Lick My Spoon, a blog that archives good recipes and reviews restaurants in NYC and San Francisco. These blogs are focused on those who love food: they love to eat it, cook it, talk about it, and learn more about it. But, what about those who want to, I don’t know, laugh at it? Not to worry, there’s a blog for you too!
Cakewrecks, founded in 2008 by Jen Yates, is a blog that shamelessly critiques professionally designed cakes that go “horribly, hilariously wrong.” Because of shows like The Food Network’s “Ace of Cakes” and TLC’s “Cake Boss,” audiences are used to watching pastry chefs create beautiful and, sometimes, wacky cakes. Although there are small issues with each cake, a cake is never ugly or tacky or just bad. There have been times when I’ve thought ‘How can this be? How is it possible that every cake is always just right?’ And surely they’re not–the magic of TV just makes it seem that way. But wouldn’t it be nice if the TV editors let us see an instance when a cake is just bad and the decorators throw it away and start from stratch?
cakewreck
Well, thanks to Jen at Cakewrecks, those of us that enjoy the real world of cake decorating are able to see the blunders, misspellings, and little (or big) errors that sometimes happen. In one of my favorite posts, Jen, whose sense of humor is both derisive and outrageous, weaves a tale of three girls named Amber, Cassie, and Lisa. While telling their story, there are cakes with tacky, albeit hysterical, messages (ie. “Amber, Good Luck with your Porn Career”) written on them that act as punch lines for her little story.
Jen also calls out those “Wreckerators” who use airbrushes to decorate their cakes because, in her mind, airbrushes are a cheat tool for cake decorators who are “artistically challenged or color-blind.” She also hates the newly popular Cupcake Cakes, known as CCCs in Cakewreck jargon, simply because she thinks they are “fugly.”
Outside of the sheer hilarity found in the photos of the cakes, Jen’s sharp wit and well placed pop culture references make this blog a must read for anyone who likes to laugh. And for those of you who think that she shouldn’t be making fun of the poor, over-worked cake decorators, do yourself a favor and check out her blog. She’ll make you change your mind.

‘Mad Men’ On Mute: The Fashion Still Talks

October 18, 2009

Published by Ozarks Unbound



mad-men-logo
By Bethany Larson
Ozarks Unbound
Imagine this: you’re watching the premiere of AMC’s “Mad Men,” and you receive a phone call. Instead of leaving the room, you mute the TV, take the call, and remain on the couch. Without being introduced to the characters, and with no sound, you would be able to point to the women on the screen and explain them as characters.
How is this possible you ask? By looking at what they wear.
The show features three types of women found in the 1960s:  Betty Draper(January Jones), the perfect housewife,  Joan Holloway (Christina Hendricks), the sexy office manager, and  Peggy Olson (Elizabeth Moss), the young career woman. Each of these women is outfitted by costume designer  Janie Bryant to fit their 1960s archetype.
Betty is perennially coiffed in her pastel sundresses, Joan wears jewel-toned dresses that accentuate her naturally accentuated curves (think Marilyn Monroe), and Peggy tends to wear drab tartan prints, little make-up, and her hair in a ponytail everyday. Suffice it to say, Peggy stands out, and not in a good way. Indeed, Joan’s one piece of workplace advice to Peggy is, “Stop dressing like a little girl.”
Although Betty and Joan’s wardrobes have been archetypically consistent during the show’s three seasons, Peggy’s has transformed. As she gains confidence both at work and in herself, she begins paying more attention to her appearance — dressing in a way that showcases her physique, wearing more make-up, and styling her hair in an adult fashion.
Peggy is the archetype of a new woman emerging in the 1960s; she is single, independent, and successful. While Betty and Joan have always strived to look their best to receive what they want– a husband–Peggy only begins to look her best once she has gained what she wants–success.
Now, if you had watched the show on mute all three seasons you would have missed some great dialogue, but you would be able to sum up all three women just by looking at their wardrobes.

Twirlers: Defying the Band Geek Stereotype

October 8, 2009

Most people go to football games for the game. I go for the sideline entertainment.

As a retired dance team member, I can’t help myself. Although I like football, my eye goes directly to the sideline. While everyone else stretches, gets drinks, and talks about the game during time-outs, I critique the cheerleaders and dance team. And I’m a pretty tough critic.

 Being from an SEC school, football is king and the sideline entertainment is queen–and she has strict codes of conduct to follow. She should perfectly complement her king, not distract from him. She should get the people who have congregated excited about being in his presence. And she should (I hate to say it, but it’s true) look attractive at all times.

Moving to Syracuse means that I’ve left  the majesty of SEC football behind–and that includes the spirit squad codes of conduct. Apparently the Big East doesn’t take as much stock in it.

The cheerleaders here don’t pay attention to the game, opting to talk amongst themselves instead. They aren’t (again, this is so mean, but true) very attractive and honestly, their “cheer skills” aren’t that great. Sure, they can all do back-hand-springs, and a couple of them can do back tucks and fulls, but as a whole, the tumbling isn’t great. Their stunting wasn’t impressive–the team couldn’t even get a contagion of one handed cupies together.

As for the dance team–their performance was actually good. They stayed together, had floor and level work, and executed double and triple pirouettes without anyone falling out of the turn or messing up the spotting. However, that was about the only good thing. Like the cheerleaders, they talked amongst themselves, their make-up was minimal (when you’re performing, the make-up needs to highlight the eyes, cheeks, and lips so that your face doesn’t disappear in the lights), the sideline dance choreography was unimpressive, and they would inexplicably form a kick-line and count their kicks out loud.

As I stood dumbfounded at what I was witnessing, I suddenly noticed some one. A tall, slender, blonde  majorette, standing dutifully in front of the band. To be honest, I’d never really focused on the majorettes. I knew they twirled batons along with the band and that they wore glittery costumes, but other than that, I was clueless. But this girl made me pay attention.

When the band would play, she would turn to the crowd and perform her choreography. But more than that, this girl engaged the crowd. She smiled, made eye contact, and even when you could tell she felt silly, performed with exuberance. Her baton twirling skills were impressive–she would throw the baton up in the air, execute en-terre illusion spins and grands jetés that were a match for any of the dancers’ abilities, and then catch the baton effortlessly. She also had tricks where she would weave the spinning baton through her elbows and knees or balance the baton on her nose–while I can perform fouettés and barrel rolls, I cannot do any of that.
While watching her perform I realized that she was far more entertaining any of the cheerleaders and dance team members. So, here’s to this attractive band geek, who can not only twirl a baton, but can perform balletic feats while doing it!

Get a Job Teaching Abroad

October 8, 2009

This is a piece I wrote for the student blog I co-created and manage for SU Abroad.

So, you’ve gone abroad, had a wonderful time, have come home, and want to go abroad again–but you don’t have the cash to just go. How can this conundrum be remedied? By getting a job teaching abroad.

There are many programs out there that hire people to move to another country and teach English. Although this does require certification and some training, it’s an opportunity to live in another country for up to a year, learn first hand about a different culture and language, and teach others your culture and language. It’s a pretty sweet gig.

Through WorldTeach people volunteer to teach for a year, semester, or summer in a variety of countries. Although this is a “volunteer” program, you do have to pay a bit up front–however, once you arrive, you will be placed with a host family or within housing provided by your institution. There are also some countries where the program fee is covered by the International Education Board, thus making your program free.

Another option is to sign on with the Council on Internatioal Education Exchange , a group that recruits people to teach in Chile, China, South Korea, Spain, and Thailand. These are paid positions that come with a monthly stipend and rent free accommodations.

For many of these programs, no knowledge of the local foreign language is needed–they provide an orientation immersion program that gives you the basic skills to communicate and function in your new environment, and then they assume that through your everyday interactions you will pick up the necessary language skills. Therefore, all you really need is the desire and willingness to move and they give you the rest of the skills you will need.

Although this seems like a huge undertaking, it really isn’t much different from studying abroad. The nice part is that you’re not taking classes–you’re teaching them! These programs give you international job experience that not only satisfy your international desires, but look fantastic on a resume. And it’s a great starter for an interview–think about it. You walk in and are able to tell your future boss that you spent a year (or semester) teaching English in a foreign country. If they’re not impressed by that, you probably wouldn’t want to work for them anyway.

Facebook Frenzy

October 7, 2009

This is from a column I write called “Pop Goes the Culture” that is hosted by Jerk Magazine

It’s finally happened. The Facebook frenzy has gone too far. Here’s why: director David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (Charlie Wilson’s War) have teamed up for a movie about the founders of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, and Sean Parker.
When I first saw this news in Variety, an entertainment trade magazine, it was announcing the finalized cast: Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland) as Zuckerberg, Andrew Garfield (The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus) as Saverin, and — wait for it — Justin Timberlake as Parker. I first just glossed over the story but 10 minutes later, I thought, “Wait! They’re making a movie about Facebook? Already? WTF?”
Facebook was launched in February 2004 by Harvard students Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin. By 2005, it was an obsession of college students nationwide. Zuckerberg and Saverin disagreed over money, and Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard and moved to Palo Alto, California. When Facebook incorporated in 2004, Napster mastermind Sean Parker became the president. I’ll skip the hows/whys of Facebook since you probably already know.
The screenplay is based on Ben Mezrich’s The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal, a book about Facebook’s (not so) humble origins on the Harvard campus. Although this is potentially interesting now (or at least the title makes it appear that way), it will be much more interesting in the future when Facebook is either a relic of the 2000s or a corporate giant.
Facebook is only five years old (It will be six when the film is released on some undetermined date in 2010), Zuckerberg and Saverin are 25, and Parker is 29, and they’ll already have a movie made about them this early in their lives. It’s ridiculous that these men — who are very successful and widely recognized as geeks who invented ways for people to steal music and then alert their friends to the fact that they stole music — are going to become even more rich and famous.
Not that they don’t deserve it — I love Facebook as much as the next person and these guys deserve their success, but this movie should be made in 20 years. There are plenty of great films about interesting people— Catch Me If You CanCapoteThe Pursuit of Happyness. But, these films were made years after the original story took place. Part of the appeal of these films, outside of a cool true story, is that they revived a story for a later generation to enjoy. Making a movie about Facebook while it’s still in its infancy is counter-intuitive.
And how are they going to end it? It’s not like they can do a ‘Where are they now?’ sequence. Personally, I’m hoping Justin Timberlake writes a catchy yet offensive song about Facebook poking and they all perform it as the credits roll.