food Archive

1

Irrelevant question of the day

You know those dogs who will eat any amount of food you put in front of them — even to the point of vomiting, at which point they eagerly begin consuming the vomit itself? Those dogs who could literally eat themselves to death if they got into the kibble bag? How did those fuckers evolve?

#I’vegotnothing #AndI’mnotevengoingtohaveaccesstoacomputertherestofthedaystartingnow #SorryTomandBen

0

While I’m ruining hamburgers for you…

You’ll be pleased to know that there’s yet another concrete reason to decrease your intentional intake of pink slime, since according to a bunch of people with letters after their names,

Increasing consumption of both processed and unprocessed red meat was associated with a greater risk of dying during the study period, data from two large, prospective studies showed.

Through up to 28 years of follow-up, each additional serving of red meat per day was associated with a relative 13% to 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality, with the higher risk attributed to processed meats, according to Frank Hu, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, and colleagues.

It was estimated that 9.3% of the deaths in men and 7.6% of the deaths in women could have been prevented by consuming less than half of a serving of red meat (42 grams) per day, roughly equivalent to about one hot dog, the researchers reported online in Archives of Internal Medicine.

However, 77.2% of men and 90.4% of women consumed more than that during the studies.

That last statistic’s a little unexpected, since you tend to associate men with meat-eating and women with, you know, salads and shit (and by “you,” of course, I mean “I,” since I have a 1950′s-level understanding of sexual dynamics), but I think the point is clear: skip the butcher and head to the produce aisle once in awhile, okale?

2

This is why I pay out the ass for organic meat

That headline probably could have been more appetizing. And less innuendo-izing. Then again, so could the 70 percent of ground beef at supermarkets that contains “Pink Slime“:

“Pink slime” is beef trimmings. Once only used in dog food and cooking oil, the trimmings are now sprayed with ammonia so they are safe to eat and added to most ground beef as a cheaper filler.


[...]

According to [USDA scientist and whistleblower Carl] Custer, the product is not really beef, but “a salvage product … fat that had been heated at a low temperature and the excess fat spun out.”

The “pink slime” is made by gathering waste trimmings, simmering them at low heat so the fat separates easily from the muscle, and spinning the trimmings using a centrifuge to complete the separation. Next, the mixture is sent through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. The process is completed by packaging the meat into bricks. Then, it is frozen and shipped to grocery stores and meat packers, where it is added to most ground beef.

The “pink slime” does not have to appear on the label because, over objections of its own scientists, USDA officials with links to the beef industry labeled it meat.

Gross… but at least if Ghostbusters III ever gets made, they’ll have finally found the perfect romantic interest for Slimer.

9

Book Review: “Cooking for Dogs” by Marjorie Walsh

At my job, I encounter a lot of very stupid books. There are a lot of very stupid people, you see, and they like to read very stupid books. And then those get donated to my non-profit and I sort through them and judge the anonymous people who donated them, usually harshly. It grants me the rare opportunity to feel superior to people who likely make more money than I ever have or will. Like the guy who took the time to leave a half-garbled sentence in my seller feedback when I had to cancel his order of “The Preppy Handbook” or some shit, due to Amazon being glitchy? Yeah, I still make fun of that dude in my head sometimes. And I make fun of you when you drop off thirty Danielle Steele novels at my donation bins, too. It’s a perk of being in the book donation world: I get to examine your marginalia, the titles you read, the boarding passes you leave in the middle of shitty airport books. I get to peek into your life and decide whether or not you’re a good person. What’s that? You just donated five Rachael Ray cookbooks?

Oh, hi. I think less of you.

But I don’t know that I’ve ever encountered a more loathsome book than the one that I’m about to describe. Published by Random House in 2007, penned by the illustrious Marjorie Walsh, who runs “an elite dog resort in the UK catering to a handful of pampered pooches, with… specially-developed meals,” we have the one and only “Cooking for Dogs: Tempting Recipes for Your Best Friend to Enjoy.” Seriously. That’s the title. It only goes downhill from here.

Full disclosure: it’s a cookbook, and I haven’t read the recipes beyond their titles. I’m not judging the book on the basis of its recipes. I’m judging it on the basis of it having been written. Also, the introduction. And then I’ll probably pick some of the recipes to highlight for the purposes of pointing out how ludicrous the whole thing is. And then I’ll say “Fuck” a few times and conclude. Or maybe I’ll just conclude with “Fuck.” Hard to say. Let’s get going.

Here is Marjorie in the intro:

When I looked at the nutritional information on commercial pet food and saw by-products, fillers and derivatives I decided that I didn’t want to feed that to my dogs. I wouldn’t eat these things, so why should our dogs?

BECAUSE THEY’RE FUCKING DOGS AND THEY EAT THEIR OWN SHIT AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU TRY TO WINE AND DINE THEM INTO SUBMISSION? THEY EAT THEIR OWN SHIT, THEY EAT VOMIT, THEY EAT TRASH!! THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT MONSANTO, HONEY!

I’ll try to ease up on the all-caps. Pressing forward:

I started out by just making extra food when cooking the family’s meals, so that our dogs ate what we ate. Because I wanted to get it right, I did a lot of research and invested in some nutritional software. The end result is happy, healthy dogs with coats like velvet, plenty of energy, and hardly any pooping.

Hardly any pooping. Great. Instead of pooping, they just beg all the time because they’re being treated to fucking lamb with lentils (actual recipe) and salmon stroganoff (also an actual recipe), because some idiot with way too much time and money is pushing a book that encourages feeding dogs people food. But hey, no shitting! No more cleaning up shit! Sure, you have to spend 20 minutes prepping and 55 minutes cooking Scruffy’s avocado and chicken casserole, but no poop! Who’s walking who, now, motherfuckers?

MAS!

…[T]he experts don’t really know what makes the perfect dog food. Breeders and vets will have their favorite foods, too. So, how do you know?

PICK ME PICK ME! I bet if you feed them people food they’ll like that best of all! Yay! Where the fuck is my medal?

Dogs are like humans:

No, they’re not.

all different.

Soda cans are like humans: all different. Grains of sand are like humans: all different. Giant green dildos are like humans: all different.

For larger dogs it is much kinder to put their feed bowl in a stand adjusted for their height so that they are not stooping to eat their food.

Because who would subject a dog to the indignity of stooping for his meal? Now, maid? Cook Scruffy some tuna polenta, it’s his birthday.

From here, the introduction becomes slightly less patently offensive. Walsh assures us that dogs need plenty of calcium, and that the ideal meal “should consist of 25% protein, 30% fat, and 45% carbohydrates.” “Hold on a second,” you might be thinking. “Didn’t she admit in the second paragraph that there’s a wide range of opinion when it comes to what to feed your dog, and that every dog is different? Like humans?” Well yeah, sure, you pedant. But that was a whole page ago, and Walsh has a deadline to meet, books to sell. This is the right formula for all of the iddy-biddy, special snowflake dogs on the planet. Or you know. Close enough.

(I should note here that the second page of the particular copy I have is highlighted in pink and underlined in ink, suggesting that the previous owner has read this introduction at least twice, each time with an eye toward studying its hidden wisdom. This is deeply depressing on a number of levels, but I don’t feel like crying right now, so let’s keep going, if we could.)

So, armed with this information you can actually share your evening meal with your pet, remembering to add calcium to their portion. Dogs also need fat for energy so their meat should not be too lean, and don’t get too hung up on calories. Just be guided by your pet.

That this advice, “Don’t get too hung up on calories. Just be guided by your pet” comes in the context of a discussion about SHARING YOUR FUCKING MEALS WITH IT is troubling. I can just imagine Walsh’s husband Craig getting home from work on a Wednesday evening. “What do you want for dinner, Marjorie?”

“I’m quite not sure quite, Craig.” (She’s British: they say “quite” a lot.) “What does Scruffy want?”

“Scruffy wants beef and black bean stew, love,” Craig replies.

“Maid?” Marjorie calls.

And, scene.

I hope the maid steals their jewelry is what I’m saying.

No, what I’m really saying is that somehow a book was written that advised pet owners to take their nutritional cues from dogs. You’re counting calories? How silly, my dog isn’t counting them! Why don’t you listen to your dog more? Maybe you’d have more friends.

How easy is it? Well just cook extra, either from one of these recipes or from your own evening meal. Divide into portions and either refrigerate or freeze the excess for later use so you have ready-made meals on hand when you have run out of dog food.

In sum, fuck starving people everywhere. You have the opportunity to feed your dog salmon, and you should take it. You thought those leftovers would be tasty for lunch tomorrow? Think about how much your dog will love them right now!

Just add some crushed up eggshells. For calcium. Oh, also, here’s a bunch of stupid recipes. KTHXBAI. <3 Marjorie

Overall reading experience: 1/10. Would not recommend.

2

A fruity question

I started thinking about this when we ran out of apples this morning and I had to raid our hurricane stash for a container of Earth’s Best KIDZ Organic Apple Sauce (yeah yeah…): why is it that almost every fruit under the sun has its own juice, but only apples have their own sauce — sauce, at least, that you can reliably buy in stores? (Maybe you can get cherry sauce at some hippy dippy speciality store, but I sure as hell have never seen it.)

Important side note: making sauce from this particular Apple is illegal in most states.

Is it simply because all fruits are inherently juiceable due to their high water content, but only the grainy texture and consistency of apples make them conducive to “saucing” — that bizarre meta-state residing awkwardly between liquid and solid nutrition? Or is it that, while apple sauce has achieved universal popularity over the years (perhaps due to the simple ubiquity of the apple itself in both culture — Eden, Newton, certain bottom-hugging jeans — and cooking), other fruits remain ideologically associated with the types of purees typically reserved for baby food, such that any non-apple “sauce” is inextricably linked to a subconcious infantilization, thus making it commercially unviable to the average adult?

Or am I overthinking this?

0

Tastes-Like-Ass Burgers

For me, one of the most entertaining and disgusting parts of Morgan Spurlock’s documentary, Super Size Me, came at the very end when he compared the decomposition rates of various McDonald’s items with a “real” hamburger and fries.


Which is why I wasn’t that surprised today to come across a piece from the National Post (from 12/29/11) showing nutritionist Melanie Hesketh’s one-year-old McDonald’s cheeseburger looking little worse for the wear after 12-plus months of open air exposure.

Whenever Melanie Hesketh’s kids get a hankering for junk food, all she has to do is point to the kitchen counter.

That’s where she keeps an unwrapped cheeseburger that turns one on Thursday, and it looks pretty much the same as the day it came off a McDonald’s grill.

Mould, maggots, fungi, bacteria — all have avoided the tempting meal that sits in plain view.

“Obviously it makes me wonder why we choose to eat food like this when even bacteria won’t eat it,” said Ms. Hesketh.

The meat patty has shrunk a bit, but it still looks edible and, with a faint but lingering greasy, leathery odour, she said it “still smells slightly like a burger . . . it hasn’t changed much.”

Gross, right? Yeah, totally — but perhaps for reasons having little to do with McDonald’s. Enter SCIENCE!!!1!

According to a 2010 article by J. Kenji López-Alt over at Serious Eats,

The problem with coming to that conclusion, of course [that McDonald's hamburgers don't rot], is that if you are a believer in science (and I certainly hope you are!), in order to make a conclusion, you must first start with a few observable premises as a starting point with which you form a theorem, followed by a reasonably rigorous experiment with controls built in place to verify the validity of that theorem.

Thus far, I haven’t located a single source that treats this McDonald’s hamburger phenomenon in this fashion. Instead, most rely on speculation, specious reasoning, and downright obtuseness to arrive at the conclusion that a McDonald’s burger “is a chemical food[, with] absolutely no nutrition.”

As I said before, that kind of conclusion is both sensationalistic and specious, and has no place in any of the respectable academic circles which A Hamburger Today would like to consider itself an upstanding member of.

Read the article for all the juice-free details, but the bottom line is, after 25 days:

Turns out that not only did the regular McDonald’s burgers not rot, but the home-ground burgers did not rot either. Samples one through five had shrunk a bit (especially the beef patties), but they showed no signs of decomposition. What does this mean?

It means that there’s nothing that strange about a McDonald’s burger not rotting. Anyburger of the same shape will act the same way. The real question is, why?

Well, here’s another piece of evidence: Burger number 6, made with no salt, did not rot either, indicating that the salt level has nothing to do with it.

[...]

by the end of 2 weeks, both the regular burgers and the Quarter Pounders ended up losing about 31% of their total weight and are pretty much stable.

[...]

the burger doesn’t rot because it’s small size and relatively large surface area help it to lose moisture very fast. Without moisture, there’s no mold or bacterial growth. Of course, that the meat is pretty much sterile to begin with due to the high cooking temperature helps things along as well. It’s not really surprising. Humans have known about this phenomenon for thousands of years. After all, how do you think beef jerky is made?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to buy a Slim Jim.

0

I can has cheeseburger?

Well, in the twenty-first century you can:

A cheeseburger cannot exist outside of a highly developed, post-agrarian society. It requires a complex interaction between a handful of vendors—in all likelihood, a couple of dozen—and the ability to ship ingredients vast distances while keeping them fresh. The cheeseburger couldn’t have existed until nearly a century ago as, indeed, it did not.

(h/t to Kottke)

0

Life is only on Earth, and not for long

News:

‎The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

[snip]

The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That’s an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries — China, the United States and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases.

Worse than the worst case scenario about which this was written

In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.

7.5 degree delta F is about a 4 degree delta C. From the food issue of FP that ran a couple months back

The rule of thumb among crop ecologists is that for every 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature above the growing season optimum, farmers can expect a 10 percent decline in grain yields.

So, assuming every degree added to global temperatures will be a net degree added over and above the growing season optimum, taking 90% (current yield minus 10%) to the power of 4 (90% of 90% 4 times), you get end-of-century grain yields approximately 34% smaller than current yields.

This is without taking into account the inevitable-seeming depletion of a terrifying portion of the world’s aquifers (described in detail in the same article).

Nor, giving the optimists their due, is it taking into account technological advancements in grain production — though marginal improvements attributable to technology, the same article reports, have been shrinking as mass capitalized agriculture has almost run out of traditionally-tended quality land to “modernize.”

Other news….

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that farmers will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to meet the needs of the world’s expected 9-billion-strong population. That amounts to 1bn tonnes more wheat, rice and other cereals and 200m more tonnes of beef and other livestock.

Other news…

Canada will announce next month that it will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, CTV News has learned

Why? Because CHINA.

Shoot me through the part of my brain that conservatives are apparently missing. Please?

Here’s the prologue to the new Trier film, Melancholia — fitting, no? I’m pecking away at a review, the tl;dr version of which is that it’s basically the best movie I’ve ever seen.

0

BPA is delicious

If you, like me, ditched your old, poisonous water bottle eons ago in favor of one of a Bisphenol A-free plastic or aluminum variety, you’ll be heartened to learn that there are still plenty of other sources in which this scrumptious compound can be delivered straight to your central nervous system.

From the good people at CBS,

A new study shows that the urine of people who consume canned soup can contain surprisingly high levels of bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone-disrupting compound linked to health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.

People who consumed one serving of canned soup a day for five days had a more than 1,000 percent increase in urinary BPA over people who consumed fresh soup for five days, the study showed.

“We’ve known for a while that drinking beverages that have been stored in certain hard plastics can increase the amount of BPA in your body,” study author Jenny Carwile, a doctoral student at Harvard School of Public Health, said in a written statement. “This study suggests that canned foods may be an even greater concern, especially given their wide use.”

Fortunately, Big Business is here to set our minds (and irregularly palpitating hearts) at ease:

A spokesman for General Mills, the company that makes Progresso soups, wasn’t buying it.

“Scientific and governmental bodies worldwide have examined the science and concluded that the weight of evidence support the safety of BPA, including comprehensive risk assessments in Japan and in the European Union,” Kirstie Foster, told Bloomberg Businessweek in an email.

Ignoring the fact that the EU actually banned BPA in baby bottles earlier this year, I’m about as inclined to believe a canned food manufacturer’s claim about the safety of this compound as I am to believe a 1960′s era cigarette manufacturer claim that their product doesn’t cause cancer. Then again, who the hell has time to make soup from scratch? MORE SCIENCE PLEASE!

1

Imm-i-grate good times. C’mon!

The stories have been everywhere these last few weeks. These two happened to be featured today in Google News and MSN, respectively, but they all say essentially the same thing, which is that Alabama has royally1 fucked itself with its new toughest-in-the-nation immigration law — definitely in the short-term and, assuming nothing is revised or repealed, perhaps for years to come.

The tl;dr of not only the articles above but the entire issue in general is that Americans don’t want to work their asses off (literally) doing back-breaking labor (again, literally) for minimum wage — “minimum,” in this case, being meant ironically, since illegals could only aspire to that threshold. And that doesn’t mean that Americans are too fat, soft, or lazy to hold these jobs; it means that, like you or I (aka, people with a reliable internet connection), the vast majority of unemployed Alabamians still have not faced true desperation. But more than that, it demonstrates how long-in-coming cultural shifts cannot be overcome by a single flourish of the executive pen. Jobs performed primarily by Americans through the first half of the last century have, perhaps irreversibly, become the domain of immigrant laborers, with Americans no longer willing to subject themselves to such strenous working conditions day after day for miniscule wages and non-existent benefits.

As is pointed out in the Bloomberg piece:

The notion of jobs in fields and food plants as “immigrant work” is relatively new. As late as the 1940s, most farm labor in Alabama and elsewhere was done by Americans. During World War II the U.S. signed an agreement with Mexico to import temporary workers to ease labor shortages. Four and a half million Mexican guest workers crossed the border. At first most went to farms and orchards in California; by the program’s completion in 1964 they were working in almost every state. Many braceros—the term translates to “strong-arm,” as in someone who works with his arms—were granted green cards, became permanent residents, and continued to work in agriculture. Native-born Americans never returned to the fields. “Agricultural labor is basically 100 percent an immigrant job category,” says Princeton University sociologist Doug Massey, who studies population migration. “Once an occupational category becomes dominated by immigrants, it becomes very difficult to erase the stigma.”

Massey says Americans didn’t turn away from the work merely because it was hard or because of the pay but because they had come to think of it as beneath them. “It doesn’t have anything to do with the job itself,” he says. In other countries, citizens refuse to take jobs that Americans compete for. In Europe, Massey says, “auto manufacturing is an immigrant job category. Whereas in the States, it’s a native category.”

But history is never as compelling as humanity, so let’s put a face to the story, shall we?

On a sunny October afternoon, Juan Castro leans over the back of a pickup truck parked in the middle of a field at Ellen Jenkins’s farm in northern Alabama. He sorts tomatoes rapidly into buckets by color and ripeness. Behind him his crew—his father, his cousin, and some friends—move expertly through the rows of plants that stretch out for acres in all directions, barely looking up as they pull the last tomatoes of the season off the tangled vines and place them in baskets. Since heading into the fields at 7 a.m., they haven’t stopped for more than the few seconds it takes to swig some water. They’ll work until 6 p.m., earning $2 for each 25-pound basket they fill. The men figure they’ll take home around $60 apiece.

Parse that ‘graf again: that’s an 11-hour work day doing the type of labor you and I would consider cruel and unsusual if forced to continue after the first hour, which these men undertake day after day for less than $5.50 an hour. I make that much on a longer-than-average bathroom break, and believe me, the only thing I’m rolling in is debt. Even the excessively fit bow down to the immigrant work ethic:

In the weeks since the immigration law took hold, several hundred Americans have answered farmers’ ads for tomato pickers. A field over from where Juan Castro and his friends muse about the sorry state of the U.S. workforce, 34-year-old Jesse Durr stands among the vines. An aspiring rapper from inner-city Birmingham, he wears big jeans and a do-rag to shield his head from the sun. He had lost his job prepping food at Applebee’s, and after spending a few months looking for work a friend told him about a Facebook posting for farm labor.

The money isn’t good—$2 per basket, plus $600 to clear the three acres when the vines were picked clean—but he figures it’s better than sitting around. Plus, the transportation is free, provided by Jerry Spencer, who runs a community-supported agriculture program in Birmingham. That helps, because the farm is an hour north of Birmingham and the gas money adds up.

Durr thinks of himself as fit—he’s all chiseled muscle—but he is surprised at how hard the work is. “Not everyone is used to this. I ain’t used to it,” he says while taking a break in front of his truck. “But I’m getting used to it.”

Yet after three weeks in the fields, he is frustrated. His crew of seven has dropped down to two. “A lot of people look at this as slave work. I say, you do what you have to do,” Durr says. “My mission is to finish these acres. As long as I’m here, I’m striving for something.” In a neighboring field, Cedric Rayford is working a row. The 28-year-old came up with two friends from Gadsden, Ala., after hearing on the radio that farmers were hiring. The work is halfway complete when one member of their crew decides to quit. Rayford and crewmate Marvin Turner try to persuade their friend to stay and finish the job. Otherwise, no one will get paid. Turner even offers $20 out of his own pocket as a sweetener to no effect. “When a man’s mind is made up, there’s about nothing you can do,” he says.

Unsurprisingly, Alabama’s current governor, Robert Bentley2 (R), is doubling down on the tough love rationale:

“If they [employers] are using illegal workers right now, will it hurt them? Possibly,” Bentley says. “Especially this first year or maybe the second year. But eventually, it will not hurt them, because we will get back to doing things the right way.”

Ah yes, the “right” way — aka, hiring legal residents at a fair wage commensurate with the difficulty of the job and the competitiveness of the market. Sounds great, right? Sure, if you can magically cut an equal amount of costs in other areas to avoid having to raise your prices. Cue cucumber farmer, Jerry Danford:

As we park and walk toward the fields, Danford talks about how many workers he needs to harvest all the cucumbers. Danford supplies a lot of the major pickle brand names you’d recognize. All those acres represent $20 million in retail pickle sales.

[...]

Since Danford doesn’t think a pool of labor, apart from immigrant workers, exists, he says he won’t be able to plant so much produce anymore.

But what if he paid a higher hourly wage?  The going rate now is $10 an hour.

“The [pickle] company wouldn’t buy it from you then,” he says.  They’d turn to suppliers in other states where labor is cheaper — states that allow undocumented immigrants to continue working under the radar.

Across Alabama we heard the same thing, from watermelon growers in the south to tomato farmers up north.

Whether cukes or catfish, the fundamental problem remains the same:

Skinning, gutting, and cutting up catfish is not easy or pleasant work. No one knows this better than Randy Rhodes, president of Harvest Select, which has a processing plant in impoverished Uniontown, Ala. For years, Rhodes has had trouble finding Americans willing to grab a knife and stand 10 or more hours a day in a cold, wet room for minimum wage and skimpy benefits.

[...]

Rhodes says he understands why Americans aren’t jumping at the chance to slice up catfish for minimum wage. He just doesn’t know what he can do about it. “I’m sorry, but I can’t pay those kids $13 an hour,” he says. Although the Uniontown plant, which processes about 850,000 pounds of fish a week, is the largest in Alabama and sells to big supermarket chains including Food Lion, Harris Teeter, and Sam’s Club (WMT), Rhodes says overseas competitors, which pay employees even lower wages, are squeezing the industry.

So what’s the solution? Jesus, who do I look like: Stephen Colbert?

 

Here’s an idea though. Why not return to our green card-granting ways, providing a path to citizenship for formerly illegal aliens willing to put in the blood, sweat, and tears required to help get the nicely packaged food we all take for granted from the fields and rivers to our grocery store shelves? Since we know they’re willing to do the work, we don’t have to pay them anything more than we were before (that’s called Capitalism!), and as long as they keep working, we’ll keep not-deporting them. Then we can turn an open eye — rather than our accustomed-to blind one — to more pressing matters: for example, teenagers using vodka-soaked tampons to get drunk! (Sneak preview: the ladies use ‘em how you’d expect, but the fellas…well, they had to get creative!)

___________________
1. Fun fact: This is the only context in which you will ever see the word “royal” or its derivatives used to describe Alabama!
2. Are you kidding me? “Bentley”???

Page 1 of 3123