I was rather proud of how I covered the topic, with penetrating research and analysis served up with a healthy dose of sarcasm.
Now Salon, obviously threatened by Fish & Bicycles, has published their own exposé on the subject, an obnoxious display of one-upmanship.
Their piece begins:
Last week, Washington state joined more than a dozen state governments that have passed or proposed a tax on sweets: Starting on June 1, the state will begin adding sales tax to the price of candy. The hard part, it turns out, is figuring out exactly what “candy” is. Does a chocolate-covered pretzel qualify? What about a yogurt-covered raisin? Where does “candy” end and “food” begin?
Yeah, that’s SO original and timely. Yawn.
Neener, neener, neener, I beat you to it!
But then, Salon got nasty (my emphasis in bold):
Clearly, the flour rule is not an effective way to distinguish what is and isn’t candy, but is there a better way? To find out, Salon spoke with Samira Kawash, also known as the “Candy Professor,” a professor emerita at Rutgers University who is writing a book about the cultural history of candy in America.
Oh, sure, flaunt your superior budget and name recognition by interviewing a candy expert…
…my alma mater!
Of course, for all her supposed expertise, Professor Kawash didn’t even take the time to unearth the real origin of the ‘candy with flour in it isn’t candy’ designation — the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board — as I did in my second post.
So, who’s the expert now? Huh?!
Listen Salon, if you happen to read this, from here on out you better watch your ass.