• No Stir-Fry For You!

    Bob's characterization of stir-fry as a cooking method for kids who can't cook is, I must admit, terribly offensive. Reading it, I began to feel nauseous and had to leave the room for fear of fainting. Having calmed down and regained my grip on consciousness, I feel obligated to defend stir-frying. Stir-fry is a damn tough cooking form to master, though one with few entry barriers for beginners. That, in fact, is part of its great appeal. Most people can use it to make something taste fine, but the well-trained can emerge with transcendent creation. Now, I'm something of a badass with a wok, so I might be biased. But Bob should really be more careful about slandering stir-fry's good name, lest he incur the wrath of WOK MAN . Update : Added the end of the post. Sorry bout that.
  • Just Wondering

    Not to offend or anything, but does anyone else find the fact that one of Powerline's contributors calls himself "rocket man" more than a little, well, gay? By the way, if one of those fools really does decide to debate PZ Myers on evolution, it's going to be a rending. I'm not even sure I could watch. No, wait, yes I could : • As Ogged has noted , they don't say the sensible, intelligent thing ("Of course we accept the best scientific explanation of our origins!"), but instead babble about "orthodoxies." The whole bunch over there must be wanking creationists. And yes, that certainly does discredit them—it means that they are not interested in the honest, critical evaluation of the evidence, but instead leap to conclusions based on ideology. • They complain that my short comment did not present the evidence for evolution. Silly people. I've got articles all over this weblog discussing the evidence for evolution. Check out the Panda's Thumb or many of the sites in the science and...
  • More UN

    Pace my earlier post on the UN, it's really worth checking out Peter Daou's new UN Dispatch , a blog devoted to shining light on what the UN does and providing some needed balance on the subject. I'm still awaiting assurances that the antichrist will not, in fact, emerge from the UN chambers, but other than that omission the blog is worth a bookmark.
  • Supreme Court Watch

    Shakespeare's Sister has an excellent pair of posts running down the records potential candidates for the Supreme Court. You should read them ( 1 , 2 ). I'd love to hear Jeralyn's take on these folks as well. While on the subject, you should read Mark Schmitt's post on the "Constitution-in-exile" crowd, and what their goals are. This graf particularly jumped out at me: I hope that when the next Supreme Court nomination finally occurs, the debate will not focus almost exclusively on the Court's position on social issues such as Roe, Griswold, gay marriage and sodomy, affirmative action, etc. The economic role of the federal government is now deeply in question, and the Constitution in Exile judges, just like the Social Security privatizers, want to roll back the clock a lot futher than 1973 or 1961. I can guarantee you that the Republicans don't hold out the same desire. Fighting over dead fetuses and homos kissing is much easier for them than battles over Social Security and...
  • Girls With Keyboards

    I wasn't planning to step into Kevin's not-enough-women-in-the-blogs fluff , having been on the receiving end of it a few times myself. But Avedon Carol dropped me into the fray, and I'll use her mention as an excuse to post some thoughts: • First, on Avedon's point that I got linked on TAPPED despite being a new blog while some excellent women bloggers did not, I don't think that's fair. The situation was more akin to updating an address book. I've been blogging for about three years and been on their blogroll for the better part of the last, so it's not as if I emerged out of nowhere, proved I had a penis, and was admitted to the list o' links. • This argument follows a very similar pattern each time it surfaces. Guy wonders why there aren't more female political bloggers, girl(s) list 500 female political bloggers and wonder why he's not aware of them all, guy lamely protests that that wasn't his point, guy eventually gives up and cheers when post drops off the page. As I said, I'...
  • Maybe I'll Send Flowers

    If you had sat me down six months ago and told me the Democrats were going to not only outmaneuver, but out- organize the Republicans on Social Security, I would have called you a CIA plant. If you did it today, I'd call you the Washington Post : Administration and congressional officials said many Republican members remain afraid of taking on Social Security, and many fewer than the party had hoped are holding Social Security events this week. Republican officials said at least 70 of the party's House members are holding town hall meetings this week, not all of them devoted specifically to Social Security, while House Democrats said they will hold more than 90 Social Security events this week. In other news, my altar to Reid and Pelosi is coming along nicely.
  • How Can We Not?

    Congressman Hinchey really cut through Woodruff's crap on this one. How dare he voice an opinion at a Town Hall? How dare he not! Go read the transcript to hear a Democrat unapologetic about believing in the actual Bush administration, rather than the fantasy one of good government bureaucrats that seems to exist in the minds of so many. It's strange to have gotten to the point where believing the worst is the only reality-based option left...
  • Blunt v. Crowley

    Congressman Roy Blunt gets offended by a Michael Crowley article. Congressman Roy Blunt writes in to The New Republic. Michael Crowley is given a chance to respond. Michael Crowley eviscerates Roy Blunt. You laugh at the hapless congressman before feeling bad that this guy is helping to run the country. C'mon -- you know you want to read the whole thing .
  • The UN and its Critics

    Praktike's criticisms of the UN are on point, I think, but downplay the obstacles to fixing it. Because, as is, the neocons don't hate the UN because there's an inequitable distribution of power, but because there in fact is a distribution of power. Since the only logical ways to reform the UN are up, and by up I mean adding to the Security Council, giving the resolutions more teeth, making it possible to override vetos, and so forth, they'll only worsens the multilateral heartburn of the hawks. I'm not really sure how you fix that, but it seems to me that the UN will remain their bete noire no matter what reforms are instituted, and the neocons just have to be considered marginal so far as critiquing the institution goes. Otherwise it's like an intervention where the alcoholic's worst enemy is invited and he continually presses for even more drinking and, if possible, suicide. You just can't listen to that guy.
  • Blogroll Update and Liberal Philosophers

    Finally put up a long-overdue permalink to the excellent Shakespeare's Sister . Helpful readers are encouraged to head over to her site and apologize for my tardiness. Also, you guys should read Tomasky's piece on progressivism's estrangement from philosophy. One thing I think he omits is that, in addition to talking strategy, we talk a lot of policy, and we generally mistake the latter for philosophy. I think that has something to do with empiricism becoming a stealth philosophy for liberals, but that's a side issue. More to the point, I've already sent in my critique and suggestions for The Prospect's magazine, so I'll put this one here. Tomasky is completely correct that liberals don't have a strong grasp of their own ancestry. He's also one of the few people in the country able to do something about it. I'd love for his magazine to feature a monthly history lesson, zooming in on an important progressive person or event. By the time I became conscious of politics, the Clinton years...