Just another quick question about food- Why do they even make soft tofu? The firm tofu is the only one you can really cook anything with if my experiences are accurate.
Is there some purpose to soft tofu that I have just missed?
by John Cole| 14 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads
Just another quick question about food- Why do they even make soft tofu? The firm tofu is the only one you can really cook anything with if my experiences are accurate.
Is there some purpose to soft tofu that I have just missed?
by John Cole| 11 Comments
This post is in: Domestic Politics
The new Xbox was officially unveiled. Damn shit yeah!
Also, I was chatting on the phone with a friend last night while gorging on Turkey Hill Choco Mint Chip ice cream, and he had never heard of Turkey Hill.
How can this be? Turkey Hill is the best damned ice cream in the world, and I won’t budge. Is this a regional product, and there are poor folks all over the United States who have never had Turkey Hill? Damned tragedy if that is the case. Love that Pennsylvania Dutch country. But then again, there are probably a lot of people who have never tasted the wonders of fried scrapple with eggs over easy, waffles, syrup and hot sauce.
FYI- If you ever watch the Sopranos, check out the label on the ice cream Tony eats. And if Choco Mint Chip isn’t your thing, I highly recommend the Orange Cream Swirl, Strawberries and Cream, and the Sweet Cherry Vanilla.
Speaking of strawberries, I bought some from Georgia and from California on the side of the road the other day, and they were unbelievable. I ate a whole container for lunch. I couldn’t stop.
by John Cole| 3 Comments
This post is in: Politics
I should also extend kudos to the general WaPo editorial board for cutting through the wheat and chaff and outlining the numerous flaws in the new Gang legislation that just passed the house:
THE HOUSE OF Representatives passed a bill last week designed to reduce gang violence. The so-called “Gangbusters” bill would greatly expand federal authority to prosecute gang members, even for local activity. It would establish mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for many crimes, including but not limited to newly defined offenses. These are terrible ideas that ought to be rejected if and when the Senate considers similar legislation.
The bill’s definition of gang activity represents an unwarranted federalization of local crime. Gang violence is a serious problem, and some gangs operate across state lines and require federal attention. But this law is written so broadly as to potentially include many local crimes, which are traditionally prosecuted by the states. Under its terms, anyone who commits or conspires in a “gang crime” — defined to include a wide range of drug and violent felonies — in order to further “the activities of a criminal street gang” or gain entrance to one can be prosecuted federally. A “criminal street gang” is defined as “a formal or informal group” of at least three people who commit two or more gang crimes. And the bill would require only the most tenuous connection to any legitimate federal interest before the matter could be handled by the Justice Department. In other words, just about any pattern of street violence involving people who wear the same tattoos could become a federal matter. The predominant state role in prosecuting street crime deserves more respect.
Read the whole thing. These knuckleheads in Washington think that they can do anything if they just say they are fighting ‘gangs.’ They need to be stopped- I know which gang is a bigger threat to me. And their colors aren’t red or blue, but pinstripe.
by John Cole| 2 Comments
This post is in: Politics
George Will gets it:
In what is perhaps anachronistically called the private sector, Standard & Poor’s recently reduced its rating of General Motors’ and Ford’s bonds — nearly a half-trillion dollars of debt — to junk status, largely because of upward spiraling legacy costs. But, then, to what extent is there a really private sector in an economy that socializes huge obligations through the PBGC?
Bingo.
This post is in: War on Terror aka GSAVE®
Newsweek pretty clearly dropped the ball, but I would hesitate to blame them for the riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere. A couple notes:
First, the rioters themselves should share some blame for their behavior, as well as the rest of the bug-eyed Arab culture that continues to wallow in this cesspool of hate. And don’t tell me I just don’t understand Arab culture- I am sick and tired of the apologists for these radicals. Go read Juan Cole if you want excuses.
Second, I have never really thought of Michael Isikoff as a particularly big Bush-basher, and I generally like his stuff. In fact, I really don’t remember him ever attacking Bush very effectively or viciously, but I do remember him savaging Sidney Blumenthal. Oh, and you folks have heard of Paula Jones, haven’t you.
Third, I am a little reluctant to attribute a failure at Newsweek as a sign of a pandemic of shoddy journalism elsewhere. I expect a lot out of the media, and cable news is for the most part abominable, but I would be lost without the good folks who do a lot of good reporting in print media.
This was a mistake. Probably might be time to change the standards for using anonymous sources. But I don’t want to draw any larger conclusions than just that.
BTW- I find it difficult to believe that even the bizarre Arab culture would be moved to riot over the Koran in a toilet and not, say, the numerous abuses at Abu Ghraib. That is just a tough sell for me, and I would recommend some people look up post hoc ergo propter hoc.
At any rate, the jury is still out for me on this one. I want to see what was going on, whetehgr this really was a mistake, and so on…
by John Cole| 45 Comments
This post is in: Democratic Stupidity
For years now, the NY Times has been championing Henry Waxman’s idiotic case against Dick Cheney on his right to keep private the notes of meetings that led up to the creation of the Energy Bill. The case is now over, Cheney has been vindicated, but to Gail Collins and company, he is still guilty.
This administration, and any administration, should have the right to meet privately to receive advice. Making all hearings public risks the chance of encouraging grooupthink, keeping people from giving advice they feel correct but that could be hurtful to them, and we simply need an executive branch that is able to receive unjaundiced advice when it wants.
In this case, the Times and Democrats did not like the energy bill, so instead of attacking the legislation itself, they attempted to create an impression of wrongdoing with HOW the bill was made. It was absurd, and the courts agreed. However, with the NY Times, this administration is always wrong:
Fortunately, the new ruling, turning mostly on the precise wording of the statute, at least appears to leave room for Congress to revise the Federal Advisory Committee Act to make it harder to shield the activities of future White House task forces from public scrutiny. Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat, has introduced a bill to do that, and also reverse other administration actions undermining open government and the public’s right to know.
Of course, having now achieved his legal victory, nothing stops Mr. Cheney from voluntarily coming clean about the secret deliberations of his task force. Just don’t hold your breath.
“Turned on the precise wording of the statute” means that Cheney followed the law, and the NY Times has been full of shit since day one, acting as Waxman’s attack dog. Hacks.
by John Cole| 4 Comments
This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance
Something in my comments is buggered, and you guys are making numerous double posts. From here on out, do this:
Enter your comments ONCE and once only. If you click submit, and get an error page, don’t go back and resubmit. Just close the comments window, reload it, and see ifyour comment is there.
Thanks…