Bon Bon Cookies

These bon bon cookies are for my college newspaper's staff. There are lots of different possibilities, so there is something for everyone.

You can make these with plain dough or chocolate dough. The icings can be plain or chocolate also. I used chocolate chips or walnuts for the centers of the cookies. The toppings are icing, alone, with pecan chips or with shredded coconuts. You can also use colored sugar on top. (I forgot to.) For centers, you can also used candied cherries or pitted dates.

Every time I have made these, the dough has been dry, so I had to add the cream listed below. If you make the dough without cream, please tell me!

The recipe only makes about two dozen cookies, but the icing recipe makes enough for almost two batches. I did a full batch of regular icing and a half batch of chocolate icing. I still had a little of each icing left over.

The recipe is slightly time intensive, as you have to form each ball around the chosen center and you have to ice and top each one. The baking time isn't bad, but you have to wait for the cookies to cool before you ice them.

Sorry for the bad close-up picture. (Again)

Note the size. I've made these a few times. The recipe says "level tablespoon" of dough for each cookie. Try not to over-do the size. You want these to back through to the center, especially if there is chocolate that needs to be melted together.

Things I liked:

• The variety of cookies
• Fun with icing

Things I want to work on:

• Trying other flavors (ie mint or lemon)
• The toppings don't always stick well to the icing. Is there a better way?
  

RECIPES USED

BON BON COOKIES
1/2 cup butter 3/4 cup confectioner's sugar 1 tbsp. vanilla 1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1/8 tsp. salt 1 oz. (1 sq.) unsweetened chocolate (only if making chocolate dough)
Fillings (I used semi-sweet chocolate chips and walnut halves) Cream Food colouring

Mix butter, sugar and vanilla. Blend flour and salt in thoroughly, by hand. If making with chocolate, melt the unsweetened chocolate square and add in. If coloring, add food coloring. Keep mixing by hand. If dough is dry and crumbly, add 1-2 tbsps of cream. Dough should be able to stick together in ball or log.

Heat oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit.

Wrap level tablespoons of dough around filling. For chocolate chips, I suggest three or four chips. Roll into ball with hands.

Place balls 1 in. apart on ungreased baking sheet. Bake 12-15 minutes, until set but not brown. Cool before decorating.

BON BON ICING

1 cup confectioner's sugar 2 1/2 tbsp. cream 1 tsp vanilla food coloring
For chocolate: 3 tbsp. cream 1 oz (1 sq.) unsweetened chocolate

Mix all ingredients. For chocolate, melt the unsweetened chocolate to add and use 3 tbsp. of cream instead of 2 1/2.

SUGGESTED TOPPING
Shredded coconut chopped nuts colored sugar

Recipe from 1972 Betty Crocker Cookie Book

While Chocolate Chip Maple Cookies

Sorry for the bad picture! My digital camera is a little special, by which I mean bad.

These were for my friend Jessica. I thought she would like something that looks pretty and tastes interesting. The cookies have pecans, maple and white chocolate chips in them. They are good with or without icing.

The recipe didn't specify light or dark brown sugar, so I used the dark I had lying around. It made it a little more difficult to see how baked the cookies were.

I'm also pretty sure the maple flavoring I used was a little old. It tasted strong enough, but was very dark and thick. This made the icing darker too, I think. The magazine I got the recipe from had much lighter, almost white, icing.

I also opted for white chocolate chips, rather than vanilla chips. I couldn't find the vanilla.

Things I liked:

• New flavor to try: maple. Delicious
• Nice over-night project. Make the cookies one afternoon and wait to ice the next morning.

Things I want to work on:

• Baking time and how well baked. Most of the time, I have to undercook in my oven, but these took at least a minute over the minimum time
  

RECIPES USED

White Chocolate Chip Maple Cookies
1 cup shortening 1/2 cup butter (softened) 2 cups packed brown sugar 2 eggs
1 tsp. vanilla extract 1 tsp. maple flavoring 3 cups all-purpose flour
2 tsps baking soda 2 cups white chocolate chips 1/2 cup chopped pecans

Preheat oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit.
Cream shortening, butter and brown sugar. Add eggs, one at a time, beating well. Beat in vanilla and maple flavorings. Gradually add flour and baking soda.
Stir in white chocolate chips and pecans. Using a rubber spatula may be best for this part.
Drop rounded tablespoonfuls about 2 inches apart, on ungreased baking sheet. Bake for 8-11 minutes, until "golden brown" or firm.
Cool for 2-5 minutes on sheet, then transfer to wire racks with a spatula.

Maple Frosting (and Topping)
1/4 cup butter (softened) 4 cups confectioner's sugar 1 tsp maple flavoring
4-6 tbsps milk pecan halves

Cream butter and confectioner's sugar. This will be thick. Beat in maple flavoring.
Add milk, one tbsp at a time, to reach spreading consistency.
Frost cookies after they have cooled.
Top with pecan half.
Allow to sit to harden frosting for at least two hours.

Double Chocolate Drop Cookies

I made these for my friend Darr. He didn't want almonds, lemon, coconut or cherry in his Christmas cookies. I know he likes chocolate, so I made the double chocolate version of the chocolate drop cookies. The recipe is at the bottom of the post.

The recipe book said to bake these on ungreased sheets for 8 to ten minutes. Baking for just seven minutes was leaving them with burnt bottoms. I put aluminum foil on the baking sheets, dull side up. That helped a lot.

You can put browned butter glaze, mocha icing or chocolate icing on these, but I opted not to. I am shipping them and that seemed a bit much and messy.

Things I loved in the project:

• Easy to do
• Chocolately fun
  

Things I want to work on:

• Black bottoms!
  

RECIPES USED

DOUBLE CHOCOLATE DROP COOKIES
1/2 cup butter, softened 1 cup sugar 1 egg 1/3 cup buttermilk
2 squares (oz) unsweetened chocolate, melted and cooled 1 tsp. vanilla
1 3/4 cups all-purpose flour 1/2 tsp. baking soda 1/2 tsp. salt
1 cup chopped nuts 1 cup semi-sweet chocolate chips

Melt unsweetened chocolate. Mix sugar, butter and egg. Mix in melted chocolate. Stir in buttermilk and vanilla. Mix in flour, baking soda and salt, blending in.
Mix in nuts and chocolate chips.
Chill for 1 1/2 hours.
---
Heat oven to 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Put aluminum foil on baking sheets, dull-side-up.
Drop rounded teaspoonfuls of dough about 2 inches apart on sheets.
Bake six to seven minutes, making sure the bottoms are not burned after six minutes.
Cool on sheet, then on plate.
---
Made about 4 dozen for me. You can ice them after cooling them. I used three different baking sheets, so just be prepared to keep cycling them through.

Recipe from 1972 edition of the Betty Crocker Cooky Book.

Mary's Sugar Cookies - Decorated

This batch of cookies are my Christmas present for my friend Emma. She is currently working on a presidential campaign, so I included a cookie decorated as a candidate (top-center of the first picture) and some red-white-&-blue decorated candy cane cookies. I used the "Mary's Sugar Cookie" recipe, with "Easy Creamy Icing" and "Marie's Chocolate Icing." All of those are listed at the bottom.
There is the Santa cookie (bottom center), which I am particularly proud of. I was decorating using the "plastic bag" method of icing. You just cut the corner of a baggie, scoop in some (already dyed) icing, and push through. The little Santa came out better than most of the others, I think, mostly because of the nice consistency of the red icing and the fact that I was willing to be patient with it. The dark pants on the others are chocolate icing, which I couldn't use the plastic bag method with, because it had to stay hot while I was using it.

The candy cane cookies and wreath cookies were fairly easy to decorate, although making stars without proper icing tips was somewhat hard. The problem with these was the cookies themselves, not the decorating. These candy cane cookies are okay looking, but they could get slightly over-expanded, so the shape would get lost, especially after putting on the white base coat. The dip would disappear. The wreath cookies were made with two cookie cutters, one inside the other on the dough, then taking out the center part. With no center, the wreaths baked a little more thoroughly than the other cookies. They were browning while others were barely firm. I just swirled the icing and added red "holly" dots. The red icing wasn't firm enough to add three little beads of icing to make it look like holly. Instead, I just made larger dots.

One of the icing problems that you can see clearly on the wreaths is maintaining icing consistency. The bottom right wreath's icing has spread much more than the center left's. Part of this has to do with when I recut the hole in the baggie, making a larger hole. It also has to do with heat. The green icing was all from the same batch, but the heat of my hand made it spread more. So, when I needed it to behave more, I refrigerated it and worked with another color elsewhere. It worked okay, but not great. Suggestions? I should have added colored sugar when the green icing was wet, but I forgot. Oops!

There are six Christmas trees total. Each have chocolate icing at the bottom, for the trunk. It is much thicker than the "easy creamy" icing used for everything else. I didn't know how to make it thinner and still trust it to dry and solidify properly. I suppose I could have bought chocolate bark, but that seemed a bit much. You may not be able to see the yellow at the top. Another example of slightly too runny icing making it look sloppier. I like the dots at ornaments, because ornaments can be any shape. I used some left-over white icing for a garland. I think it came out well, especially with the colored sugar.

These stars are done in a circle, sort of. The outside "spokes" of one correspond to the inside "solid" part of the next. I tried doing spokes first and doing solids first. Doing solids first worked better. The reason there is a weird circle on the yellow and white centers is because they were both spoke-first. The dark colors of the spokes could be seen through the center, so I had to add extra to cover it up. Lesson learned!

These are the "others," including an ornament looking red and green and sparkly with colored sugar. There is the crazy looking one on the left, which is over-iced. The star is chocolate icing with green put on top of it.

Things I loved in the project:

• Icing with the baggies
• Using black food coloring
• My Santa cookie

Things I want to work on:

• Icing with baggies
• Chocolate icing
• Making icing of consistent thickness (not runny!)

RECIPES USED

MARY'S SUGAR COOKIES
1 1/2 cups confectioner's sugar 1 cup butter 1 egg 1 tsp. vanilla
1/2 tsp almond flavoring 2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour 1 tsp. baking soda
1 tsp. cream of tartar

Mix sugar and butter. Add egg and flavorings. Mix thoroughly.
Mix in dry ingredients.
Refrigerate 3 hours.
---
Heat oven to 375 degrees Fahrenheit. Lightly grease baking sheets.
Divide dough and roll to 3/16 in thickness on a floured board.
Cut with cookie cutters, reusing dough as necessary. Use a metal spatula to transfer the cut dough, especially if the shapes are hard to keep with raw dough.
Bake 6-8 minutes, until firm but still golden. Let cool on cookie sheet for at least five minutes, then transfer to wire rack or plate. Let cool completely before icing.
---
Made 3 1/2 dozen for me. The cookies tasted great. If you aren't going to ice them, you should sprinkle sugar on them before you bake them.

MARIE'S CHOCOLATE ICING
1 tbsp. butter 1 square (oz.) unsweetened chocolate 1 1/2 tbsps. warm water
1 cup confectioner's sugar.

In a double boiler, melt butter and chocolate.
Blend in warm water. (I used a spoon for this recipe, rather than a mixer.)
Beat in confectioner's sugar until icing is smooth and at desired consistency.
---
I kept it mildly hot while I used it. This makes a lot of icing. I would have halved it for this project, in retrospect.

EASY CREAMY ICING
1 cup confectioner's sugar 1/4 tsp. salt 1/2 tsp. vanilla 1 1/2 tbsp cream

Blend it all together, adding cream only as necessary for easy spreading.
Divide up to tint.
---
I made this recipe four times to make enough icing. There was some left over for some of the colors, but four batches was about enough. I should have added less cream to at least two batches, so mix everything but the cream and then add it as needed.
The "plastic bag" method of icing is described at the top of the post. I'm too cheap to buy proper frosting bags with tips.

All recipes from the 1972 Betty Crocker's Cooky Book.

My parents read me Greek Myths instead

Fairy tales may end in horror: Sci-Tech: News: News24

This is an old story
I just felt is should be somewhere I'll remember it

Powered by ScribeFire.

Because NewsCorp is evil...

... This is what I can't use anymore: NEWS CORPORATION

Which includes HarperCollins, which means I have to even check at the book store. God dammit why did I look this up?

Except I will totally keep watching a couple programs on Fox, like House and Bones (oh wait, thats it). I'm still trying to figure out how House gets replayed on USA, which is owned by NBC Universal.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Writer's Strike: What I Will and What I Won't

I am currently engaged in a year off from college. Its weird and strange. And full of TV. My parents just got the Verizon FIOS package thingy, so there are even more channels. When I am/was at college, streaming video from the major networks is the best (only) way to get my fix of Grey's, B&S, Battlestar, etc.
Now I feel guilty because people weren't getting paid. I didn't realize I was sitting through the fifth recitation of the value of Florida Orange Juice (as a FL girl, I feel compelled to mention it is wonderful) or through the same damn "soothe a crying baby" commercial FOR A PROMOTIONAL BIT.
One of the bloggers asked how America is viewing narrative. It's a great question to ask here. Another blogger/striker mentioned that the lack of support for the writers tended to do with how Americans view work, as something to hate rather than to enjoy, and how they view intellectuals/creatives. I'm acreative. I bake instead of cook. I craft instead of draw. I want to serve my country through working for the government. BUT I value those in the creative world. I know that Brothers & Sisters and Battlestar Galactica have affected how I view the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and war in general. The Office has convinced me never to sell paper... or sell anything. I read books regularly, thank you. I read magazines and the newspaper and despair over print media's decline.
But I also watch television. And read about television at TWoP. And enjoy the arcs and continued narrative. Its like Dickens's and the like's serial structure in newspapers a century and a half ago. Long and winding and full of plot and comment. You can't tell me you haven't watched an episode of Grey's Anatomy and wanted to know what exactly was next, like the people on the docks waiting to discover what happened to Little Nell. (Would that be called spoilers 1.0?)
I like television more than I like movies a lot of the time. I like to get invested. Rory Gilmore was exactly the same age as me and her grandfather was, by general consensus of the folks I've asked, entirely too like my father for words. The Petrelli family is so implosive that it makes me thank sweet Jesus that I am an only child, and then turn around and watch Micah be an only child. I like the extended nature of three episodes of a series dedicated to the President's daughter being kidnapped and the Constitutional crisis it might create, when a couple years before I watched a single episode all about the power of the filibuster and a grandpa's love.

So here is what I will and won't do to support writers, who create a lot of the reason I keep watching TV, who deserve health care and pensions and a future at their jobs as much as anyone:

I WILL stop watching TV shows on the network sites. No more ABC.com player, CBS.com player, or NBC.com player.

I WILL watch only live TV, DVR'd shows and whatever I can steal online or have saved from recording off my TiVo.

I WILL send my friends in NYC cookies to offer to striking writers. I WON'T promise my friends won't eat the cookies themselves.

I WILL remember this strike past the first week. And the second week. And the third week. Because if the writers are in it for the long haul, so should their consumers.

I WON'T stop watching America's Next Top Model. Because I am rooting for the ditzy and stupidly named Chantal like it is no one's business.

I WON'T watch any "reality" shows that I do not already watch. Which means I WILL watch ANTM, AFV, The Hills, Run's House and Mythbusters (is that a reality show? because I also won't stop watching the History Channel) and nothing else "unscripted". I just also realized that a good new year's resolution would be to stop watching so much reality TV.

I WON'T watch Ellen, at least not for a while. She is afraid of being in breach of contract. Tell that to the hyphenates.



My daddy taught me that you honk for unions. My conscience taught me that decent people don't cross picket lines. I know that these writers are like most other union members out there: consistently screwed by people about fifty rungs above them on the ladder. It's sad that the production crews in every facet are about to suffer, but if SAG and the Director's Guild just get on board quickly, there might be enough to end this post haste. Because I care about Meredith and Christina & Kitty and Nora & Betty and Henry & Starbuck and Apollo & Nick and Tripp & Pam and Jim & Liz and Jack & even the ladies on Wisteria Lane. And I care about the people who made them.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Hit the link

Further proof that people between the ages of 18 and 25 have neither respect nor rights in this country.
Also proof that my home state is batshit crazy: You can kill a boy in a camp and you can electrocute a guy asking a question. Seriously.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Review: Rolling Stone: Issue 1035: Semptember 20, 2007

Some thoughts on this Rolling Stone, which I picked up purely for the Matt Taibbi article (He writes, I orgasm at the awesomosity of his prose, rinse, repeat).
1) It opened with three spreads of ads for the new Fox season. Although some tag lines were cute (House: "One Sick Bastard" and Bones: "Every body has secrets"), others were just strange (K-Ville's was a summary of the plot of every cop show except Homicide: Life on the Street). I am also avoiding Back to You because watching a right-wing network's show led by two right-wing actors felt just a little too much like funding the protest of a gay-bashed kid's funeral. Also, 'til Death had a tag line of "Get a load of them." I love good ads, like the House one. I hate unoriginal tripe and considering the show itself is already a quarter-assed rip-off of half-assed shows like According to Jim... you see my point.
2) Extra ad with the neon sign was cute. They has a nice new campaign.
3) The cover of this RS had something about 50 Cent and Kanye West. That's the lead article. I don't care and refuse to read it. I do appreciate Heroes having a full spread ad in the middle of the article that I can rip out, put on a wall, and ignore the article I had to destroy for it. Although this ad kinda sucks. The show is so perfectly done. It isn't high drama, but it reaches a good tone between entertainment and mild thought provocation (mild... not medium, not hot, mild). Yet these ads always look cheap and unimaginative. THEY HAVE SUPERPOWERS! Show me something cool, not half-baked Photoshopping.
4) Yay that the CW can afford to place an ad for Reaper. Boo that the ad kinda sucks and is some weird painting/drawing of an actual photo of the leads.
5) RS's layouts make me swoon. They lead their readers' eyes very well, break up the page in clean segments, but trust their readers to be able to enjoy more than two sentences without some ADHD kicking in and getting overly distracted. I am specifically looking at page 16, on iTunes, with their graphs and timelines and picture and list. Yet still so FREAKING PRETTY.
6) Diesel needs to stop having a shitty ad campaign with only quasi-hot models. You are Diesel and not enough rich brats are going to spend money on this guy.
7) I also love that RS knows that for every kid buying their magazine for the album reviews and whatever weird story, there are two hipsters approaching thirty and three old hippies or punks that use RS to feel current. And thus a story on the CBGB founder, Hilly Kristal, dying can run fully. RS has a true appreciation for history. I appreciate that.
8) The Stoli campaign is nice.
9) The Fall Music Preview has too many headlines and subheadlines and section breakers. It makes it feel like I am reading only half sentences of quirky pith and no substance.
10) The Bionic Woman ad is creepy. That should not be two whole pages. It may be effective, but only at giving me nightmares.
11) Hayden Panettiere's Milk ad has her face and body almost fading into the lighting of the upper left. Also creepy.
12) That Duque Rum ad sucks. You can tell what it is trying to do and what it is failing at.
13) The new cheesy Old Spice campaign, from this soap-with-pubes ad to the Bruce Campbell commercials, gives me joy. If I was a dude or shopping for a dude, I would have to pick up the Old Spice in support of them giving good ad. They are funny. They suggest that the viewer (or reader) is "in the know." They are so directly slimy and dirty that they make you giggle at the fun times everyone involved must be having.
14) The Go! Team sound like they could only have come from London. They also sound like the sort of band I would love to see live but hate to listen to a full album.
15) I love Austin Scagg's "Smoking Section" column. Its a delight of old school rockers and quasi indy people. It feels like the mid 1990's, before Britney and the Backstreet Boys.
16) The sweater in the Cavalli ad on page 43 looks like a girl's sweater. I am sure that is the point, but that boy is way too pretty. The lack of contrast just makes me think I am looking at someone between operations.
17) The content on page 42 is nicely laid out. Its just not interesting to anyone with ovaries.
18) I feel so wrong admitting that I love the St. Pauli Girl ad. Dear Duque Rum people, this is what you wanted to do, but sucked at.
19) What the fuck is wrong with Rob Sheffield? Why couldn't he of just made a list of shows to hate and called it "Shows to Hate" instead of making the same list but just being snarky instead of bitchy on half the list?
20) I haven't seen Chuck, partially because the ads bore me so much. I saw Jake 2.0 and Christopher Gorham is cuter than Zachary Levi.
21) I have a weakness for ads that make things out of their product. So I enjoy the Nissan ad. At least the first page of it.
22) YAY that TWOP got a shout-out, as well as other entertainment bloggers and fansites. The article on page 48, but David Kushner, is well-written. It does feel a bit like a list or at least disjointed. The relationship between the blogs/online community and the shows is basically summed up as "it exists, but they don't run shows." Yet the give and take of the relationship is less explored that pointed out in a couple of instances. Also, I hate the following formula line, especially at the start of a paragraph: "_____ isn't the only ______ doing _________." It is unoriginal, its sounds canned, and formal, printed writing shouldn't use contractions. This is the opposite of formal, so its okay for me to. Rolling Stone, your style guide bothers me sometimes.
23) On the other side of things, BSG and TAL got shoutouts. yay.
24) Matt Taibbi's article is really well-written. Honestly, I enjoy his writing too much to do a lot of criticizing. He doesn't do the normal gonzo side-trip for five paragraphs thing, which I appreciate alot. Then again, he also treated Tancredo as a real candidate. Seriously, that's just crazy, although nice.
25) TORCHWOOD AD! YAY TORCHWOOD! Although weird eye picture! But YAY TORCHWOOD! (Dear John Barrowman, if you need someone to try out being straight with, please contact me.)
26) The "Death of a Porn King" article is the sort of thing RS would do and few other mainstream magazines would. And it is so fucking weird and salacious and sad. RS does a great job of bringing out the tragedy of literally everyone involved in some of their stories. That is one hot gay boy though... with the glasses on page 61?
27) Again, I give not two shits about Mr. Cent and Mr. West. I enjoyed "Golddigger" and the video with the kids in the department store, so I guess I like Kanye? This is how little I know.
28) Some of the ads in this magazine, like the Nokia Ticket Rush thing, just feel cheap and gross and stupid.
29) Versus Absolut ads, which have been doing something great for too long to count.
30) The Denis Leary interview article reminded me of an article/interview on Robert DeNiro that I think Details did a few months ago. They basically give background on the performer, then say the guy won't open up to the interviewer. THEN SCRAP THE INTERVIEW! Unless your editor was stupid enough to let you go past deadline and couldn't rejigger the pages, there is no reason to run page after page of "he tells funny anecdotes that hide him and by the way he went to this college" crap. The writing itself isn't bad, but the content is non-existant. No one should be doing an interview if they won't at least pretend to answer the question. No writer should be using his Psych 101 skills on his subject so broadly and simplistically. I like Denis Leary. I hate this article.
31) Who the hell calls a phone Chocolate??
32) The CH1 ad sucks too.
33) The article by Joe Levy on the Auto-Tune software is great. It should be long and more scathing.
34) I love the side-bar ads that Rolling Stone does. Other magazines need to realize that they can't pull them off nearly as well if their pages aren't as large as RS. Specifically, as wide as RS.
35) Is the dude in the Astroglide ad Jesse Bradford? Dude, you were on West Wing and in real movies... This is what you have been reduced to?
Fin

Powered by ScribeFire.

Spacey Sleeper Cells

The relevant NYTimes story

Someone who is fool enough to think that NASA is where sleeper cells would go, if these cells were even interested in going into our larger national government, doesn't deserve to be on a bench. This is just dumb. I'll spare you the normal protests of not preserving the rights we are fighting for. Its true, but anyone who is aware of US politics already knows it.
More importantly: THIS IS NASA. I don't fucking care if the brilliant engineer has MS or the ROCKET SCIENTIST has fucking syphilis. I care that we are using the best and brightest we can to further our intellectual and scientific research and our quest into space. And just so the DHS and CIA and NSA know, its the really smart folks who tend to experiment with drugs and/or be socially awkward. Background checks past "are they more likely than most other folks here to steal some jet fuel" and "is there wife a top level Chinese government official who would want to steal our technology" are unnecessary and counterproductive.
I bet you 500 of the 900 refusing to go through this are the folks who could be putting a colony on the moon and fixing the schematics for the space shuttle 2.0 that is coming out in a few years. They could be getting cosmic information about Jupiter and Saturn. We could more fully understand tides and comets and REALLY BIG SHIT. There is a giant cloud of swirling crazy on Jupiter that is bigger than our planet and we care who the scientist is boffing? Hell, I have a friend who is in a relationship with a guy who is contracted out to NASA. I love that her sex life is fully under government scrutiny now. Hilarious.
I love it when the government cuts off its nose to spite its face. More importantly, I hope Virgin Space has jobs waiting for at least half these guys. Because at this rate, by the time the US government has got a ship ready to colonize the moon, private industry will have set up condos. And Lord knows, I want literally cosmic technology in the hands of the guys only out to make a profit. Way to think long-term stupid US government.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Stop it

Its a condom. Not a nuclear missile. Its a fucking condom.

NYT (emphasis mine):

September 11, 2007, 3:40 pm



Rise Seen in H.I.V. Infections Among Young Men


By Sewell Chan



H.I.V. infection rates have risen substantially among young New York
City men who have sex with men, indicating a shift in the population
most vulnerable now to contracting AIDS, city health officials said
today.

Over a five-year period, the number of new H.I.V. diagnoses in men
under the age of 30 who have sex with other men increased by 33
percent, to 499 in 2006 from 374 in 2001. During the same period, the
infection rate for men over 30 decreased by 22 percent.

The group with the fastest-growing rates of H.I.V. infection was
made up of men between the ages of 13 and 19, for whom H.I.V. diagnoses
doubled during between 2001 and 2006, according to preliminary data
from the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, offered a blunt assessment of the data.

“We’re headed in the wrong direction,” he said in a statement.
“Unless young men reduce the number of partners they have, and protect
themselves and their partners by using condoms more consistently, we
will face another wave of suffering and death from H.I.V. and AIDS.”

Dr. Frieden’s statement included statements of support from leaders of the National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS, Gay Men of African Descent and the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center.

The data revealed significant racial and ethnic disparities in H.I.V. infection rates.

In 2006, among all men who had sex with men, blacks received twice
as many H.I.V. diagnoses as whites (232 versus 101), and Hispanics
reported 55 percent more than whites (157 versus 101). The disparity
was even more striking among adolescents; more than 90 percent of the
men under age 20 who had sex with men under and were diagnosed with
H.I.V. in 2006 were black or Hispanic (81 out of 87).

Every borough except Staten Island saw, between 2001 and 2006, an
H.I.V. increase among men under 30 who have sex with other men. The
largest increases occurred in Queens (49 percent) and Manhattan (57
percent). The increase in Manhattan was concentrated in East and
Central Harlem (up 115 percent, from 26 to 56 cases), and in the
Chelsea and Clinton areas (up 56 percent, from 25 to 39 cases).

Good lord. This is just not acceptable. This vector could be stopped or at least greatly slowed if there was just a bit more responsibility and a bit less dumbassery.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I know I know

A top adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney appears to be behind the launch of a new Web site attacking GOP presidential rival Fred D. Thompson during his first week on the trail.The
site, PhoneyFred.org, painted an unflattering picture of Thompson,
dubbing the former TV star and senator Fancy Fred, Five O'clock Fred,
Flip-Flop Fred, McCain Fred, Moron Fred, Playboy Fred, Pro-Choice Fred,
Son-of-a-Fred and Trial Lawyer Fred. Shortly after a Washington Post reporter made inquiries about the site to the Romney campaign, it was taken down.Before
it vanished, the front page of the Web site featured a picture of
Thompson depicted in a frilly outfit more befitting a Gilbert and
Sullivan production than a presidential candidate.Under the
heading "Playboy Fred," the site asked the provocative question: "Once
a Pro-Choice Skirt Chaser, Now Standard Bearer of the Religious Right?"Nowhere
on the site was any indication of who was responsible for it. But a
series of inquiries led to "Under the Power Lines," the Web site of the
political consulting firm of J. Warren Tompkins, Romney's lead
consultant in South Carolina. Tompkins did not return phone calls seeking comment.Late yesterday afternoon, a spokesman for Thompson called on Romney to fire Tompkins."There
is no room in our party for this kind of smut. As the top executive of
his own campaign, Governor Romney should take full responsibility for
this type of high-tech gutter politics and issue an immediate apology,"
said spokesman Todd Harris. "If this is true, Governor Romney should
exercise some of his much-touted executive acumen and immediately
terminate anyone related to this outrage."A spokesman for
Romney's campaign said he will look into questions about the
anti-Thompson site. "Our campaign is focused on the issues and ideas
that are of paramount concern to voters," said Kevin Madden. "The Web site we are focused on is MittRomney.com."The Web site was hosted by a company called BlueHost, based in Orem, Utah.
Until late yesterday afternoon, a search at that company's site for
PhoneyFred.org returned the following message: "Domain phoneyfred.org
is still attached to your politicalnetroots.com account as Addon." The
address http://www.politicalnetroots.com
brings up the home page for Under the Power Lines, which lists Tompkins
as "partner, consultant," along with Terry Sullivan and Wesley Donehue.The PhoneyFred site, Tompkins's own Web site and many of his other clients' sites are all hosted on the same BlueHost server.In 2000, it was in South Carolina that Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) ran into an organized effort to sully his character and
spread rumors, including that he had once fathered an illegitimate
black child. At the time, candidate George W. Bush was desperate to stop a surging McCain, who was coming off a stunning upset in the New Hampshire
primary. Tompkins was the chief strategist for Bush in South Carolina
at the time, though Bush campaign officials have always denied that the
campaign was responsible for the attacks.Staff writer Rob Pegararo contributed to this report.

Why do the Republicans get away with this crap every fucking cycle? Because they generally do it to OTHER REPUBLICANS, who end up losing and having to take it or, if they do have political clout like McCain did at the time and after the 2000 election, shut up for the good of the party. I would hope Thompson is aware of how little he has to lose in this election and how much he has to gain. He should slam Romney at the next debate. He should slam him constantly until the Romney campaign says sorry and fires Tompkins. Ratfucking indeed.

You have to keep up on someone, publicly, until he fixes his mistakes and apologizes. American politics today is all about waiting until something goes away because a news cycle eats it up. As much as I want to blame the journalists, or rather the bullshit newsreaders at 24-hour cable channels, the politicians totally take the easy route with this stuff. Thompson should harp on until he gets results. You can even spin it as what he will do in Washington: fight until he gets results. How's that for combating the "lazy" image he's been stuck with?

Oh, and a very late note: Alberto Gonzalez's resignation. My theory is that is was timed to coincide with the Daily Show's hiatus week.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Religious Freedom Vs. Terrorism

Ever since it happened, I've gone back in my mind to a debate round I had a couple years back. It included me explaining to my opponents and my judge that the reason for the separation of church and state in the First Amendment was not just to protect the government from religion. It was also to protect religion from the government. Roger Williams founded Rhode Island as a colony of complete religious freedom. Church of England, Catholic, whatever deviant Puritanism the next guy wanted was allowed in that tiny speck of land. (Pardon the lack of citation past "AP US History class, 11th grade".) Whenever this section of the BoR comes up, I remember the round. The opponents refused to believe me. They were wrong.

So now the NYTimes tells us that books on faith are being removed from prisons, because of fears of terrorism.

Traci Billingsley, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Prisons, said the agency was acting in response to a 2004 report by the Office of the Inspector General in the Justice Department. The report recommended steps that prisons should take, in light of the Sept. 11 attacks, to avoid becoming recruiting grounds for militant Islamic and other religious groups. The bureau, an agency of the Justice Department, defended its effort, which it calls the Standardized Chapel Library Project, as a way of barring access to materials that could, in its words, “discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize.”

Let's ignore the blatant and horribly bigoted conflation of Islam and terrorism. Its so audacious that these two sentences are enough to explicitly condemn that level of hatred and b.s.

Instead, lets enjoy a Bush administration that spent its first term so keen on faith based initiatives, an administration that then failed to give any money to any non-Christian groups in its first years, is now removing religion from prisons. Taking away faith and all its positive attributes from men and women who need those beliefs more than most is like claiming that those faith based programs could work too well. If its all or nothing in prisons, I think it should be all or nothing with other programs.

Please also note that our prisons already have safe guards:

The effort is unnecessary, the chaplain said, because chaplains routinely reject any materials that incite violence or disparage, and donated materials already had to be approved by prison officials. Prisoners can buy religious books, he added, but few have much money to spend.

This is more filtering than where our public money goes when the Faith Based Initiative people decide how to allocate cash to churches.

And for a last note, lets enjoy the politics influencing the religious options of people. The lists in question are the permitted books:

The lists have not been made public by the bureau, but were made available to The Times by a critic of the bureau’s project. In some cases, the lists belie their authors’ preferences. For example, more than 80 of the 120 titles on the list for Judaism are from the same Orthodox publishing house. A Catholic scholar and an evangelical Christian scholar who looked over some of the lists were baffled at the selections.

Timothy Larsen, who holds the Carolyn and Fred McManis Chair of Christian Thought at Wheaton College, an evangelical school, looked over lists for “Other Christian” and “General Spirituality.”

“There are some well-chosen things in here,” Professor Larsen said. “I’m particularly glad that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is there. If I was in prison I would want to read Dietrich Bonhoeffer.” But he continued, “There’s a lot about it that’s weird.” The lists “show a bias toward evangelical popularism and Calvinism,” he said, and lacked materials from early church fathers, liberal theologians and major Protestant denominations.

The Rev. Richard P. McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame (who edited “The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism,” which did make the list), said the Catholic list had some glaring omissions, few spiritual classics and many authors he had never heard of.

“I would be completely sympathetic with Catholic chaplains in federal prisons if they’re complaining that this list is inhibiting,” he said, “because I know they have useful books that are not on this list.”

Heaven forfend some prisoner, fighting addiction to alcohol or a drug or something else, tries to learn more about where the serenity prayer comes from. Niebuhr: most likely theologian to inspire violence ever.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Also, on Mr. Beckham

My occasional hatred of my fellow Americans continues as we treat poor Mr. Beckham like something he is not nor has ever been.

DAVID BECKHAM IS A FOOTBALLER.
He is also a British celebrity, primarily known for dressing well and marrying Posh.

He is not an actor.
He is not a singer.
He is not a name to be dropped to show you know what is going on in the world.

The man is enjoying the twilight of his career in the United States league. It is the footballing way. (See Pele, Carlos Valderamma, etc.)

And the poor dear has been injured and forced to play while injured by an American public that doesn't seem to understand that SOCCER ISN'T FOOTBALL. In American football, you can slap some tape on a guy and have him run for another thirty seconds in the next play. You get three substitutions by MLS rules (I think that's right.). You have to mete those out very carefully and you use them with a lot of time between them. So a soccer player has to run back and forth for quite some time before he can be relieved. Thus injuring himself further if he hasn't healed fully yet.
I just hope all those extra ticket sales are covering the increase in physical trainers they must be using in LA to make Beckham hopalong.
At least a couple more people are bothering to see Landon Donovan because of this.

Oh, and the "maybe they'll make him a captain" and such talk is just stupid. Honestly, it is proof of how little sense most Americans have with strategy and dealing with TEAMWORK.

Agency Approves a Birth Control Pill Halting Periods Indefinitely - New York Times

Agency Approves a Birth Control Pill Halting Periods Indefinitely - New York Times

Thanks to Darr for sending this over.
Quite simply: YAY

Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art - Christoph Büchel - New York Times

Read this first: Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art - Christoph Büchel - New York Times

How awesome?! I love that they are fighting it out. I love the concept of the piece itself. I love the giant tarps. It is so wonderfully fucked up that you can't help but laugh and appreciate the ridiculousness. Thought I should share.

US Airways and Quality Inns: Hell NO!

NPR : Improving Customer Service Over the Phone

The above story feels especially important today, as I spent almost twenty-four hours trying to get a flight out of Philly to Tampa through US Airways. Partially, I am almost certain, due to the issues US Airways and America West are having with their pilots, but the service afterwards is what really got to me and my fellow passengers.

The airline referred us to Quality Inn in Gloucester, New Jersey. (Quality Inns are "Choice Hotels".) Maybe its the extended time spent in the area, but starting with the word "Jersey," you know you are in for a bit of an experience. The first time I called them, they said they would call me right back. I waited twenty minutes, called again, discovered the airport shuttle would be there in ten minutes. For the next forty-five minutes, I sat with my fellow would-be passengers, waiting fr this shuttle, which we were assured was "almost there" whenever we called.

Once we got in the shuttle, we discovered the driver had been asked to pick us up only twenty minutes before. My hotel room had one light broken and no smoke detector. I was better off than the woman whose toilet was flooding the second she entered the room or the other lady who had no functioning lights.

In the morning, the Quality Inn turned out to be the least of my problems, despite their half-an-hour-late airport shuttle going the other way. I stood in line, watching Miami passengers who were supposed to take the same flight to Charlotte as me get to go to a special line while I was denied. Ten minutes before my flight left, I started crying, absolutely unable to deal with missing my flight because I didn't have a ticket on top of the rest of my weekend and everything this airline had put me through. The woman monitoring the line finally noticed me, even though when I was crying I was trying to avoid her, unlike the last half hour. I got on the next flight, a direct one to my destination.

I know other people were yelling at the gate manager and I know that this ridiculousness was not his fault. I was more struck by the problems of being a good little labor loving girl and the inconveniences I had to put up with. Half of my troubles, ignoring the initial one of not having a flight, were not the result of the airline pilots. It was US Airways that had a relationship with a motel that has no chance of being livable. It was US Airways that had employees so poorly trained that they couldn't deal with a situation explained to them as "I need to be on the same flight as those people, can I please go?."

So that's a cautionary tale regarding US Airways, or at least regarding not searching Google News for your airline before you travel!

Other side of the coin: This is the second time I have had to spend the night somewhere because of a screwed up flight. The last time was four years ago. I missed the second leg of my trip because the first flight took forever getting off due to a crew waiting for a missing passenger. Both times, I have found the passengers with me willing to help one another, comfort one another and figure out what needs to happen. I think its proof that there is a lot of good in the world. Not to sound like a Dear Abby column, but it is telling that under pressure and stressed out from a bunch of bureaucracy that is keeping them from their loved ones or other destination, people rally and aid one another instead of letting everyone just fend for themselves. Camaraderie is natural. That's a nice thing.

More on other stuff later!

PS: I'm officially staying off of US Airways and Quality Inns. US Airways may get my business when they deal with their pilots and stop having late and canceled flights. Quality Inns probably never will. That is how capitalism is supposed to work. Boycotting isn't just about morals and principles; its about doing your part as a consumer... which means staying away from idiotic companies.

Bigotry and Inanity Disguised as Reform

Senators in Bipartisan Deal on Broad Immigration Bill - New York Times

This newest proposal from a team of senators trying to work everything out fails on every level for the Democrats.

Why are they working with GOP leaders to create a solution to a problem (if you want to call immigration a problem) that is the pet of President Bush, his goal at a legacy? I realize that there are going to be problems from the GOP as well as the Democrats, but if Bush gets anything passed, it will be a coup for him and his political capital will skyrocket. American associate immigration with Bush policy initiatives. The only potential upside is throwing immigration into the GOP primary pot and seeing what gets stirred up.

The political impracticalities are large. Read the NYT article up top for how immigration groups are freaking out. Plenty of immigrants become naturalized every year and typically will vote Democratic. While the bill could create more Democratic voters in the long term, it will only anger traditionally Democratic voters and may make Hispanic communities think twice about voting at all. If anything, it will send them to Republicans, who are getting more and more Catholic voters and will be seen as more open to Hispanics while Democrats weren't willing to work for them.

Also look at American voters, this survey taken from a USA Today/Gallup Poll from last month:
PollingReport.com

"Now thinking about immigrants who come to the United States illegally -- Which comes closest to your view about what the government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S. and not allow them to return. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return temporarily to work. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time. OR, Allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time." Options rotated
						.
		Leave, Not Return	Leave, Temporarily Return	Leave, Return and Become Citizens	Remain and Become Citizens	Unsure
		%	%	%	%	%
	4/13-15/07	14	6	42	36	2
						.
"Do you think the U.S. has made progress or lost ground in dealing with illegal immigration in the past year, or has there been no change?"
						.
		Made Progress	Lost Ground	No Change	Unsure
		%	%	%	%
	4/13-15/07	12	43	42	3

So basically, Americans want immigrants, even those who entered illegally, to be allowed to become citizens. Bush's guest worker program has no political will. Nor does a massive crackdown. Democrats can get more from this package, if only they would put the word out. Republicans have managed to tell everyone what the country is thinking and thus Democrats, never answering the problem, have let them control the agenda.

Now let's look at this bill itself: (all quotes from the above linked NYT article)

Under the merit-based system envisioned in the bill, the government would adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of many people seeking permission to immigrate. Points would be awarded for job skills, education and English language proficiency.

I actually think the first criteria here, "job skills," makes sense, although I can see how it could hurt those entering the country to create a better life. Education makes some sense as a criteria too.
The English language proficiency, however, strikes me as another attempt to make English the national language. I don't speak anything but English. I took Spanish classes (I almost failed Spanish classes.) but from living in Florida I can get to a toilet and order a basic dinner (pollo y arroz). English as a national language is still racist. Giving people points for something that can be fairly easily learned through immersion (which would happen from moving here) is simply a way of attacking those who are not fluent in English as "unAmerican," whatever that means in this context. Why Democrats agreed to do something like that I cannot understand.

Moreover, they said, family ties would be an advantage in the proposed point system. If two applicants had the same skills and the same educational credentials, but one also had relatives in the United States, that person would receive the visa.

I am taking the NYT's word for this to some extent, but if you listen to last night's NPR story on the new bill, there is a lot of waffling on what "family ties" means. This projects the American nuclear family onto other cultures, where kinship ties are often stronger and much more complex.
Speaking of kinship...

[Illegal immigrants] could work in the United States under probationary status and could receive renewable four-year “Z visas.” Heads of households would have to return to their home countries to apply for green cards if they wanted to become lawful permanent residents and then citizens.

In addition to the inevitable failure of the Z-visas, which will become a de facto guest worker system, I want to know how the heads of households will be defined. Something about it just screams "men will be in charge" and that is disturbing both for immigrants from traditionally patriarchal societies, who may feel abandoned, and for any women trying to get work in the U.S.

More later, as the debate comes through. Also, some tomorrow on a text for a political science class I am taking. It will a special grammar, vocabulary and the idiocy of publishers episode!

Fun note: This bill is all about rights for gay immigrants and I love it, even though it will never get out of committee.