Top Chef Open Thread
Chef Tom Colicchio will drink. your. milkshake!!!
He will also tell you you probably could have picked something more challenging for your Quickfire dish than your simple, if delicious, fried bologna sandwich.
Top Chef Open Thread
Chef Tom Colicchio will drink. your. milkshake!!!
He will also tell you you probably could have picked something more challenging for your Quickfire dish than your simple, if delicious, fried bologna sandwich.
Huh?
Caption for a video link at CNN:
Watch Obama discuss his Pennsylvania primary loss on CNN Radio Wednesday.
No, thanks; I think I'll listen to it on my dishwasher.
Caption This Photo
The McClellaton 3000 is offered some of his favorite mechanical snacks to calm his rage during a press conference promoting his new book, Liebot, after he was informed that President Bush now considers the McCaindroid his favorite robot slave.
Applause!
I just wanted to take a moment and congratulate ThinkProgress on receiving yesterday's Sidney Hillman Journalism Award as best blog.
As Liss could undoubtedly confirm, I'm a sworn devotee of ThinkProgress. Their ability to deliver such remarkable quantity and quality in such a timely fashion is unparalleled, which is why I head there several times a day.
And so, a round of applause for Faiz, Amanda, Satyam, Matt and the whole crew at TP for obtaining the recognition they deserve, and for reminding us on a daily basis that at the heart of the progressive movement is the thought of progress.
Below is a video they produced to show everyone at the awards ceremony what they're all about.
Obama's a Big Girl Watch
Shaker David emailed me about this reader post at TPM, rightfully calling out more insane sexism at HuffPo, this time directed at Obama, and referencing the New York Post op-ed about how Obama could be the first woman president.
As I said before, the fact that Democratic male candidates have been routinely demeaned using misogynistic and homophobic (and usually some combination thereof) rhetoric should have made progressives determined to combat the ugly sexism which has pervaded this primary, irrespective of at whom it was directed.
Instead, we've mostly failed utterly to defend Clinton, and an alarming number of supposed progressives joined in the "fun" and piled on, so instead of sweeping into the general on a cresting wave of misogyny-busting awesomeness, we're shuffling in with most of our swords dulled by wanton hypocrisy.
And yeah, even though Obama has occasionally not practiced what he preaches, and he and his key campaign staff have occasionally traded on sexism, I'm still going to defend him against sexist attacks anyway, because that's how feminism works and I am a feminist.
My sword is sharp as fuck, and I intend to keep it that way.
Hillary Sexism Watch, #103
A few people have now sent notes about the image currently featured at Mark Halperin's blog at Time:
To be quite honest, I don't have the foggiest fooking clue what it's even intending to convey; is Hillary Clinton supposed to be damsel in distress and train? Is this supposed to be communicating that she's her own victim, her own enemy? I don't get it. Imagery FAIL.
What I do get is the inherent sexism in any "damsel in distress" imagery, and that this is yet another in an increasingly long series of violent metaphors used in association with Clinton, where the "death" of her campaign is overtly conflated with her personal death.
It seems that, once upon a time, the progressive blogosphere was concerned with eliminationist rhetoric when it was used against Democrats/liberals/progressives. What happened to that...?
And why is it, do you think, that so many progressive bloggers were willing to take Clinton to task for carelessly invoking RFK's assassination without thought to what it might mean to people of color (just for a start), but don't seem to give the tiniest, microscopic shit that brutal, violent, morbid rhetoric and imagery is regularly and deliberately used by the mainstream media to talk about Clinton?
To those of us who blog with regularity about the violent mistreatment of women all over the globe on a daily basis, to see such indifference to eliminationist rhetoric about a liberal, feminist, female presidential candidate is utterly appalling.
[Hillary Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five, Eighty Six, Eighty-Seven, Eighty-Eight, Eighty-Nine, Ninety, Ninety-One, Ninety-Two, Ninety-Three, Ninety-Four, Ninety-Five, Ninety-Six, Ninety-Seven, Ninety-Eight, Ninety-Nine, One Hundred, 101, 102.]
Wednesday Blogaround
What's the frequency, Shakers?
Recommended Reading:
BradBlog: The NY Times Continues to Disgrace Itself
Echidne: On Chris Matthews
Mannion: Mannion Writes Letters
Jessica: Making politics "sexy." For dudes.
Recon: The Decline Of Western Civilization, Evidence No.837
Chris: Rachmaninov Had Big Hands
Also: Shaker AmandaW has moved, so update your feeds/blogrolls!
Leave your links in comments.
Safety Dance
Good news for anyone planning to get themselves blown up in the future (pay attention, citizens of Iran), a new, eco-friendly bomb is in the works. German scientists, a group with a solid history of inventing new ways to destroy things, have come up with an explosive material that is good for the environment. You know, aside from what it may vaporize, pulverize or otherwise set aflame.
No, the new explosive doesn't expel poppy seeds and windmills across the countryside when detonated, but it does produce "fewer toxic byproducts than common explosives." That's nice. It's good to know we can dig through rubble with a certain peace of mind now. Maybe they can add scents to the munitions too, that way a war zone can smell like Irish Spring or something.
I guess I'll go remove my "War is bad for children and other living things" bumper sticker from my car now.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of WTF?
[Serious spoiler warning. I mean it! I'm going to talk about the ending and everything, so don't say I didn't warn you! This is your warning: SPOILERZZZ!!!]
First, let's start with the four-word movie review: What the fuck, Spielberg?
Or, if you prefer: George Lucas hates me. Ruining Star Wars wasn't enough for this voraciously destructive dillweed; he had to go and ruin the other beloved series of my childhood, too! While you're at it, why don't you just stomp on my Strawberry Shortcake dolls, too, ya bastard?!
Okay, I can't even begin to estimate how many times I've watched the Indy films, nor do I believe I can properly convey how much this newest film had my vote to lose. I was excited as hell about it; I wanted to like it; I expected to like it; I was seeing it with Iain, who was as excited and determined to like it, and certain he would, as I was. We were eager and invested and ready to cheer.
And then came the opening scene featuring an anthropomorphized prairie dog, and my heart just sank. Oh no.
Iain and I looked at each other in the dark with furrowed brows. Still, we shook it off. One misstep. No biggie.
We gave it another chance. And another. And another. And more...through the absurd premise, the xenophobia, the terrible dialogue, the wooden acting, the clichés (oh, Maude, the clichés!), the derivative set pieces and imagery, the criminal reduction of Marion to a love-struck ninny, the appalling underutilization of John Hurt, the crap special effects, right on to the ending, at which point I watched as Cate Blanchett's character—the most interesting thing about the whole bloody film—get obliterated with...wait for it...too. much. knowledge.
Are you kidding me?
Indiana Jones is an archaeologist and a professor! His life is about the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge—and the thing about Indy is that it was often his knowledge that saved him. Even if he wasn't tougher or faster or bigger or stronger than the other guy, he was always smarter. He was adventurer and intellectual.
It's why I loved him.
So why, then, at the end of this film was I forced to watch a character—and a female character, no less—be destroyed for the terrible sin of wanting knowledge?
The Hacktacular Duo should have just named her Eve and gotten it over with.
And, by the way, remember that leaked screen shot of Shia LaBeouf punching Blanchett in the face? (Click here to see the image.) That never actually happens onscreen. Which makes Paramount's decision to leak that particular shot to generate interest for the film all the more curious.
Not only do I give this movie two thumbs down; I only wish I had a couple extra arms so I could give it even more.
Harrumph.
From the Mailbox...
I got an official-looking letter from the Republican National Committee. It contained their "census," wanting to know what the GOP should do on "important issues," such as "Should Republicans do everything they can to prevent liberal Democrats from repealing the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that help our intelligence agencies protect America?" and so forth. I answered "NO" to every question, including the one that begged for money, and instead, marked the box that said, "No, I favor electing liberal Democrats over the next ten years."
Then I found a piece of heavy cardboard that fit inside the Business Reply envelope and wrote in large letters, "I've been a registered Democrat since 1972. I am a gay man with a blog. I am your worst nightmare."
It's going in the mail in the morning.
(Cross-posted.)
Impossibly Beautiful
Men, they're coming for you:
Yes, that's Clive Owen, the "ruggedly handsome" star of the silver screen, helping Lancôme advertise their new
For the record:
The Patriarchy has heard our many cries about the manifest unfairness that men are allowed to age more gracefully than women, that we are allowed to find aging men lovely, with all their "flaws," their gray hair and rough skin and scars and wrinkles. The Patriarchy has heard us raise our voices to protest the inequity, and it has said: "Let aging men thus be deemed ugly, too."
The Patriarchy has never seen an uneven bar that couldn't be lowered for everyone.
(H/T to The Red Queen. Shaker Anna notes that Jezebel's got a post on this, too.)
[Impossibly Beautiful: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen.]
And I Thought Girlz Were Supposed to be Bad at Math
From an irritatingly stupid AP article on MSN about whether the upcoming Sex and the City movie will be a hit despite its supposedly limited appeal:
"This movie really will be a paternity test for R-rated female-driven romantic comedies," said analyst Jeff Bock of box office tracker Reel Source. "There haven't been a lot of movies like this." Bock predicts the movie will have a strong opening weekend, then a big drop-off. "There's no getting around that this is a film oriented to women and gay men," he said. "It will be very hard to get past that, especially with a lot of testosterone-driven films out there this summer."Okay, first of all, paternity test? WTF? That doesn't even make sense, douchebrain.
Secondly: Women = approximately 52% of the population. Gay men = approximately 10% of the male population. How, exactly, does that add up to a smaller potential audience than "testosterone-driven" dudely films for the straight menz?
(Oh, right. Because women will go see dick flicks, but no self-respecting straight dude would go see a ZOMG CHICK FLICK!!!11!eleventy-one!!! Except for the promise of a blowjob, of course.)
Meanwhile, the title of this idiotic pile of shite is "Can women alone make 'Sex and the City' a hit?" Well, guess the fuck what? If gay men are planning on going to Sex and the City in large numbers (and they fookin' are!), that alone makes the question moot now, doesn't it?!
[H/T to Shaker Kristin.]
Sydney Pollack RIP
Veteran director and actor Sydney Pollack died yesterday. Among his more memorable films were Absence of Malice, Out of Africa, and the American classic Tootsie. During his prolific carreer he produced and directed over 40 films, starred in numerous others and even managed to make appearances on TV shows as diverse as King of the Hill, Will & Grace, and The Sopranos.
Pollack was widely admired and respected by his collegues and peers. Upon his passing, George Clooney said "Sydney made the world a little better, movies a little better and even dinner a little better. A tip of the hat to a class act. He'll be missed terribly."
Michael Apted commented "Sydney let the dialogue and the emotion of a scene speak for itself. Not given to cinematic tricks, his gentle and thoughtful touch and his focus on the story let us inhabit the world he created in each film." High praise, if you ask me.
Recount, a dramatization of the 2000 election, a film on which Pollack served as executive producer, is now airing on HBO. Made of Honor, co-starring Pollack, is now in theaters.
Little Stuff; Big Problems
As I've said before, being a feminist/womanist woman moving through this culture means there's a lot of stuff you have to ignore just to get through the day without becoming paralyzingly depressed about the plethoric examples of your inequality. This is one of those "little things" across which I stumble with frustrating regularity...
I was just reading an article at TNR (my first mistake) about MSNBC's election coverage when I found this sentence:
If you are someone who gets his international and "hard" news elsewhere, MSNBC is particularly appealing.Now I know I'm a crazy feminazi and all, but using "his" there instead of "yours" not only makes that sentence construction just all kinds of awkward and nonsensical, but also alienating to feminist readers. You see, it's not just the typical (infuriating) use of gendered (male) language as the default, but its use immediately after the second person you, thusly implicitly presuming that you, the reader, are male.
(And spare me the grammar rules arguments. I can write that sentence six different ways without alienating female readers while simultaneously improving on the second- and third-person discordance.)
Yes, it's a "little thing," but it's a big problem. It reflects the mind of a man who thinks he is only talking to men. And in an article, no less, casually dismissing Clinton's complaints about sexism in the media as overwrought (though not totally without merit; gee, how magnanimous). Does anyone else see the inherent conflict there?
And that's why I've also said before that focusing on the "little stuff," when we do, is not a bad idea, given that the "little stuff" is the fertile soil in which everything else takes root and from whence everything else springs, that it's via the "little stuff" that the fundamental idea that women are not equal to men is conveyed over and over and over again.
Of Course He Is
Senator Joseph Lieberman scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee's 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit.
Yeah, this Pastor Hagee.
Shaker Gourmet: Crème Brûlée
Our recipe comes via Maurinsky of the blog, Laughing Wild, who says: "We made a batch last night, and it is divine. It's a little fluffier than the crème brûlée we had in France (because I was whipping a little too fervently when tempering the eggs, I think), but so, so lovely."
Maurinsky also notes: "Just an FYI, if you decide to make this: don't use brown sugar on top. My husband did that and it was more crème flambé than crème brûlée."Crème Brûlée
2 cups heavy cream
1/4 cup sugar
4 egg yolks
pinch of salt
vanilla bean seeds (1/2 a bean, split, seeds scraped out)
sugar to top
Preheat oven to 350. In medium saucepan, mix together the cream, sugar, and salt. Place over low heat until just steaming (should happen as it just starts to bubble). In a mixing bowl, mix together the 4 yolks until smooth. Temper the eggs by slowly adding a tablespoon of the cream mixture, while vigorously mixing the eggs (we do not want scrambled eggs). When about half the cream mixture has been added to the eggs, then mix the egg mixture back into the cream mixture - again, not too fast. Add the vanilla bean seeds in and mix. Then fill custard cups and place them in a pan. Fill the pan with water so it reaches halfway up the sides of the custard cups. Bake at 350 for 40-45 minutes - the custard should be mostly firm but not completely firm at the center.
Chill for a minimum of 2 hours.
Cover the top of each custard with sugar (I put the remainder of the vanilla bean into the sugar jar, so I used vanilla scented sugar). Either place under the broiler or use a kitchen torch to melt the sugar. Let it sit for a few minutes before serving.
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me (include a blog link!) at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.com
