Usually I just donate a few bucks to the cause and don’t bother writing, but this year I decided to go through with the whole thing. The last time I tried was perhaps seven or eight years ago, when it was sadly cut off by my getting a job that paid hourly with unlimited overtime. It’s a bit hard to sneak in half an hour or an hour a day writing when you can, quite literally, instead turn that time into money.

Given that the whole point of NaNo is quantity, not quality, I made some deliberate choices that made the process go more smoothly.

Continue reading »

Nov 142010
 

John Scalzi links to a New York Times online feature called “You Fix the Budget“, which purports to let you eliminate various categories of spending and raise various categories of income to come up with a ‘projected’ budget. Of course, despite the impressive credentials, this is an online exercise put together by journalists, which means it has one moderate problem and one extremely serious problem:

The moderate problem is that the descriptions of each category are oversimplified, in some cases are policy statements having not much to do with reality (such as medical malpractice ‘reform’) or are laughably vague (what are those ‘other’ cuts going to look like, exactly?), and considers nothing but the net effect on the deficit – ignoring externalities, societal costs and, really, anything except ‘deficit, plus/minus’.

The serious problem is that, as you can see from comments not only at Whatever but elsewhere on the Internet, people are completely oblivious to the existence of the moderate problem. “Why, that was easy,” they say. “Why can’t our lawmakers figure this out? It’s not hard!”

Indeed, it’s not hard to push numbers around and come up with a surplus, when you’re working with extremely limited information and don’t have to care one way or the other about anything other than whether the “projected” result helps the deficit. It’s quite a bit harder in the real world, where things like public safety and unemployment are also important considerations.

It’s an economics version of  “My kid could paint that!”

Apr 042010
 

Finally got the tea cookies right! Or so Samwise tells me. I hate tea.

Preheat your oven to 375 degrees. Line a cookie sheet with parchment or grease lightly.

1/4 cup loose darjeeling tea leaves
1/3 cup boiling water
2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1 cup sugar
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon ground cardamom
1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, softened
1/2 teaspoon rose flower water (optional)

Put the tea leaves in a mug and pour the boiling water over them. Allow them to steep, stirring occasionally, for 10 minutes. Strain the tea through a fine strainer into another cup, pressing on the leaves to get as much liquid out as possible. Add the rose flower water to the tea.

Meanwhile, combine all the dry ingredients in the bowl of a mixer (you can also do this by hand, but it’s more work). Beat in the butter a few tablespoons at a time, incorporating it into the flour. Beat for another minute until the mixture is crumbly. Add the tea/rose water and beat for a minute or so until the dough comes together.

Pinch off a piece of dough about 1″ across (smaller than a ping-pong ball) and roll into a ball. Put it on the cookie sheet and flatten with your hand so it is a disc about 1/2″ thick. Repeat with the remaining dough until you have filled up the cookie sheet, leaving about an inch of space in between. On an average size cookie sheet you should be able to fit a dozen cookies.

Bake for 15-17 minutes until just firm but not brown. Remove from the cookie sheet immediately and put on a rack or plate to cool. Makes about 18.

Jan 012010
 

If I never see 2009 again, it’ll be too soon.

Elmore Leonard

 Comments Off
Sep 142009
 

He writes some pretty good mysteries, sure, but the man is the Ernest Hemingway of Westerns.

 

I’m really too tired to go around punching people in the mouth today. So: if you find yourself tempted to post one of the following things to the Internet, or God forbid saying one of them sincerely in conversation, would you kindly punch yourself in the mouth? Thanks.

  • “IANAL, but….”
  • Anything describing how when you were a kid, [commonly accepted safety requirement] either didn’t exist or wasn’t used, and WE all turned out fine.
  • Pretty much any sentence ending in “….and WE all turned out fine.”
  • Support of tort-reform measures, unless you are a defense attorney or in some capacity employed by the Chamber of Commerce, PHRMA or the Republican Party, because at least then you’re getting paid for it.
  • Any argument suggesting that matters of taste are actually matters of absolute truth. (“How can you not like strawberry ice cream? Strawberry ice cream is yummy!”)
  • Statements about “religion” which make clear that you think “religion” is a synonym for “those annoying fundamentalist Christians who I had to deal with in the small town I grew up in”.
  • A belief that any sexually explicit material, behavior or conversation is perfectly reasonable to have, display or wave around anywhere, anytime, because The Human Body Is Beautiful And Sex Is Natural. If you apply this standard to behavior that normal people would agree is sexual harassment, punch yourself in the mouth twice.
  • Huffily stomping out of a discussion with a promise never to return. Yeah, that ever happens on the Internet.

I’m sure there’s more but your knuckles are probably split and bleeding as it is. We can pick up where we left off tomorrow.

 

Because Obama is going to indoctrinate America’s schoolchildren with the socialist, Marx-hugging message that they should stay in school, work hard and take responsibility for their learning!

And I absolutely want people who are stupid enough to believe that to keep their kids out of school that day. For every Wingnut, Jr. who doesn’t have the “work hard and do well” message reinforced, and who’s taught that education is a Commie plot, my kids have that much more of an edge. Rock on, wingnuts!

 

We’ve been thinking about replacing the 15-year-old Lesbaru wagon with a more commuting-friendly car and, as it’s about time for me to have my midlife crisis, I have decided that what we need is something more like the car our neighbors are selling:

1957 Chevrolet 210

Samwise is baffled, probably because he grew up in the wrong part of Michigan and thinks we should get, I don’t know, a modern newish car with good gas mileage and crumple zones and that. He’s being a total dick about this. I mean, I’d settle for an Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight or for a classic Cadillac!

 

I cannot describe the horror of this flashmob video that the Queen sent me, and yet I must — IÄ! IÄ!

 

Amanda already said quite a bit of what I was thinking about the stupidity of Michael Pollan’s recent article in the New York Times Magazine, though her main point is that if you’re writing for the NYT, you need to be fashionably ‘postfeminist’. That’s the nice version. Myself, I throw in a dash of cynicism that, having written a couple of books and needing a follow-up quick, Pollan has fallen back on the old back-in-my-day, world-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket that is just so much more salable when it’s about the loss of June Cleaver’s home cooking.

Pollan’s column is a sad example of a very unpleasant strain of Slow Food thinking; the ideal cook is a boho Trustafarian with unlimited money and time for meal preparation, and to the extent that the average woman cooking for her family doesn’t fit that mold, it’s a personal failing on her part.

Mollie Katzen pointed out some of the dangers of this thinking in a comment about her original Moosewood Cookbook: everybody she knew was an artsy slacker or a grad student, who could easily adjust their schedules to drift in and out of the kitchen all day long if they had too.  The Slow Food movement is notorious for this kind of thinking, which you can understand in a grad student but is pathetic in a grown adult who can afford to buy hand-nurtured organic locally-grown zucchini blossoms.

And Pollan’s column combines this with a gobsmacking, unbelievably stupid paen to the fantasy that our grandmothers were the original Slow Food pioneers.  Yes, my grandmother raised, killed and butchered chickens. That’s because she was poor, and it was cheaper to feed them on scraps and garden bugs rather than buy them at the butcher’s, not because she cherished the flavor of organic, hand-reared poultry. She certainly used pre-prepared foods and canned things whenever she could, as this was the era of the Modern Kitchen and manufacturers who printed tons of recipes using their products. As grolby pointed out in the comments at Pandagon:

From-scratch cooking had long since been seriously encroached upon by the processed food industry by the time Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique. Which is to say that, by his definition, many people were already not cooking, and so laying any responsibility at the feet of feminism is historically incorrect and irresponsible.

I’m being a little unfair, in that there really is a segment of the Slow Food movement that wants healthy, delicious, sustainable food to be available to everyone, not just those who can afford to spend $10 on a tomato or who can spend six hours making dinner because the nanny and housekeeper are taking care of everything else. Pollan doesn’t appear to be part of that crowd. But then, they’re not the ones getting checks from the NYT.

© 2012 mythago Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha