- Heteronormative assumptions: equivalent to assuming a character's whiteness?
- When does something become canon? Was the Silmarillion canon before publication? Are Rowling's notes? What of the oft-alluded Potter encyclopedia she claims to be planning?
- This was not exactly a bolt from the blue.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Megan McArdle is right that Ivy League snobbery is rampant in D.C. I have friends who feel undeservedly inferior, despite their many stellar achievements and non-Ivy degrees.
It seems reasonable at this point to recall the research on outcomes for Ivy attenders and Ivy-admitted non-attenders. If you could have gotten into an Ivy but didn't [go], congrats! Your life is just as great as it would have been with an Ivy degree.
(Last sentence edited for clarity).
Sunday, October 28, 2007
If large enough numbers of Americans start flying to South America to look for cheap health care, that’ll reduce the demand for health insurance. The health insurance industry will pull some strings, and air travel will become more difficult for people traveling for medical purposes.Wha?
Saturday, October 27, 2007
8 ounces bacon (about 8 slices) cut into 1/2-inch pieces
2 large eggs
2 large egg yolks
1 cup whole milk
1 cup heavy cream
1/2 teaspoon table salt
1/2 teaspoon ground white pepper
1 pinch fresh grated nutmeg
4 ounces Gruyère cheese, grated (1/2 cup)
1 9-inch partially baked pie shell (warm), baked until light golden brown
1. Heat oven to 375 degrees. Fry bacon in skillet over medium heat until crisp and brown, about 5 minutes. Transfer with slotted spoon to paper towel–lined plate. Meanwhile, whisk all remaining ingredients except cheese in medium bowl.2. Spread cheese and bacon evenly over bottom of warm pie shell and set shell on oven rack. Pour in custard mixture to 1/2-inch below crust rim. Bake until lightly golden brown and a knife blade inserted about one inch from the edge comes out clean, and center feels set but soft like gelatin, 32 to 35 minutes. Transfer quiche to rack to cool. Serve warm or at room temperature.
Next time, I will omit or reduce the salt and roll the dough between sheets of plastic wrap. It is still very tasty, though.
Friday, October 26, 2007
it had never occurred to me that when you bribe a hotel clerk for a room, this is what you are bribing them to do to someone. Thankfully, I've never bribed anyone--I lack the chutzpah--but I'd feel pretty awful if I had, and I'll never laugh at it when someone else tells such a story again.Nearly everyone agrees that the desk clerk (who gave away McArdle's room and then lied about it) was in the wrong. But is it wrong to bribe desk clerks in this way?* If you say it isn't, do you also believe that attempting to seduce someone in a committed relationship is morally neutral? What if both victims were compensated (a room found at another hotel, a setup with someone compatible, money)?
* Presumably there are less problematic bribes; you might want to switch rooms in a hotel that does not assign them at the time of reservation or to upgrade to a better class of room if there is one unreserved. Neither of these would cheat another guest out of something they were entitled to under the benefits of their bargain and thus they seem less unjust.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
This paper arguing for a "cultural theory of Mary Sue fiction as fair use" would be good if the authors actually knew what a Mary Sue is. Haven't they heard of Marty Stus? For every person writing fanfic who is consciously or unconsciously responding to cultural subjugation of women and minorities, there are five hundred unrepentant narcissists and slavering lustbunnies whose only motivation is to gratify themselves in the simplest and most uncomplicated of ways.
If they boot Amber the cutthroat bitch from House I am going to be so ticked. (NO SPOILERS IN THE COMMENTS.)
Vote for your favorite student blogger to get $10,000.
I like sexy children's costumes, if only because the women's "one-size" costumes swallow me but the girls' XL fits just fine.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
I. The supposed villain turns out not to be villainous at all.Magneto is a popular choice, and Ilya Somin makes a good case for Gordon Gekko. I never understood what people had against Captain Ahab, but I'm an odd duck. I recently rewatched The Piano and found myself sympathizing, against my will, with the cuckold.
II. [You] sympathize with the villain because [you] disagree with the story's ideological message.
III. The villain isn't really responsible for his actions.
IV. The villain turns out to be the lesser of two evils.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
"Drunk" women can't be raped?
Fantasy baseball fans can thank Judge Morris Arnold for saving their version of America's pastime from the clutches of MLB.
Best shopping search engine ever.
UPDATED: Resolved: The opposite of rape is not consent. The opposite of rape is enthusiasm.
Todd Solondz's Storytelling illustrated this dynamic in an interesting way.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
A kid who doesn't sleep properly is functionally equivalent to a kid with lead poisoning. But who cares as long as the football team goes all the way?
Then again, what do I know? I'm just a bitter, unsporty former high schooler who had to get up at 5:30 (5:00 on ROTC days) to catch a 6:15 bus to my first class at 7:30.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
People have a legal right to mutter "bitch" as I walk past, blog extensively about how fat and unattractive I am, or ignore my ideas on the grounds that Irish Catholics are naturally stupid. Businesses have a legal right to provide sullen and unhelpful salespeople, filthy premises, and cheaply made products that fall apart one day after the warranty expires. All Americans have the legal right to say nasty things to their spouses, watch football instead of talking to their kids, stop bathing, and drop dear old friends in favor of richer, more attractive ones.
I would not dream of making any of these things against the law. But I can still be appalled when people do them. Being a libertarian means recognizing the limits of the formal legal system to regulate human behavior--not recognizing the formal legal system as the only limitation on human behavior.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
proof, going back at least three generations and attested to by an Orthodox rabbi, of the candidates’ kosher bona fides. This disqualifies the vast majority of American Jews, who have no such proof. “We won’t take them — not even if we go back three or four generations — if someone in their line was married by a Reform or Conservative rabbi, because they don’t perform marriages according to Orthodox law,” [the chief rabbi] said.Boys also appear to follow their fathers into family businesses, to the detriment of continued secular education. Women's status and autonomy seem low.* The article has provoked negative reactions from Muslims and Harry-Potter-loving J-dubs and inspired Ms. Maltz to quip that the article's subjects are "soon to be the most-despised community in America."
Anyway, it reminded me of this issue, as well as U.S. Const. art. III, § 3. It also provoked a heated discussion with Steve on the relative objectionability of the aforementioned practices, however they are actually followed and regardless of which group practices them. Nothing highlights the universality of patriarchy like a rousing comparative religious debate.
* The article has several internal inconsistencies and some claim that the intermarriage barrier is slightly more permeable than the article makes out. I'm sure this will be clarified in days to come.
UPDATE: Still no sign. If you go to hip nightclubs, though, this might be right up your alley.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
"Why must women of color be a second choice for white men?"
Monday, October 08, 2007
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Friday, October 05, 2007
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
UPDATE: The subject of one of the photos is incensed about this "bullshit blog and its commenters." Here is her response:
There is of course a (slim?) distinction the words between "pretty" and "beautiful," which Kate Harding, the creator of the project, used to describe the women pictured, and the terms connoting sexual appeal which commenters used here. Now that it has become apparent that sexualized comments are unwelcome, future offense may be avoided. But it seems a bit much to submit a photo for a project about bodies and how they relate to the BMI scale and then complain that readers are discussing your body and how it relates to the BMI scale.
My picture on Kate’s blog was identified as an anomaly — in the readers’ opinions, I’m the only one who didn’t meet the BMI category of overweight. I was also described as bangin‘ and hot.
Yeah, I know, it’s so flattering to read comments about my body and how it relates to the BMI scale. I also love how strange people feel inclined to comment upon my appearance and suggest that I dress well for my weight. Another reader suggests that the picture is somehow strategically chosen to represent my body at its best.
The only thing strategic about the picture is the fact that my hair looks somewhat decent. The rest is me - 100%, unedited Laurie Ruettimann. I do look fabulous, of course, but I looked fabulous when I weighed 170 lbs. I didn’t lose weight to lose weight. I lost weight to reclaim my right to own my moods and my depression. (emphasis added)
Like Ms. Ruettimann, I am five feet tall. I envy her bone structure and musculature; if I weighed 130 pounds, I would certainly not look "fabulous," and at 170 pounds I would be even less so.