Sages and scholars are locked in frightfull combat over this issue. What is the correct usage? Is it "thingy" or "thingie." Enquiring minds want to know.
on
| § 0
I went to a friend's birthday party on Saturday (yeeees... I have friends) in Boston. The venue was a Chinese restaurant near Government Center, replete with muted decor, muted house music, and an extensive menu of tropical-themed novelty drinks. My unfailing instincts led me to order a "Suffering Bastard," which I can say with all confidence is the worst drink I have ever not enjoyed. Which is to say there are a great many bad drinks out there that I enjoy very much, but the "Suffering Bastard" was not among them. Perhaps I should have let the name be my first warning.
The recipe should have been my second:
1 oz Gin
1 oz Bourbon
1/2 oz Lime juice
1 dash Bitters
Top off with Ginger ale
Serve with pineapple slice, cherry, and lime slice
Yes, yes, Devil Gin in there mixing with Old Man Whiskey. A smarter man would have stuck with the Sake Martini or Kumquat Mojito, but I, not being the Sake Martini or little-umbrella type, am not smart. Luckily, the bartender reedemed himself with a perfect Sidecar (thanks to Spiral Dive for the pointer!) and I was able to stagger away unharmed.
Which brings me to my question. What is the best bad drink you have ever had?
Mine is the
Screaming Nazi:
1 oz Rumple Minze, ice cold
1 oz Jaegermeister, ice cold
Pour together in frozen cordial glass and shoot. Repeat. Stagger heaving for the garbage can. [n.b. This drink nearly killed me once. Your mileage may vary.]
though I am also fond of this drink, the name of which I shall not repeat here. The taste is great, though the... erm... texture... leaves something to be desired:
1 oz Bailey's Irish Cream
6 oz Orange Juice, chilled
Combine in Collins glass without ice. Drink, enjoy, then grimace.
on
| § 0
"Pythagosaurus"
Came across this one in a compendium of stupid things that have appeared in college papers. I laughed so hard I almost had a seizure.
I'm thinking of changing my pundit alias to "Pythagosaurus." Rawrr! I smash you with logic and reason!! Rawrrr!
on
| § 2
I'm not even thirty, and I have already been left behind by the great carousel of hipness.
(Is hipness a carousel? If so, what an excruciating ride that must be. Hundreds of painfully skinny young people in ironic t-shirts and expensively dirty hair, riding the zebras and lions while trying their best to look bored, stealing looks at the brass ring as it floats by-- brass rings, how quaint, they think, but nobody (else) actually wants it, do they? Do they? A carousel does suggest the proper frivolity to describe hipness, and the circular insularity of the carousel is as good a metaphor as any for the self-referential scene-making intrinsic in any hipster activity. (Some days I really miss grad school, where shit like this was taken dead seriously and I could get away with spinning horseshit and snoozing.))
I am not yet thirty and have been left behind by the great carousel of hipness. I mean, seriously. Low-cut jeans? When I see asscrack peeking out of a women's jeans, I don't think sexy thoughts but rather ardently hope the wearer of the jeans has remembered to wipe thoroughly. Her message of sensuality unleashed translates to me as a plea for personal hygiene.
The ten-minute trucker hat craze left me totally bewildered... I know lots of places where you can pick up a mesh hat and a quart of oil for $1.25, yet in Manhattan it may yet be chic to pay $225 for the thing. Ashton Kucher is going to have a lot to answer for, some day.
And yet I still know funny when I see it.
Via Boston blogger Bradley's Almanac and Fear of a Female Planet comes this gem: Hipster Bingo! Where I work, I would win at this game every day. Damn kids.
on
| § 1
That phrase once made me think of Forrest Whittaker. Now, I have to admit that I actually like the new show on Bravo, Queer eye on the straight guy. (Is Bravo now the queer network?) (You can't say that. - ed.) (Shut the hell up, nancy boy. - me) The episode with the artist guy Butch (seriously?) was quite fun. The fashion queer is over the top; snarky, bitchy and fun. The cooking queer is anal, like Phil Hartman's anal retentive chef. And I got a hair care tip from the grooming queer. Good all around.
on
| § 1
I've been meaning to write about this all week. On the music network Fuse, which I was not even aware of until last Tuesday, they have a show called Kung Faux. It is hard to even begin to describe it, but it is kick ass, ass-whuppin' funny.
Basic concept: Take old kung fu movie. Remove soundtrack. Replace with hip hop. Redub movie with a new script, and all the actors sound like Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction. Add psychedelic special effects whenever something gets hit.
Net effect: I fell off my couch and startled my 2 1/2 month old son he started crying. And I still couldn't stop laughing.
Check your local listings.
on
| § 0
Ross (Loyal reader #0006) and I have talked about this a lot. The scary thing is not so much that the boomers are going to eat their young, but the absolute lack of compunction or restraint they show in pursuing their goals. They see no need to justify what they are doing, assume that it is right, and viciously attack any who even question it. "Do you want grandma to have to eat cat food because she can't afford her angina meds?" Well, no actually. But I would like to have an income in 2020.
They are going far beyond simply providing for the needs of the elderly. As a group, the old are the rich. Now they want our stuff too? This is greed, pure and simple. But we have always known that the boomers were greedy and selfish. What two words from american culture best capture self centeredness and avarice? Hippies and Yuppies. Remember, these two groups were the same people, separated only by the me decade.
Unless these new benefits are means tested, it is generational assault.
on
| § 0
Buckethead,
For my part I became suspicious over the uranium thingy (as you so eloquently put it) when the administration began spinning feverishly over such a little question. I have noted before the lies, damn lies, howlers, and bullshit that various members of the President's staff reeled off, none of them quite jibing with the other. Condi said one thing. Bush said another. Then Bush altered recent history. Then Ari the Master altered more history. Then Rummy chimed in. Then Powell, Tenet, and a whole Geek Chorus of right-wing minipundits, all assuring people like me that no, there is nothing to worry about, but each differing about what it was I should not worry about.
So, maybe I am reading too much into this situation, but the stammering evasiveness with which the uranium story has been met does nothing to assure me that the people responsible for keeping the facts straight are certain which facts they know.
I see smoke, I think fire.
It could be a simple matter of the left and right hands not working together. But when I hear other rumblings from the military, the Pentagon, and State ( or when I see any infighting this intense anywhere), and when I see that not even one head has rolled despite the CIA and FBI's continued bumbling, when a little matter of speech-vetting becomes the hottest potato of the year, and when I hear the ballsiest doublespeak I have EVER heard from a President not named Bill roll trippingly off Dubya's tongue, I begin to suspect that the small matter of uranium represents a systemic tendency on the part of the President and his advisors to cut important corners, lie, cajole, and ignore inconvenient truths✶"truths" of course, meaning "principles" or "opinions." Truth is an illusion, lunchtruth doubly so.. Every President does it. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
And, Buckethead, on the matter of impeachment. Clinton got impeached because he accepted a blow-job and then lied about it. If you ask me, the Republicans set the bar pretty damn low.
on
| § 0
I really don't see why the left is having such a hissy fit over this. The President correctly and truthfully stated that the British thought Saddam tried to buy Uranium from Africa. Apparently, the British based that conclusion on French intelligence - and surely they weren't trying to aid the cause of the American President. And the British government (backed by a parliamentary investigative committee) still maintains that its report is true.
And in any event, our decision to go to war was not based on those sixteen words. At most, they were a factor in our decision. And if it could be proved now that Saddam didn't try to buy the Uranium (and CIA reports going back several years indicated that he was trying to get it from three other African nations as well) that doesn't change the fact that we were acting on the intelligence available at the time, which included far more than just this one bit.
This tired refrain of "what did he know and when did he know it" is, well, tiresome. A democratic CIA director has accepted whatever blame there is to be had. Some of the more hysterical dem presidential candidates are talking impeachment, and using Clinton as a touchstone. Personally, I wouldn't have gone there, but it is a ridiculous comparison.
The defensiveness of some administration flunkies is to be deplored, honesty being the best policy, and forthrightness being a close second. But still, making such huge deal of this suggests to me at least that this is the largest caliber ammunition that they have. And to mix metaphors, it is a thin reed to lean on.
on
| § 0
Buckethead, I read that bleat too-- good stuff. However, I think it's possible make too much out of the assertion that it's 9/12/2001 for a long time to come. Last time I looked at the calendar, it was July 18.
I recognize the point Lileks is making, and I even agree with him somewhat. Things are different now, and they always will be. The river only flows in one direction. I saw the news-recycled bits of Tony Blair's speech, and it stirred me. What a great speaker! But there comes a point when the bloody shirt has been waved once too often, and for me that point is coming soon. I have serious questions about our government's honesty, motives, and state of mind, and the ongoing needs of the libervasion of Iraq are not an excuse from clearing the air.
From a President who promised no more Clintonian hair-splitting (and no nation-building), we have gotten both. I'm in favor of advancing the cause of democracy in Iraq, but I'm also in favor of finding out what the actual story is. Although many claim them to be, these actions are not mutually exclusive. The fact that we are now actively involved in fighting terrorists does not imply a vacation from accountability and simple straightforwardness. We seem to be entering a phase of the bickering where the following happens:
Curious Critic (possibly traitor): So did you know the uranium line was shaky when you used it in the State of the Union?
Administration flack: We lowered taxes!
CC(pt): Well, when did you know the uranium line was unreliable?
Af: Perscription drugs! Education!
CC(pt): Who okayed that line in the SOTU?
Af: Well, that depends on what your definition of "in" is.
CC(pt): I don't mean to sound like an a-hole here, but things aren't super-great right now what with the job market and all, and my kid was supposed to be home from Iraq three months ago. Also, my paycheck doesn't really look any smaller than it was. What gives?
Af: We're at WAR here, people!
Tony Blair's speech was beautiful, a marvel of modern oratory and composition. But talk is talk, and I'm waiting to see what actually happens (and, for that matter, what actually happened.) I'm not a knee-jerk Bush hater, but over the last six or eight months I've started to get that feeling where you look around the poker table, and you can't tell who the sucker is.
[moreover] 1:30 PM: Everything else aside, Lileks is right on about Tony Blair. What a class act. Unreconstructed socialist or not, he's a good person to have in charge right now.
[moreover] 1:45 PM: One thing our President is very good at is doublespeak. "Clean Air Act," my foot.
on
| § 0
