Awww

Aww, I read the Vows column from yesterday, and I guess this was posted when I was away, but I really wish these kids the best.

A thorough ribbing, not necessarily undeserved

I like to read the Food section of the New York Times when I have a few minutes and find myself in front of the computer. I bake and cook when I get the mood, and I’m always looking for good recipes. This week’s Frank Bruni column focused on a challenge given to two food writers: feed a party of 8 for less than $50. I thought the article was interesting, and liked the ideas that I got from it, even though I know that it’s not at all difficult to serve 6 people a complete meal for $50 or less.

Still, I got a kick out of the way that the Jezebel community reacted to the story. In addition to being up in arms and making fun of stupid food reporters, chefs, the New York Times, and printed media in general, the Jezzies added something of even more value than humor: recipes. Most of them were in the vein of “tostitos, dip, coffee, etc” but a few (including Sadie’s recipe that she posted along with her reaction to the article) looked like something I’d in all seriousness make and eat. Thank you, Jezebel! I shall be eating cheaply for ages, now!

Whatever, Mo

I wish that Maureen Dowd was a dude, so that I could kick her in the junk. She’s always saying stupid things, and nothing makes her happy. First she tried throughout the campaign to imply that President Obama was weak and unmanly, and now that he has the most important job on the planet, she’s calling him elitist and arrogant. If he keeps his promises to Democrats, she says that he’s ignoring Republicans. If he reaches out to Republicans, she accuses him of ignoring those who put him in power. What does she want from him? Does she understand that life does not exist only at the ends of a spectrum?

I find Maureen Dowd obnoxious, and I do not for one minute believe that that is her actual hair color.

You learn something new every day

I hate it when The New York Times uses terms without definition, as if anybody should automatically understand exactly what is meant. It’s pretty lazy, especially considering the fact that they often link to more information about terms, people, places, and events that are mentioned in their articles.

I was reading this article today, which speaks about the Supreme Court revisiting the exclusionary rule, which states that “evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.” That definition was provided by the Times. Anyway, The Court is recently ruled that not all types of police misconduct should automatically exclude the admission of evidence into legal proceedings.

I found the article to be fascinating, but I was a little confused by the phrase “Warren Court,” which was used several times through the article without any background information being given. I kind of knew that there had been a chief justice named Warren, but I didn’t know when that was or why it was significant to this particular issue. Enter Wikipedia. I know, I know. Librarians should not get their information from a web site that can be edited by anybody (at least for now), but I find it to be a good starting point, and if I really needed more in-depth information, I have tons of databases at my disposal. So anyway, according to Wikipedia, the Warren Court “represents a period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States that was marked by one of the starkest and most dramatic changes in judicial power and philosophy. Led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court expanded civil rights, liberties, the judicial power, and the federal governmental power in ways previously unseen.”

The article also talked about the current and former compositions of the Supreme Court, and how the this ruling may signal a change in other exclusionary rule cases. For more information on the doings of the Supreme Court, you can visit SCOTUSblog.

Then they came for the librarians

I don’t normally end up laughing in actual amusement when I read editorials in the New York Times. Mostly, I’m laughing in disbelief, like “Did s/he really just say that?” So I was pretty shocked today to find what Gail Collins had to say to be both salient and amusing. The salience was already the icing on the cake, so the amusement factor was wholly unexpected, yet appreciated. Here’s the column.

Apparently, my nausea last night meant that I missed the part where Palin bragged about threatening to fire the town librarian for refusing to censor books. Sorry, but even if the rest of your speech didn’t make me feel ill, I would never have cheered at the thought of using mayoral power to threaten a librarian. It’s not the job of librarians to censor books. If you’re concerned with your children’s reading habits, or what they may be exposed to, visit the library with them and talk about what you do or do not want them to read. This is another part of parenting. I think enough people have piled onto Palin’s parental fitness with not nearly enough evidence, so I don’t say that expecting the library to do this is bad parenting. I will, however, say that it is passing off important family decisions that people probably should not expect strangers to make for them.