big bad barry obama

i can't believe i'd never heard this before. fucking right.

also, i promise non-twitter (UGH) length posts again soon.

your new imaginary boyfriend

if he's not already.

junot diaz, author of the INCOMPARABLE "brief and wondrous life of oscar wao", is charming and witty and insightful and, well, wonderful. this should be required listening.

life imitates art.

this is literally out of an episode of 30 rock.

excuse me, your geek is showing.

how can you not love these guys?

Middle East Upstairs (boston)
Sun 5/24
Harry and the Potters present WizRock iz Dead: a WizHop BLOWOUT with Swish and Flick, Dumbledore, Big Whompy, MC Kreacher, DJFF, MC Remus and the Lupins, Griz-ed & Fiz-orge – All Ages $10 – NOTE: 1pm Doors

hmm, overcompensation much, kim jong-il?

okok. i know it's been said before, but i truly can't take the nuclear threat from north korea that seriously when such an unfortunate homonym is being bandied about in Serious News Reports.

the latest on north korea's Type-o-dong 2 BALL-istic missile technology.

"[T]he United Nations tumbled into a disarray over how to respond to what President Obama called a “provocative act.” Washington and Seoul said the North Korean rocket launched on Sunday failed to thrust a satellite into orbit...Peter Hayes, director of the Nautilus Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank, said the main motivation behind the launch was “to demonstrate the strength and vitality of Kim Jong Il’s leadership to the military and the population, and for the scientific sector to declare its fealty to Kim Jong Il’s leadership.” ...When North Korea first flight-tested the Taepodong-2, in July 2006, it blew apart 40 seconds after take-off."

don't worry, kim. i hear it happens to all world leaders at some point. doesn't make you any less of a man.

support harold koh

oh sweet jesus. what a bunch of human dildos are the far right.

this article pretty much sums up the utter crock of shit that's being flung around about this nomination.

oh, and if yer on that face-thing all the kids are dancing to, join this group.

blogrollcall

graphic feminism: one of our student workers, a senior this year, started and maintained this project. crazy smart, provocative, and easily the most aesthetically pleasing blog i've linked to so far.

vogue republic: some more friends from college with eclectic tastes (as you can see from the tag list). could just as easily be called "smart people talking about interesting things". something for everyone.

schott's vocab: obviously, i don't actually know this guy, but as a kid who read used to read constantly because she didn't have friends between the ages of 9 and 13, this sort of thing just makes me tingle.


i can haz a link to ur blog?

april music dump: concerts

running a little late this month, but here is a preview of concerts i'd like to hit...review of music acquisitions forthcoming (still working through some of them).

4/8: Margot and the Nuclear So and So's @ Toad's (new haven)

4/8: Ray LaMontagne @Schubert Theater (new haven)

4/9: Someone Still Loves You, Boris Yeltsin @ Mercury Lounge (nyc)

4/10 Amazing Ghost @ Cafe Nine (new haven)

4/15 Nada Surf @the bellhouse (nyc)

4/16 Damien Jurado @ TT The Bears (boston)

4/18 Yale FES Environmental Film Festival @GYPSCY (new haven)

4/19: Of Montreal @ Toad's (new haven)

4/20 Jedi Mind Tricks @ Toad's (new haven)

4/21: Ratatat @ Terminal 5 (nyc)

4/23 Simian Mobile Disco @ Highline Ballroom (nyc)

4/23 Shiny Toy Guns @ Webster Hall (nyc)

4/25: Kid Sister @Bowery Ballroom (nyc)

4/27 KRS-One @Toad's (new haven)

4/28 Girl Talk, N*E*R*D, Wale @Yale Spring Fling (new haven)

5/7 Cut Off Your Hands @ Mercury Lounge (nyc)

5/12 - The Pains of Being Pure at Heart @ Bowery Ballroom (nyc)

5/14 Thao With the Get Down Stay Down @ Bowery Ballroom (nyc)

spiced goat cheese wontons and orange-coconut reduction

yeah...sounds wicked fancy (although it's not)...and i did, in fact, royally screw up thos this desert idea the first time i tried it, having not bothered to consider the relatively low smoking point of butter, or to look up exactly what you do when you make a reduction. in any case, when i tried this whole thing again when i was at my parents' house a few weeks ago, it turned out much better, and i got the thoughtful feedback of two of my favorite foodies: my mom and uncle (my brother and father, though i love them dearly, are goat-like in their indiscriminate consumption of pretty much any old crap).

orange-coconut-chai reduction
(i've got to come up with a better name for this.)
in a small saucepan, bring pulp-free orange juice to a boil. steep several chai tea bags in the oj for a few minutes, but don't let it get bitter. pour enough light (organic, if possible) coconut milk to double the volume. then (and i guess this is how you do reductions), heat the crap out of it, stirring regularly, until it halves its volume and gets thick. if you want it sweet(er), i stir in some honey or agave nectar after you've finished reducing it.

notes for next time: my mom mentioned that this, like chili, gets tastier as it sits, and is great with yogurt. i wouldn't know, since i left the leftovers with her. in any case, i would probably cook this a couple of days in advance and leave it in the fridge next time. i think my next adventure may be a permutation using lime, coconut milk, and green tea.


spiced goat cheese wontons
take plain goat cheese and mush it up with some ground ginger, nutmeg, cinnamon, and cardamom. mix in some agave nectar (or any other sweetener), to taste. fold in teaspoons into square wonton wrappers and seal (see this post for suggestions). heat up some ghee in a frying pan, and pop the wontons in a few at a time, turning to get them toasty and golden all over. serve with a dollop of reduction.

notes for next time: consensus was that these weren't quite sweet enough for a desert, but i leave that up to your palates. i think i would make the wontons rather than the reduction, the sweeter part. also, i happen to really really (really) like goat cheese, but for people who find it too, hm, gamey, you could probably substitute mascarpone or even ricotta.

this ceviche is not a metaphor for my relationship with my mother

so, clearly, i've been kinda MIA lately...i'm doing a lot of catching up on things that i meant to blog a while ago. this scallop ceviche was from when i was visiting home a few weeks back.

for anyone who hasn't tried ceviche before, now is the time to start experimenting...it's light and citrus-y, and best made with fresh ingredients: perfect for summer, really. the basic premise sounds kinda repellent, but i promise it's not. ceviche is a dish made most often in coastal south america (particularly peru and ecuador), and is comopsed acid-cooked fish served in the broth in which the fish has marinated.

the exact recipes vary by region, but the broth is often citrus and/or tomato-based with chilies and onions. you can use any kind of white fish, but, obviously, since you're serving it undercooked (the final product comes out more acid-seared than acid-cooked), you should be getting sushi grade stuff. scallop and shrimp ceviches are also popular, but you should flash cook them, by pour boiling water over them, before you pop them in the broth (maybe more than once for scallops, depending on size. for shrimp, leave in water until they turn just slightly pink, then rinse in cold water to prevent rubberiness). how well done your seafood is depends on how long you leave it in the broth. it should be monitored to prevent a rubbery, overcooked state. you can garnish with anything from tomatoes to cilantro or parsley to avocado to corn chips (popcorn is a traditional garnish...somewhere...ecuador? don't quote me on that).

anyway, my favorite thing about ceviche is the way you can mix and match variations in the broth, seafood, "cooking" time, and garnish to make dishes with completely different profiles using the exact same process. this wasn't the best ceviche i've ever made, but it wasn't the worst. next time, i'm playing with grapefruit and lime juices mixed with some coconut milk, which i guess is used in honduran ceviche. but for now:

tomato-less scallop ceviche
in a glass (or other non-reactive) bowl, mix half and half fresh squeezed orange juice (low to medium pulp) and fresh squeezed lime juice. add finely chopped red onion (or shallot). mix in salt, pepper, olive oil, and hot pepper sauce (i used sriracha, my new favorite thing, which has a smoky flavor) to taste. you may want to dilute the mixture with some chicken broth or water.
give the scallops a quick cook in salted, boiling water. chop them and toss them in the broth. cover and refrigerate until done to your satisfaction. garnish with cilantro, avocado, diced roasted tomatoes a la ellen, and a few dots of sriracha.

"the most delicious sandwich in richmond"

from my friend kitt, who only pretends to not want to blog with me here:

"Alright, food blogger. I just made the BEST leftovers sandwich: toasted English muffin with thinly spread horseradish on one half, pesto on the other, melted havarti, thinly sliced cucumbers, thinly sliced beets, and sprouts. Bow down before the most delicious sandwich ever to come out of Richmond"

bonus points for being vegetarian.
points deducted for kitt living in the south.

you really ought to give iowa a try

YEEEHA.

while all marriage equality eyes have been on prop 8 in CA, this iowa state supreme court case managed to slip under the radar until it blew its way onto the scene today. the unanimous decision rendered this afternoon absolutely DESTROYS the "circular" (their words, not mine) logic of opponents of marriage equality... all while maintaining characteristic heartland courtesy.

the full text is worth a read (no really, the judges are just like "honestly, now?!? no srsly, stfu."), but here are a few more of my favorite passages:

"This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in
six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible,
caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are
retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities.
They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent,
stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director,
federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like
many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some
are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within
the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be
maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto.1
Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the twelve
plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are sexually and
romantically attracted to members of their own sex. The twelve plaintiffs
comprise six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each
maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many
throughout Iowa."

...

"[W]ith respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage
laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to
heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships,
many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official
recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their
fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for
heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing samesex
couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the
power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it
does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.
In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to
bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and
their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every
important respect, but for their sexual orientation."

...

"Thus, the use of traditional marriage as both the governmental
objective and the classification of the statute transforms the equal protection
analysis into the question of whether restricting marriage to opposite-sex
couples accomplishes the governmental objective of maintaining opposite-sex
marriage.
This approach is, of course, an empty analysis. It permits a
classification to be maintained “ ‘for its own sake.’ ” Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at
478 (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 635, 116 S. Ct. at 1629, 134 L. Ed. 2d at
868). Moreover, it can allow discrimination to become acceptable as
tradition and helps to explain how discrimination can exist for such a long
time. If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal
protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious
racial and gender classifications would have failed. Consequently, equal
protection demands that “ ‘the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay
[persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate
from the classification itself.’ ” Id. (quoting Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d
1, 33 (N.Y. 2006) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting)); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635,
116 S. Ct. at 1629, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 868 (rejecting “classification of persons
undertaken for its own sake”)."

....

"The civil marriage statute is
under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of
parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to
provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than
optimal parents. Such under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the
sexual-orientation-based classification is grounded in prejudice or
“overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or
preferences” of gay and lesbian people, rather than having a substantial
relationship to some important objective. If the marriage statute was truly focused on
optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not
merely gay and lesbian people...
As applied to this case, it could be argued the same-sex marriage ban
is just one legislative step toward ensuring the optimal environment for
raising children. Under this argument, the governmental objective is slightly
more modest. It seeks to reduce the number of same-sex parent households,
nudging our state a step closer to providing the asserted optimal milieu for
children. Even evaluated in light of this narrower objective, however, the
ban on same-sex marriage is flawed.
The ban on same-sex marriage is substantially over-inclusive because
not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. Yet, the marriage statute
denies civil marriage to all gay and lesbian people in order to discourage the
limited number of same-sex couples who desire to raise children. In doing
so, the legislature includes a consequential number of “individuals within
the statute’s purview who are not afflicted with the evil the statute seeks to
remedy.”

...

The County also proposes that
government endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more
procreation.
[...EH?!? LET 'ER RIP ISSC...]
Even if possibly true, the link between
exclusion of gay and lesbian people from marriage and increased procreation
is far too tenuous to withstand heightened scrutiny.
[FOR THE WIN]

...

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion
of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not
substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature
has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely
important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.
There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this
determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.
Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa
Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise
would be an abdication of our constitutional duty....
Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the
remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner
allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage....All justices concur."
....

FUCK YES.

what effect this will have on pending cases, i'll have to leave to my friends who are in law school*, but i have to say, this seems like an unmitigated victory.

*or not...ok, some of the branches of gvt discussion puts a lot of emphasis on (state) constitutional deference...so is this case less useful in supporting a case that contests a state constitutional amendment passed by ballot inititative...i guess i'd say probably, but i'm also probably talking out my butt.