the party of high school wallflowers and inexperienced poker players

I hate to cite the N.Y. Times for the second time in one day, but there's an article by Jim Rutenberg and Adam Nagourney about how the GOP has decided to face the war issue head on.

I was so frustrated that I couldn't even read the whole thing. But I did read this:

...there was little sign of such nervousness on Wednesday as Republican after Republican took to the Senate floor to offer an unambiguous embrace of the Iraq war and to portray Democrats as advocates of an overly hasty withdrawal that would have grave consequences for the security of the United States.

That's the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Even when the Repubs have what seems like a losing hand--defending an unpopular war that was their idea—they face the issue head on with the cock-sure composure of an expert poker player trying to bluff out a rookie. They're unified and on the offense, and that confidence sways voters. Meanwhile the Democrats (who, in my poker analogy at least, would be the intimidated newbie), argue amongst themselves about unrealistic plans and will, if recent history is any guide at all, end up coming up with a half-assed plan that be sort of against the war but not so strongly against it that someone in favor of the war wouldn't think the Democrats are their party, too.

In other words, they won't end up standing for anything. And, just as in every other aspect of life, in the end confidence—even misplaced—will win out over thoughtful indecision. Ask any shy high school kid who ever lost a girl to an arrogant bully. (Sigh.)

Is it too much to ask that the Democratic Party get it's shit together to the point that the "shy high school kid" comparisons can stop? It's frustrating to support a party that needs a growth spurt.

But hey, at least we have the Hilary Clinton candidacy to look forward to. She'll play in the South and Midwest, right? Right?

Sigh.

don't swat the small stuff (eat it instead)

It's not every day that I'll post an entry about food—granted, I probably spend more money on food than anything else (living in Manhattan and not cooking very often can get expensive), but I'm not the most adventurous eater.

Which is why I found this article by Jennifer Gampbell in today's N.Y. Times so fascinating. The article is about the cuisine of the Ubon region of Thailand... where bugs are a staple of the diet.

I'll let the article speak for itself. First, a look at what it's like to eat a fried scorpion (!):

The appendages were suitably crunchy (except for the unchewable claws), although rancid frying oil and too much salt spoiled the overall experience. Having thus conquered my squeamishness, I had some grasshoppers (crispy) and crickets (slightly soft but small enough to eat quickly) and asked my Thai friend whether fried bugs always tasted this greasy and salty.

There's also this unintentionally hilarious passage first about health conscious bug cooking, followed by a description of what sounds like the most disgusting dish I could ever imagine:

Health consciousness has reached the frying pans and woks of Ubon insect chefs; many now cook with dry heat instead of gallons of oil. I ordered a small plate of mounded grayish-brown flies (nobody knew their English nomenclature) that had been pan-fried with slivers of lemon grass. To accompany them I chose a type of som tam made with khanom chin (thin rice flour noodles) with the standard additives of lemon juice, palm sugar, peanuts and dried shrimp.

Hey, maybe it's me—when I'm feeling up for something exotic, as I was this morning, I go for the rye bagel instead of sesame seed. But I don't see myself popping "grayish-brown flies" of undisclosed origin into my mouth anytime soon, with or without lemon grass garnish.

keeping it real

An article by John Dickerson on slate.com today about the spirited challenge Joe Lieberman is receiving from liberal upstart Ned Lamont, who is pressing Lieberman—and scoring points in the electorate—by portraying the 2000 Vice Presidential candidate as being too cozy with the Bush administration. (According to the article, a popular Lamont button features Bush kissing Lieberman.)

Considering that Lieberman has gotten plenty of milage out of being a conservative Democrat, and used that to become more popular with Republicans than with Democrats (he's sort of a Democratic John McCain, except without McCain's seeming sincerity), it's easy to root for Lamont. The Lieberman camp apparently recgnizes that their candidate might be vulnerable, as they're reportedly encouraging Joltin' Joe to run as an independent. Before we get too high on Lamont, note that even though he has momentum, he still trails the incumbent by 15 points.

Interesting stuff, we'll see how this develops...

swinging the soccer moms (and dads)

Interesting article by Timothy Egan in today's N.Y. Times suggests that as suburbs become more dense (and in turn, demographically diverse) they tend to skew Democratic. Meanwhile, as new suburbs or exurbs begin to emerge from what had previously been rural areas, their residents vote Republican in overwhelming numbers.

According to the article, both parties are focusing on these "swing suburbs" in this year's midterm elections. Democrats see an opening in historically Republican suburban districts in Chicago, Washington, Virginia, Colorado and elsewhere, while Republicans are targeting fast-growing new suburbs in many of those same states.

How will this play out politically?

...experts note that the exurbs in the fastest-growing counties provide a very small share of the nation's vote...In looking at the 50 biggest metropolitan areas, which have about 150 million people, Dr. Lang found that 90 million lived in a somewhat older suburb and that only 5.6 million lived in the exurbs, where Mr. Bush's vote was strongest.

This is good news for the Democrats, not just in this election, but moving forward. It's safe to assume that our suburbs will continue to become more dense, and if established suburbs grow more liberal as they become more crowded, this suggests nothing less than that our country is becoming more liberal, or at least more reliably Democratic.

The Republicans can have the exurbs—once they develop, they'll swing Democrat eventually, too.

housing the homeless

There's a fascinating article by Erik Eckholm in today's New York Times about a radical effort to solve chronic homelessness—giving the homeless apartments. In more than 20 cities, including New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco, the program effectively reduced the number of homeless by offering the chronic homeless small efficiency apartments, with medical and addiction treatments in house.

Maybe the most shocking aspect of this program is that it's actually cost effective.

... officials found that 25 men were taken into emergency detoxification centers for an average of 80 nights each in one year, at a total cost of $772,000. Officials have found that they can provide housing and most medical and other services for about $15,000 a year per person.

In fact, Philip Mangano, the Bush appointee who heads up the program, has successfully leveraged this potential financial savings as a way to expand his program.

Wherever he goes, Mr. Mangano, 58, who was director of the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance, emphasizes that it is cheaper to put the chronically homeless right into apartments, and provide medical and addiction treatments there, than to watch them cycle endlessly through shelters, soup kitchens, emergency rooms, detoxification centers and jails.

The results so far have been stunning. According to the article, the number of chronic homeless has declined by 60 percent over five years in Philadelphia, and by more than 25 percent over the same period in San Francisco and Dallas.

Here's to hoping that Mr. Mangano and his agency keep up the good work.

the dumbest argument I've ever seen, for anything

Intelligent design, in all its silly silliness... but it is nice to see Kirk Cameron working again.

(Thanks to Mike K. for pointing this out.)

more quick hits...

• Had a great weekend visiting DC. Going to the National Archives was inspirational in more ways than one. First off, seeing the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in the flesh, and early, hand-written drafts of the Bill of Rights including amendments that didn't make the cut... you realize that once upon a time, these were all just ideas, ideas hashed out in late-night discussions, and probably scribbed on the 18th century equivalent of a barroom napkin. And right there on paper, in the documents our founding fathers agreed on, is the backbone of our country. I'm getting practically misty eyed; that's my cue to move on to the next item, before I degenerate into sappyness, if it's not already too late.
• Also at the Archives, a photo exhibit on American workers through the years struck a nerve. Compared to, say, mining or working in a sweatshop, my job proofreading tedious crap all day doesn't seem so bad. At least I have iTunes and the internet to distract me from my depressing life.
• Here in New York, the local media has reacted strongly today to the news that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has slashed New York City's anti-terrorism funds by nearly 40 percent, while substantially boosting funds to terrorist hotspots like Louisville, Ky. and Omaha, Neb. Even stranger, part of the justification for the slash is that, according to a Homeland Security document, New York has no "national monuments or icons"—that's right, not one—worth protecting. Take that, Stock Exchange and Empire State Building! And screw you too, Lady Liberty. I've never liked your tired and poor masses anyway. Why are they always huddled like that? Wait a second—New York is full of liberals, foreigners, minorities, the media, the United Nations... Memo to the White House: Why didn't you think of this sooner?
• Bruce Reed's "The Has Been" column is always worth reading—if only he'd start cranking them out more often. This time around, he writes amusingly about how Republicans have been upset with the Bush administration over the search of Rep. Bill Jefferson's office.

exposing A-Fraud!

Watching A-Rod every day, I can't argue that he's at his best in big money games. Even so, his reputation for being all-garbage time and no clutch is a little absurd. You can't put up the kind of numbers Mr. Rodriguez puts up without helping your team win. (And isn't it about time we all stopped holding his salary against him? It's not his fault Rangers owner Tom Hicks monumentally overpaid; any of us would have signed that contract, just like A-Rod.)

Anyway, I enjoyed seeing DJ Gallo take a sarcastic hack at A-Rod bashers in a story for espn.com's Page 2. Here's an excerpt:

In a division that is as uncompetitive as the AL East, games in late May mean absolutely nothing. Nope, only the postseason matters. And until A-Rod comes up huge in a World Series with the pressure on and single-handedly wins a championship for the Yankees, I won't believe in him. (Oh, and it has to be in Game 7 of the World Series against the Red Sox, or it won't count.)

making up for lost time

I know, I know. I've been away. Have you missed me? I spent the long weekend down in DC (more on that below), and I've also been spending some quality time with my girlfriend and devoting much of my remaining time to looking for a new day job... if you know anyone who's hiring, let me know.

So yeah, lots going on. In fact, because there's so much ground to cover, here's a bunch of quick hits:

• From the world of baseball, the Yankees have now won five in a row, including three of four over the Tigers, who (somehow) have the best record in baseball. It would be great to see the Yankees win again tonight, sweeping the four game series, especially if they can score a bunch of runs off stud rookie Justin Verlander and completely break his spirit in the process. There's nothing shakier than a rookie's confidence, and since Verlander isn't on my fantasy team...
• Speaking of my fantasy teams, my season is off to an incredible start. I've been in or near first place in both of my leagues for weeks now. Today, I'm in first with a nice lead in the Cheap Seats league, and a nose out of first (in second) in the Buffalo Heads. With Clemens and Gagne set to return, and youngsters Anthony Reyes and Jered Weaver called up and pitching well, I should get a boost. Though I'd be crazy to expect guys like Corey Patterson and Eric Byrnes to continue to play as well as they have, and unless I find another closer in the Buffalo Heads league, I can't really expect to win. Right now I've got Tom Gordon and, um, Eddie Guardado.
• I'm proud of a trade I made a couple of weeks ago, though it could still bite me in the ass. At the height of his hype, I traded hot rookie pitcher Cole Hamels for Scot Shields and Kyle Farnsworth, in a 6x6 league that counts holds. I knew about Hamels' injury history, and holds was my weakest category, so the trade seemed like a worthy risk, even after Hamels' first start. Now that Hamels is on the DL again, the trade looks great (even with Farnsworth not pitching particularly well.)
• It's encouraging to see how the Yankees are holding their ground--tied for first with the Red Sox--despite all of their injuries. Matsui, Sheffield, Pavano and Sturtze will be out for a while, and Damon, Jeter and Posada all have nagging injury issues. Yet other guys keep stepping up (Did anyone think Melky Cabrera would hit .320? Even his mother is stunned.) and the Yanks keep winning, despite relying on guys like Kelly Stinnett, Miguel Cairo and Scott Proctor. You could actually make a case that they look better on the field right now than they did about a month ago, when their roster was nearly at full strength.
• The Mets won in extra innings again last night. They're starting to give off that team-of-destiny vibe this year, with lots of exciting young talent (including this week's stud callup, Lastings Milledge) and what appears to be great team chemistry. I argued early in the season that David Wright was overrated—sure, he's good, but let's see him play like A-Rod, or at least Miguel Cabrera, before we start calling him one of the best players in the game—and now I'm eating my words, as Wright has already had four game-ending hits and has to be considered an MVP candidate. (I'm not saying he's gonna beat out Pujols... but someone's gotta finish second, right?)
• This story is already a borderline cliche here in New York, but how much better would the Mets be right now if they hadn't traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano? Zambrano, the team's fourth or fifth starter, is now out for the year. Meanwhile Kazmir is a legit Cy Young candidate with seven wins (on an awful Devil Rays team), a 2.86 ERA and more than a strikeout an inning. At age 22, Kazmir is second (to Johan Santana) in the AL in Ks, and won't be a free agent until 2011. At which point the Mets will have the chance to get him back for about $20 million a year.
• Over in Red Sox Nation, the team's vaunted 1-2 punch of Schilling and Beckett has already combined for 15 wins. But check out what castoffs Bronson Arroyo and Derek Lowe are doing: Lowe's ERA is a run lower than Schilling's (3.93 to 2.90), while Arroyo (2.58) is pitching almost two runs a game better than Beckett (4.46). But then, that's what moving from the AL to the NL can do (though Cincinnati's home field isn't exactly a pitcher's paradise—just ask Eric Milton).

Okay, well, apparently I had a lot to say about baseball. More quick hits later on everything else going on in the world.