1. Commercial radio, NARAS (the Grammy folks, of which I'm a member) and media defining "folk music" as pretty much anything on a major label played mostly on acoustic instruments (and that includes plugged-in acoustic guitars).  So seminal grungefather Eddie Vedder picks up a ukulele and now he's suddenly a "folkie" (and gets nominated for a Best Folk Album Grammy)? Now every major-market rock or pop station can crow that they play "folk music" because they spin Eddie Vedder, Jack Johnson, Bon Iver (perhaps the most pretentiously misspelled pseudonym ever), She & Him (TV/movie star Zooey Deschanel and moonlighting rocker M. Ward) and "Monsters of Folk" (that side project of pop-rock singer-songwriters Ward, Bright Eyes--oops, Conor Oberst, and some other guy who temporarily tired of schlepping a heavy Les Paul around on stage).  Even Folk Alliance's formal showcases are increasingly populated by former midlevel pop and rock stars who lost their major label contracts.  And the final straw?  SiriusXM, which had previously treated actual folk music as the embarrassing crazy-uncle-in-the-attic by assigning it just a single station, The Village (despite giving country, R&B, hip-hop, and rock dozens of channels--including channels devoted to one artist or rebroadcasts of a single mix show), in recent months removed it from the Sirius lineup. It was available only on XM or online (leaving people with Sirius-only car radios and no Aux-In or USB ports for cellphones suddenly folkless).  So, after I complained to them about the idiocy of this move and the unfairness of denying Sirius subscribers our mobile folk fix, they agreed with me--the unfairness part, that is. They decided to rectify the situation by depriving XM subscribers as well of The Village.  Only online subscribers can get it. And if you don't have a smartphone, nor the means to play it through your car stereo, tough. There's always public radio---the few hours a week it carries folk music in your area, never mind that on the road your odds of hearing folk radio during normal weekday hours are somewhat less than those of observing aviating swine.

2.  GOP Presidential primary candidates (especially Newt Gingrich) accusing each other of not being true conservatives.  Funny, I thought they were running for the Republican, not Conservative, party nomination. When was the last time you heard Democrats treat "moderate" as an epithet?  We don't demand a liberal loyalty oath. How dare the GOP impose a litmus test and ban everyone to the left of Attila the Hun from being considered Republicans?  And how dare half the voting public allow itself to swallow this nonsense just because their favorite right-wing pundits told them to?

3.  Drivers who treat the speed limit as a mere guideline.  Now, I'm not saying I always drive 55 (or faster, if a higher limit is posted).  But there is something wrong when I'm doing 10 miles over the limit and being passed on the right (when I'm already in the right lane).  And you just know that were I to follow their lead, I'd be the one getting the ticket.

4. TV stations that don't notify the TiVO folks and other DVR subscription services that they'll be pre-empting or delaying prime-time programming in favor of football, basketball, or GOP Presidential debates (of which there'll have been more this season than NBA games).  Come to think of it, we can target webpage ads to individual users' "online cookie jars;" our new iPhones can wisecrack and flirt with us (Siri, you dirty girl!), and telemarketers or deliverymen can pinpoint the exact moment when we're at the peak of answering Nature's call. So why can't DirecTV or TiVO sense that a particular program isn't starting at its usual time, and record it not by published start and end times but by the actual program names?  "Algorithm" ain't just the ex-Veep's profoundly Caucasian inability to clap on the 2 and the 4.

5. And this one's for the blood bank. Yeah, Dracu....uh, Lifesource, I'm talkin' to you.  Ever since I was an impoverished undergrad unable to afford to donate more than pennies to charity, I did my tithe instead by donating blood--for no more reward than a thank-you, a little can of apple juice, a couple of stale cookies and a "Be Nice to Me, I Gave Blood Today" pin. First they cheap out on the pin and give you a sticker instead. Then, they reject you for having blood pressure a mm/Hg too high or low, a hemoglobin level one iota this side of borderline anemic, or even being half a pound underweight.  Getting rejected as a gratuitious blood donor is bad enough. But now, they require you to make an appointment! Yup, that's right: rearrange your entire day up to a week in advance, deal with arthritis or a toothache sans your NSAID or aspirin for several daya, run the risk of having to park a block or more away (in some neighborhoods, of not finding ANYWHERE to park), become a human pincushion, and still get rejected because your blood's one imperceptible shade of red too light.  Tell you what, Lifesource--you want people to give you their healthy safe blood for free? How about letting them walk in off the street at their convenience, not yours. It's not like we're demanding to be able to waltz in 24/7, just during your regular hours. But it's not like you're doing us any favors at the time either.

Then there are the hypocrites who blame fat people for eating all the wrong things yet make the right foods inconvenient and expensive to purchase; people too cheap to plunk down five bucks for layaway so they deliberately stash their size 2s in the size 22 racks (or the reverse) until they can afford to come back and buy them; supermarket self-checkout stands that malfunction and take longer than using a human cashier....

Got more? Let me know.

Am I the only one around here who seems to notice that the GOP (especially the Tea Party) not only all seem to be speaking verbatim from the same set of talking points but that they don't hear a word anyone else is saying? Polls say that even a majority of voters who self-identify as Republican think it's a fine idea to raise tax rates on and end loopholes for extremely rich people (i.e., those making >$1M a year, certainly those earning >$1B) and a lousy idea to cut Medicare and Social Security.  Even David Brooks is beginning to get it. Yet all the conservative automatons I hear these days, from George F. Will, Nicole Wallace to David Gergen to Joe Scarborough and Charles Krauthammer (to the closest thing the GOP has to a dictator, Grover Norquist) all seem to be squawking "BRAAAWWKK--tax & spend, tax & spend, big government, job creators" like parrots whose brains have all been replaced with multiple copies of the same microchip.  Where the hell are the grownups on the right?  Instead of studying facts, they're desperately bleating the same fallacious mantras over and over in the hopes that voters' will give up and agree with them. Sadly, it seems to be working.

So before it's too late, let's explore and explode the buzzwords and myths that Republicans believe so blindly and repeat incessantly.

MYTH A:  We are not an undertaxed nation.  MYTH B: We are taxed so high that taxes are killing everyone, especially business.

FACT: Compared to just about every other first-world democracy (especially those with robust economies such as Germany) we sure as hell ARE undertaxed.  That is not to say that the poor and the middle class are undertaxed:  the poor are overtaxed (and increasingly under-served) while the middle class is paying just about the right amount.  Get above an annual income of half a million to a million, though, and the inequalities and inequities kick in.  I'm not talking about people with over a million in assets--just people who actually net that much every year.  Here are some sobering statistics:  The top 1% of American earners get 20% of the nation's income.  The wealthiest 5% have 95% of the resources. Yet, the sections of the Internal Revenue Code that apply to those of us pulling down less than $500K a year and whose income is mainly in the form of wages for work don't apply to the uber-wealthy whose income from interest, dividends, trades and bonuses flows like a faucet.  The tax rate on capital gains is less than half of the top tax bracket on ordinary income.  Now, I'm not arguing we ditch that differential across the board--it wouldn't be fair for those whose savings and retirement plans depend on capital gains, as well as those profiting from selling their residences who've already used up the once-a-lifetime exemption for such a profit.  But if you took JUST billion-dollar earners and taxed the TOP bracket of their capital gains at the lowest ordinary income rate, taxed their seven-figure annual bonuses as the wages they are instead of the capital gains the IRS pretends they are, and eliminated interest-shifting---again, not for everyone but just on these folks alone--we'd realize an immediate $4.5 billion reduction in the deficit.  Take away the corporate jet deductions, and the ability to declare yachts "residences"and there goes another $2-3 billion.  Eric Cantor (a front-runner, along with Anthony Weiner, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Rupert Murdoch, for this year's "Shonda Fur de Goyim Award") and his ilk on the one hand scream that to do this would seriously injure the "job creators" (we'll get to that in a minute) and on the other hand dismiss the revenue amounts as too trivial to make a dent in "entitlements."  You know what Everett Dirksen used to say: "a billion here, a billion there--pretty soon you're talking about real money."  Now, extend those rate and rule changes downward to those earning, say $100M a year, then to $1M--and watch the billions pile up.  And NONE of you reading this, nor (I'd bet) anyone you know personally, would be paying a penny extra in taxes.

MYTH: The top 2% of American earners pay 38% of the taxes.

FACT: Ah, lies, damn lies and statistics.  Even if that's true (which is not a given), that doesn't mean everyone in the top 2% is paying a tax rate of 38%.  See above.  And when some hedge fund manager makes over a million bucks AN HOUR, he really ought to kick in his fair share.  (Dozens of Americans make more than that an hour!). Did you know Donald Trump is only the 153d wealthiest guy in America?  Besides, they're getting way more than TWICE that percentage of the nation's income.

MYTH D: "Debt bad. Debt very, very bad. Debt ALWAYS bad. Worse than fire. Deficit evil." MYTH E:  A government should be run like, and budgeted like, a business.

FACT:  Okay, so Frankenstein's monster isn't among the conservative pundits.  But that doesn't keep them from disingenuously trying to apply household-budget standards to the world's largest macroeconomy.  Listen: a government is not a household.  It isn't even a business.  You'd think supposedly educated people might realize this.  (I use the term "educated" loosely--there are little fundamentalist-church-run colleges that give you a less-well-rounded education than most community colleges, never mind major state unies or the Ivies; and a disproportionate number of Tea Party darlings with degrees seem to have graduated from them).  Government debt is not necessarily evil.  Deficits aren't, no matter what they'll tell you.  Without adequate government spending on jobs and economic stimulus, it's impossible to rev up and out of a recession.  FDR knew that--both sides of the story:  the economy came roaring back when the New Deal was instituted; but went back into the toilet when he listened to the deficit hawks.   And speaking of households, okay, let's assume for a minute that you CAN apply household standards to government budgeting.  Know what'd happen if families never went into debt? No cars or homes would be sold (and few built) because nobody'd ever take out a mortgage, auto loan or lease.   Which leads us to a sort of corollary:

MYTH:  America is an ownership society. Renters are not as valuable or worthy as homeowners. 

FACT: We all know how that turned out.  Renters were made by Bush to feel as if they were shiftless second-class citizens, so EVERYONE went out and tried to buy a home, to do their bit for society and America.  And of course, only the most credit-worthy buyers got mortgages. Yeah, right.  Tell me about Sept. 2008 again....

MYTH G:  You can't raise taxes during a recession--it'll spook the job creators. MYTH H: The job creators aren't creating jobs because (pick one:  they're uncertain about the economy; they're being killed by taxes).

FACT: True, if you raise taxes on the poor and middle class during a recession that'd be a disaster. But who the hell is talking about raising taxes on the middle class? Not Obama. Not a single Democrat.  Put that bogeyman back under the bed, please.  So what about the job creators? Well, the wealthy aren't all job creators. Some of them NEVER have been and never will be: e.g., independently wealthy, hedge fund managers, derivatives traders---none of them "create jobs" other than perhaps hiring a personal chef or maids (and probably off the books at that).  What about wealthy businesses? Well, it sure isn't taxes or the prospect of losing their tax breaks that have kept them from creating jobs. In fact, at the turn of the century, they discovered that by using more technology, offshoring, union-busting (and contract-breaching), cutting regulatory corners and outsourcing they could be just as productive AND make more money by DOWNSIZING.  And they did this during times that taxes were at their lowest and profits getting higher and higher.  Uncertainty? They couldn't be more certain that the profits will keep rolling in.  Don't kid yourself: if we give them any more tax breaks, where's that money going--employee raises? Hiring? Dividends to run-of-the-mill stockholders? Improving their business' infrastructure and capital? Lower prices? Please---it's going right back into their and major investors' pockets.  If it gets spent, it won't be spent on stuff that stimulates our economy, but rather luxury goods and services, much of them foreign.   If they are serious about using tax savings to create jobs, fine. Show us the jobs (onshore and with decent benefits and wages) and we'll show you the money.  Fail to create those jobs and pay a penalty next tax day. 

MYTH:  We have a deficit. Therefore we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling unless we cut back on entitlements, which are in such bad shape they will disappear (not that they shouldn't).  So let's kill them off faster. 

FACT: Oh, where do I begin? First, let me put my nose clips on--the smell of bullshit is making me gag.  First of all, the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the deficit.  The debt ceiling isn't a limit on how much we can increase the deficit, nor on incurring new debt. No, it's a ceiling on how much EXISTING debt we can pay back. Know what happens if we don't raise it? We become the world's biggest deadbeat. Overnight our bonds and cash are devalued, our national credit rating (and even the credit rating of the most prudent individuals) plummets, and I don't have to tell you what's going to happen to purchasing power and personal net worth (down) and interest rates and inflation (up). And all this without anyone's income going up, either.  Even the banksters get this--they pulled McConnell aside the other day and asked him, "Are you freaking CRAZY? Do you want us to go under and take you down with us?"  You want a foretaste of Armageddon (or at least modern-day Ireland, Iceland or Greece)? Don't raise the debt ceiling.   (And don't say you weren't warned).  As to entitlements---well, they're called that precisely because that's what they are--not welfare, not handouts. We paid for them, just as we pay insurance premiums. And they're not going under--it's not a Ponzi scheme because the birth rate slowed and there won't be that many more (or who knows, even as many) potential beneficiaries when the current young adult generation hits retirement age.  It's self-perpetuating. Maybe it won't be as flush as it is now, but Soc. Sec. and Medicare won't die.  And there's a very easy and painless way to top it up--not, as has been misguidedly suggested, by raising the eligibility age but by either eliminating the contributions cap on high earners or means-testing:  either scaling back benefits or ratcheting up premiums & co-pays for the wealthy.

MYTH: The people don't want rich people's taxes raised.  Shared sacrifice means that everyone--the poor and elderly included, should have to pay more and get less. Except rich people.  That would be "wealth redistribution," which is actually communism.

FACT: If "the people" really think that the rich shouldn't have to bear the brunt of deficit reduction, it's because the right wing leaders have lied shamelessly to them--that they have any intention of or power to effect conservative social change when it comes to "values." I'll tell you who (other than the rich, of course) really don't want the rich to pay a penny more in taxes:  the right wing political leaders.  And it's not out of some misguided sense of the possibility of Horatio Alger stories coming true (another myth that "the people" have been fed--venerate the wealthy because some day you may be wealthy too).  No, it's because if the rich have to cut back, the campaign cash will start drying up. And while some corporate and uber-rich donors hedge their bets and give to both sides (not out of a sense of altruism but rather pragmatism), the vast majority cast their lot with the GOP.  They know what side their brioche is cultured-buttered on.

MYTH:   Obama has had two years.  Deficit spending is out of control. Where are the jobs?

FACT: Do those idiots have amnesia? Anyone remember 2001-2008:   two hideously expensive wars (one utterly unnecessary and downright reprehensible), irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of the finance industry, rampant downsizing and offshoring?  Clinton left office with a sizable surplus.  Bush spent it on wars and gifts to his wealthy buddies.  Obama inherited a trashed economy and already record-high unemployment.  Like FDR, he tried to stimulate the economy by creating government jobs in the infrastructure sector. But the GOP decided ab initio that their ONLY goal was to keep Obama from being reelected--and in order to do that, they stomped on the brakes in both houses of Congress. Yes, I know that until Jan. 2011 the Democrats had a majority in both houses.  But a Senate majority, even a so-called supermajority, is useless as long as the minority has the power to filibuster and there aren't 60 lockstep majority votes to cut it off.  The Democrats never had a supermajority---unlike the uniformly reactionary GOP, the Democrats have centrists and conservatives among them.  And nothing can get passed without a majority in both halves of Congress. So it got even harder for Democrats to get anything passed--and easier for the GOP to kneecap Obama--when the GOP took over the House in Jan.  And unlike the Senate, the minority party has no power over the majority in the House.  So, Mr. Boehner, Mr. McConnell, I'll ask you the same question: where are the jobs?  The only thing Obama's done wrong is to be a lousy negotiator: not surprising for a lawyer who's never had to horsetrade or bargain a settlement.  I sort of wish he'd been an ambulance chaser for a little while--then he'd have learned basic bargaining strategies.  You always ask for more than you want and offer less than you're willing to give up--not start from a position of fairness and offer concessions as proof of good faith.  And lest anyone accuse Obama of breaking promises, remember he's behaved just the way someone who'd wanted to transcend partisanship has--but the partisans on the other side have thwarted him at every turn.

So, come 2012, are you going to realize who really engineered the further collapse of the economy? Or are you going to swallow the GOP's position that it's all Obama's fault that he didn't give in on social  and spending issues?  That position reminds me of an armed robber who's  murdered his victims, and cites as his defense, "Your Honor, it was their own damn fault. I GAVE them a choice: their money or their lives. They should have given me their money."

Had some time on my hands, and admitted to myself that I (mea culpa) occasionally drop some coin on extremely discretionary stuff. One of my hobbies is wine, and over the years we've been married (40 is a lotta years!) I have accumulated a motley collection of stemware: some from my student days or the surviving remnants of closeout outlet sales; others as souvenirs of one winery tasting room, event or another; as gifts; included in a wine-bottle package; and, over the past 10 years, purchased to taste/serve/enjoy specific grape varietals or wine types.

THE EXPERIMENT: Given that certain shapes are great for one grape but crummy for another, and that a thin cut rim is more effective at directing a wine to the tip of the tongue than is a "beaded" or rolled rim (found in cheaper non-crystal glasses given away at wineries or bought at the variety store, and in most non-upscale restaurants that serve wine), I decided to take things one step more deeply into geekdom: is a Sauvignon Blanc glass integral to the enjoyment of that varietal? Or is this a merchandising ploy by glassmakers & gourmet shops?

This was inspired by having drunk a glass of Three-Buck-Chuck the other night out of a generous and well-proportioned but cheap (rolled-rim) winery-tour souvenir glass. Not bad for the price, but not much varietal character and sort of "hot," i.e., high-alcohol tasting. (Food was leftover linguine with Swiss chard, oil, garlic and pine nuts Bob brought home from a neighborhood Italian restaurant). Last night, I opened the wine being tested tonight and drank it out of a slightly taller but narrower crystal glass designated by its maker as "Chardonnay." (Food was steamed asparagus & pan-seared sea scallops with parsley-dill gremolata, napped with a pan sauce made by deglazing the fry pan with a little of the wine and a touch of salt, pepper & butter. Told you I had time on my hands). Food & wine were terrific. (Would've tried the experiment with the Three-Buck Chuck, but it disappeared fairly quickly Tues. night--thanks to two other wine-lovers in the house).

THE WINE: Piko Sauvignon Blanc 2007, New Zealand (Marlborough appelation), served straight from the fridge (40F, eventually warming to 45F over the course of the experiment). Its screwcap belies its quality--more and more Down Under wineries are ditching corks in favor of them to avoid spoilage (and help out idiots like me who are forever misplacing foil-cutters and good corkscrews). I chose it because it doesn't have pronounced notes like the telltale eucalyptus of California Sauv Blancs, prominent acidity like Sancerre or the smokiness of Fume Blanc.

THE GLASSES: http://gallery.me.com/sandraandina#1...&bgcolor=black  

LEFT TO RIGHT: Riedel Vitis (discontinued) Loire/Sauvignon Blanc; Schott-Zwiesel Forte White Burgundy/Chablis; Bormioli Chardonnay; Wine Enthusiast polycarbonate Chardonnay; and Riedel Sommeliers Riesling/Young White. All hold about 12 oz., except the Sommeliers, which holds a scant cupful.

METHODOLOGY--pour a jigger of the wine into each glass, and (after eating a hunk of Italian bread and a good couple of sips of water) taste them to see if seemingly minor (to a non-wino) variations in bowl shape & size, rim thickness, opening and material (glass vs. plastic) made a difference. Glasses I ruled out: besides the cheap souvenir glass and the 7-oz crystal ISO tasting glass (from a wine class I took, too small & narrow for anything but rudimentary tasting or enjoying port or sherry), the obvious no-nos such as champagne flutes, heavy formal cut-crystal dinner goblets that are too wide-mouthed for wine despite their designation but make great lethal weapons, round "balloon" glasses designated for Beaujolais or big oaky Chards or iconic white Burgundies like Mersault or Montrachet, big red Pinot Noir and Cabernet glasses, cutesy little German hock glasses that are really good only for show (too colorful, thick and full of foo-foo decorations for serious wine drinking), brandy snifters, tumblers, mugs, rocks glasses, anything with a rolled rim, or disposable party cups/airline tumblers. (Some professional tests throw in a plastic specimen cup such as offered at supermarket samplings as a ringer....not going there).

ABSTRACT: The right height & shape, thin material, rim width and capacity really made only subtle differences. No one glass prominently sent the bouquet to the nose, even after swirling (perhaps because the wine was cold). The winning glass won because it didn't emphasize any one aspect of the wine; the loser will still work far better than any generic rolled-rim wine glass.

DETAILS:

RIEDEL VITIS LOIRE: $30, the glass Riedel created for most crisp French Sauv. Blancs (Pouilly-Fume/Fume Blanc, Sancerre, Graves) as well as light & fruity Chenin Blancs. Since discontinued, it's been succeeded by its hideously more expensive Sommeliers counterpart. (Don't ask. I can't afford one). Light lead crystal, machine-blown, hand-pulled stem, tapering up from the bottom (with the top of the stem forming the bottom tip of the bowl) to the middle and then back again up to the rim--the most symmetrical. Tasted fairly balanced, though with the slightest hint of bitterness at the back of the tongue. Did direct the wine straight down the middle of the tongue. Runner-up.

SCHOTT-ZWIESEL FORTE "WHITE BURGUNDY:" $10, described on the mfr's website as appropriate for light & crisp Chardonnays (like Chablis or northern Italian), Sauvignon Blanc, Pinot Blanc, and Pinot Grigio. Elegant shape--reaches its widest point fairly close to the bottom and tapers sharply up to the rim. Very light (titanium, not lead) and strong "Tritan" crystal, but better-balanced in the hand than the Loire glass. Directed some of the wine up to the palate, where its alcohol content was more noticeable as a touch of bitterness & heat, and a bit wider arc than the tip of the tongue, revealing some minerality and muting some acidity. #4 finisher.

BORMIOLI ALLEGRO CHARDONNAY: $8 Classically-proportioned machine-blown lead-free crystal all-purpose glass--like a boiled egg with the little end lopped off. Like the preceding glasses, thin cut nearly invisible rim. The widest point is about an inch higher up on the bowl than on the Schott. Made the wine taste a tad more bitter & hot than the Schott and sent more of it across the tongue to the back of the mouth. Still, not too bad. No mineral flavors. Bronze medalist.

WINE ENTHUSIAST DURACLEAR CHARDONNAY: $5. Identical to the Bormioli except that it's made out of unbreakable polycarbonate plastic instead of crystal; but for the fact that it's insanely light and the rim, while cut and not thick or rolled, is about a mm. thick, would have been indistinguishable from its crystal counterpart. No taste difference between the crystal and polycarb, except perhaps that this glass' thin but still measurable rim sent more of the wine to the sides of the tongue and thus made it taste marginally coarser than did any of the others. Also doesn't "ding" when you tap it. Still tastes pretty good. (This is the one I'm sipping from right now). Brought up the rear, but was not a failure.

RIEDEL SOMMELIERS RIESLING/YOUNG WHITE: $40 (ouch, but one of the cheaper glasses in that range). Shorter & slimmer than the others, it tapers out sharply up from the rim (creating, like the Loire, a pointed bowl-bottom) to the widest point, then tapers back in almost imperceptibly to just below the rim before flaring out ever so slightly again (kind of like honey-I-shrunk-the-Pina-Colada). The smallest of the five, yet the heaviest stem and base--very well-balanced, giving the reassuring feeling it's not likely to be inadvertently knocked over. Thin leaded (24%) crystal, hand-blown, hand-pulled. Even the flared rim is very, very thin. One would expect this glass to wash the wine over and along the sides of the tongue. Wrong. Straight down the middle. Taste was as balanced as a beachball on a trained seal's snout. No bitterness, no heat, very slight minerality along with slight grassy & grapefruit notes. The winner. (At that price, it ought to be).

CONCLUSION: Drinking a Sauvignon Blanc out of a non-balloon Chardonnay glass is nowhere near as taste-altering than putting it in a big wide-bowled glass or confining a Chardonnay to a narrow Loire or "young white" glass. The top two finishers had bowls with pointed rather than rounded or flattish bottoms. All five wineglasses sure beat jelly glasses, straight tumblers, or party cups. And polycarbonate does not have a taste of its own--a fine substitute if you've got kids, cats, or guests who indulge a little too enthusiastically.

(Point one:  that latter sentiment is defined, in the U.S. Constitution, as treason. Just sayin'...)

The Civility Project was so overrun by people incensed at the very notion that they VOLUNTEER to refrain from using metaphors (and in some cases, literal suggestions) directing people to settle their political differences violently that a few days ago the Project ceased operations.  

Sad, really.  No VOLUNTARY ground rules for expressing differences without removing each other from the ranks of the living or breathing had a chance to be posited or tested.  So I'll take on this task. IMHO, of course--your mileage may vary.

In general, ACCEPTABLE language includes not just reasoned, factual and rational utterances, but also (however abhorrent to polite, normal, sane people): playground and locker-room trash-talk, invective, repetitions of misinformations, disinformations or even outright lies; name-calling, even stupid and bigoted rhetoric.  There are enough people in this nation, one hopes, who are patriotic enough to recognize a sacred Constitutional right to utter such stupid and hateful drivel ("stupid," "hateful, and "drivel" being examples of undesirable but acceptable words) but discerning enough to disbelieve, refuse to grant it credibility or stoop to its level, and even condemn and ridicule it. Just not exercise prior restraint upon, fine or imprison anyone for its use (though outright defamation, of course, should be vulnerable to tort liability).

UNACCEPTABLE language: any of the above that uses violence--especially ballistic violence--as a metaphor or instruction.   Lawful, alas, but unacceptable nonetheless. 

Examples? Okay.  ACCEPTABLE:   "(insert title and name of official or pundit) is a dangerous idiot, wants to ruin this country and steal your money and should be 'impeached, or voted out,' 'fired' (as in 'dismissed') and 'spend the rest of his/her pre-retirement years never rising above asking people if they want fries with that'."

UNACCEPTABLE: "(insert title, yada yada yada") is a Nazi, Commie or Socialist and is a tyrant or a traitor who should be "taken out," "shot," "targeted for removal."

ACCEPTABLE:  "Ballots, not bullets." UNACCEPTABLE: "When ballots fail, bullets."

ACCEPTABLE: "First Amendment rights and remedies, Second Amendment rights." UNACCEPTABLE: "Second Amendment remedies."

ACCEPTABLE:  "Vote the guy back to assistant county dog-catcher." UNACCEPTABLE: "Take him out."

ACCEPTABLE: "Don't retreat: reboot." UNACCEPTABLE: "Don't retreat: reload."

ACCEPTABLE:  "Election is a battle,  our votes are our weapons."

UNACCEPTABLE: "The hell with elections--time for battle; weapons are our votes."

Okay, I'm gonna go back and rehearse;  and try not to reminisce about my days as the Dirty Harriet of the Brown's Point, WA town dump, who could wield a .357 or .44 Magnum with such precision that there are roosters on Kellogg's Corn Flakes boxes who got amateur radial keratotomies before eye doctors with lasers made a mint off Medicare.  And discarded refrigerators that will never again be able to reproduce.  If I get the urge to shoot, I'm going down to my local target range, load up my Sheaffer Snorkels with vintage Skrip or modern Noodler's ink, extend the cannula, pull back the filler knob and try to write a legible copy of the entire Constitution from 100 feet away.  

Why on earth should this be controversial or objectionable to anyone? 

Regardless of whether the Tucson shooter was a Giffords-obsessed psychotic loner; regardless of who first started spouting the hate-and-violence-metaphor-laden vitriol; regardless of which side has used more of it; regardless of when it started; regardless of whether and whom this rhetoric has spurred to dangerous action......
Why are influential conservatives so adamant about not agreeing to stop using these metaphors, when liberals are vociferously vowing to refrain from doing so?  What's wrong with agreeing to use freedom of speech considerately and responsibly? Could it be because this incendiary rhetoric actually works for the Republican/Tea Party base?

What is so controversial about saying "We don't care who started it or who says more of it--let's ALL put a sock in it?" Instead, conservative pols (e.g., Palin) and pundits (e.g., Limbaugh) alike are blaming only the psychotics but refusing to condemn a poisoned atmosphere of political and racial hatred---and going a step further by accusing Democrats of exploiting this for our own political gain?

Come to think of it, we are idiots indeed if we fail to begin and continue to remind America that racially-motivatived violence metaphors do indeed have consequences. Look how well seeding the national conversation (beginning in Aug. '09) with "birther" rhetoric  and phrases such as "big government," "Socialism," "Obamacare," "job-killing," "government control," "don't retreat, reload," and "death panels" has worked for the GOP in the midterm elections.  Demanding that those of influence on both sides voluntarily dial it back,  that (this guy aside) violent words DO have violent consequences, and reminding America of this widely, loudly and unceasingly--as well as reminding the voters just who took their jobs, put their home equities underwater, and are profiting from GOP victories--are about the only tools we have to keep the Presidency and Senate from falling into the hands of those who wrecked this economy and profit from keeping it broken.

Obama is not perfect. I remind those on the left how much he WAS able to accomplish in the first half of his first term. I remind those in the center that he did NOT lie or fail to keep his promises--hope, change and healing were not his promises, only his avowed goals. A broken and abused set of Senate rules, and a GOP dedicated solely to seeing him fail, kept all of his goals from becoming reality.  He surrounded himself with supply-side economists from Wall St. because the Keynesians and demand-siders are all in academia--and gov't cannot match their salaries, benefits or job tenure.  (And the third alternative: do we really want the equivalent of liberal counterparts of inexperienced Tea Party rookies running the show)? Obama hoped a Dem-majority Congress would temper his imperfect experts' pro-corporate connections and run with the ball--instead, they were blocked by the rules and the GOP at every turn.   He is not the Second Coming, nor is he Satan.  

And I warn my fellow liberals that to try to find someone more liberal to challenge him in the primaries and caucuses will be disastrous. It always is.  Every time in modern history that an incumbent Democratic President has been "primaried," not only have the Republicans won, but they have won for at least two and (starting in 1980) three more terms in a row.  Until all Blue Dog Dems turn liberal, until the 60-vote cloture rule is reduced to a simple majority, and as long as anonymous filibusters and secret holds remain in force, nobody more liberal than Obama can win in 2012. The best he can do is dig in his heels and refuse to compromise any longer--in which case truly nothing further can be accomplished (and the GOP accusations against him will change from "socialist" to "do-nothing," which low-info voters will swallow like soda pop). No other Democrat, in fact, can pull this one out of the fire in 2012.  The perfect is indeed the enemy of the good---and in this case, the "good" is better than the spinmeisters on both sides would have us believe. 

First, good, sharp knives.  Stay away from the ones you find hanging on cards at the supermarket and discount store. Ditto infomercial or home-shopping channel ceramics and Ginsus. They are flimsy, not well-balanced, don't take or hold a good edge and are not conducive to good ergonomic knife technique (which skill will not only give you great food results but help prevent cuts and repetitive stress injury).  The serrated ones may be sharp at first, but eventually dull and have proprietary edge-patterns that cannot be revived affordably by even the most sophisticated sharpeners.  You want to look not for shiny "everlasting" stainless steel but rather "high-carbon stainless."  (The old classic standby carbon-steel is terrific to work with, but costly, tedious to maintain and will darken and stain despite your best efforts). Also, stay away from knife sets:  even those from good makers include ones you'll never use and omit some you will eventually wish you had.  I used to buy Chicago Cutlery and Dexter-Russell knives from restaurant-supply stores; but have found fault with the wood handles that swell and get rough; and there are better blades out there.   I did my homework over on CooksIllustrated.com, and found some real bargains that are not only better but less expensive than Chicago Cutlery (and which have replaced the latter in commercial kitchens).  Victorinox is now my choice for chef's, slicing, butcher, boning and steak knives. All but the latter have sterilizable plastic non-slip textured handles, and all have well-shaped and highly responsive blades that take and hold an excellent edge with only regular honing on a steel. For larger slicing and chopping jobs the 8" chef's knife can't be beat, and unlike other brands it not only feels fine in my small hands but costs less than $30. For specialty knives, I like the Henckels Classic bread knife--well-serrated and it cuts neatly through the crustiest breads and airiest angel-food cakes. I'm also a big fan of Shun for smaller specialty knives: it is expensive, but scary-sharp out of the box and responsive. I love their 5" Santuko, 6" Ultimate Utility (weird scalloped curved round-tipped blade that cuts paper-thin onion and tomato slices, spreads condiments and saws effortlessly through bagels, rolls and finished sandwiches: a single knife needed for all steps of sandwich-making), and the fruit, paring, and sheeps-foot paring knives in the "Alton's Angles" trio for all cutting that does not require a large blade.  The Alton's Angles knives have tips that allow for precision trimming and coring, and they and the small Santuko are very comfortable in my small hands for small slicing jobs. I find the Shuns work better for me than their Henckels or Wustof counterparts--and I very carefully comparison-shopped and waited for deep discount sales on them. 

Second, good cutting boards.  I like a generic white poly restaurant board for raw meats and poultry (label each surface's purpose with a Sharpie on the edges with arrows!).  Never use it for anything but that, and wash it with hot water and bleach.  For almost everything else, bamboo is my new fave, replacing even butcher block. The surface is perfect--not too soft, not too hard or abrasive, easily maintained (quick rinse plus a wipe with mineral oil), and naturally antiseptic.  Look for the Totally Bamboo brand. My meat-carving board is a John Boos butcher-block with slant surface and juice-channel.  Hot-water rinse it and oil it after each use; you might lightly sand it occasionally if the surface gets too rough.  Have had it for over 10 yrs. now.

Next, the best and heaviest pots and pans you can possibly afford--and keep them at hand on a rack rather than stored if possible.  (Helper-handles on the biggest behemoths are key). I can't tell you how many nonstick pots (T-Fal, etc.) and pans I've bought in sets, from QVC or in supermarkets and department stores that warped (even Circulon and Anolon!) and despite eschewing dishwashers and metal utensils had their nonstick surfaces wear off or lose their slickness within a few months.  For nonstick, get only a few pieces, as good as possible and still be prepared to have to replace them every two or three years.  I limit myself to frypans and one nonstick sauce pan for foods that otherwise stick but don't yield usable "fond" (the brown residue from stuck-on caramelized meat or veggie sugars that can be turned into sauces and gravies).  With a very few exceptions (the new Calphalon"Sear" line I haven't tried yet--nor needed to) you can't effectively sear or get good "fond" from a nonstick surface--and you WANT to be able to make a sauce in the same pan you cooked the food over which you'll pour it. There are some things for which nonstick is preferable:  eggs, fish, cheese, and cream or tomato sauces, and some convenience foods that specify being made in a nonstick pan.  In nonstick I like: One 8" pan for eggs and only eggs (an extra 10"-er for omelettes if you're into that), a 10" and a 12" slope-sided skillet, and a 2-qt.saucepan for reheating soups or making rice or oatmeal. My 8-inchers are, for eggs and quick small-batch sautes, an Anolon Professional (after 5 yrs. the surface has started to wear) and for omelets, a $15 Leyte aluminum (the Frugal Gourmet's choice) from a restaurant-supply store--cheap but not a flimsy supermarket ten-buck special.  It too is beginning to wear....after 10 yrs. BUT, after getting a gift of an induction burner, I have decided to buy only magnetic (steel or cast-iron) cookware from now on--and the aluminum pans won't work with it.  I have just ordered a 7" All-Clad plain stainless (for non-egg small saute duty) and a 9" nonstick "French Skillet" (higher sides, wider and flatter bottom, as much surface area as a standard skillet or omelet pan. Also have a 2-qt. All-Clad nonstick saucepan--all my other pots are stainless or enameled cast-iron.  I also have a couple of Lodge cast-iron skillets (10", which I inherited from my grandma and 12" which I bought 2 yrs. ago) for baking cornbread and outdoor sear-cooking.  They are inexpensive, and if you take the time to season them (and the care to clean them properly) will last forever and be incredibly nonstick.

"Nonstick" does not mean you need never use oil or fat--just much less of it.  

Let me stop right here. Why am I transitioning from aluminum to stainless? Aluminum (unless nonstick anodized), will react with and darken acidic foods like tomatoes.  Yes, even bare anodized aluminum like the venerable original Calphalon (in my experience). Besides the induction-burner factor (and not all stainless will work with one--if it isn't explicitly labeled as compatible, bring a fridge magnet to the store with you and discreetly see if it'll stick to the pan: if yes, it's induction-compatible), steel is simply an evener conductor of heat than is aluminum, which is a faster conductor.  I prefer a steel-surface. aluminum-core design: the aluminum heats quickly and the steel encapsulating it outside and in ensures no hot-spots, which are what cause your food to heat unevenly and scorch instead of evenly sear.  The steel outer surface is also magnetic, and the inner surface also gives a great sear and "fond."  Fully-clad (the whole pan, not just a disk bottom, is aluminum between the steel) pans have no seams that can cause uneven cooking.  Over the years, carefully shopping sales and closeouts, I've accumulated a 12" skillet, 11" French skillet, 1, 2, and 3-qt. sauciers (shallow flared rounded-contour saucepans that are more versatile than straight-sided saucepans), and 2-1/2 and 4-qt. saucepans, all with lids.  All but the 2-1/2 qt. are All-Clad; that pan is a Marcus by Marcus Samuelsson, which is constructed and US-made just like All-Clad but deeply discounted on sale.  I love it, Lodge and All-Clad because they're all American-made; All-Clad has a great warranty to boot.  I also have a 2-qt. deep sauteuse and 4-qt sauteuse from All-Clad; the former is a great "one-pot/one-person" pan and the latter can double as a shallow fryer.  Also have an All-Clad (replacing Anolon, which warped!) 3-qt. soup pot with pasta, steamer and double-boiler inserts. The 4-qt. saucepan also does boiled potatoes and small batches of stocks and chili and doubles as a deep-fryer. Finally, I have a 6-qt. Tramontina enameled cast iron Dutch oven (1/3 the price of Le Creuset) for soups and chilis, an 8-qt. Anolon anodized aluminum stockpot with pasta insert (for spaghetti & linguine), and my birthday present last year--a 12-qt. All-Clad stainless stockpot, for lobsters and soups based on large poultry carcasses.  If you have no ideological qualms against shopping at Wal-Mart, Tramontina also makes a fully-clad stainless set that rivals All-Clad in quality at 1/4 the price. But as with knives, I am not a fan of sets, for the same reason:  they cost too much, contain pans you may never use, and you will want to mix materials, manufacturers and shapes/sizes to assemble a "dream team" that will evenly see action in your kitchen. 

Finally, take care of your tools! For knives, get a good honing steel (no, it DOESN'T sharpen) and use it before or after each time you use that knife.  Both sharpening and cutting cause the very fine edge of the knife to curl microscopically--which feels dull, makes you exert more pressure, and cause the knife to slip and cut you.  The steel realigns the edge and helps it stay sharp. A sharp knife is a safe knife--as long as you don't do something stupid like touch the edge or fail to curl your fingers under when slicing or chopping. If you steel your knives after each use or weekly, you needn't sharpen more than once or twice a year at most.  For sharpening, get a good manual or electric sharpener (I like Chef's Choice, the one with separate sets of slots for Asian and Euro-American knives, whose edges are at different angles;  it also can keep serrated edges sharp), learn to use a whetstone (very tricky, steep learning curve), or find a reputable sharpening service (expensive, and you're without your "pet" knife for awhile). Store knives either in blocks or covered with plastic sheaths in drawers or a fabric knife roll. For cookware, NEVER use bare metal tools in a nonstick pan, unless you want to replace it several times a year.  No excuses: all tools these days are offered in heat-resistant, plastic, nylon or silicon-coated-or tipped versions, as well as the old wooden standbys.  Never soak a wooden tool--rinse it and oil it frequently.  Clean nonstick with sponges and pads specifically labeled as safe for nonstick--or wipe out pans with a paper towel and rinse with plain water (or a dishcloth with a little dish soap).  For stainless and aluminum, I've ditched steel wool in favor of scour sponges and either dish soap or Bar Keeper's Friend mild powder abrasive. Soaking in hot water makes cleanup much easier. And NEVER expose a hot pan to cold water--even the best will warp.  (Cheaper pans will warp no matter what, I've found. A warped pan, especially a rim gone out of round--my pet peeve and a bigger cause of discarding the pan than worn nonstick surfaces), will not allow for a tight seal with the lid, will impact flavor and texture, and will make you cook with too much liquid).  Never heat a nonstick pan empty--you will ruin the surface AND cause odorless but noxious fumes (fatal to birds!).

Yes, my pots, pans and knives are copious and expensive, but I took years to collect them, never paid full price, and my heirs (and their grandkids) will fight over them long after I'm gone. And they make cooking so much easier!  (I also have my faves in terms of appliances, but that's another blog post and preferences are more individualized). 

Yesterday was Thanksgiving, and I roasted my first turkey in six years!  It was also my first-ever organic free-range bird (from Kelso, WA), and I was debating "to brine or not to brine." I opted to baste copiously instead, and it worked like a charm.  Looking back I am amazed how much I got done:  bird, gravy from scratch, cranberry sauces, pineapple carrots (my mom's recipe, which is also in the Folkie cookbook from WDCB), brussels sprouts, dressing (the croutons were a mix, but I added fresh sage & rosemary, mandarin oranges, eggs, onions, celery, mushrooms, sausage and wild rice), and mashed Yukon Golds (thanks, Kathy, for mashing them while I finished and plated everything).  Thanks to Andy & Erin for the yummy baked ham, Kathy for the light and silky pumpkin pie, Jack for bringing the raspberry tiramisu, and Bob & Gordy for shopping for last minute stuff and saving my knees by doing the schlepping to and from the basement fridge.  Also can't believe that EVERYTHING is clean again--and I, notorious slob and procrastinator that I am--did it!

Bob's dad, Peter T. Andina, graduated from this life shortly before noon on Thurs. Nov. 4 at the age of 90. He had suffered two massive strokes since late September and did not regain consciousness after the second one two weeks ago. He was in a nursing home on hospice care, and passed away peacefully. Funeral and burial information available on request; his favorite charity was Catholic Charities. May his memory be for a blessing.