When Dust Bunnies Attack

You know how you think your place is relatively clean and then you start packing things up to move and you realize you've been secretly growing an entire universe made out of dust under your bed? Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Packing and cleaning to move. Which is why I've been kind of MIA lately. That and a dead internet connection, which doesn't help.

But, I will try to be posting soon, as I've lately seen Little Miss Sunshine, The Descent and Idlewild, plus I have to spread the love of KT Tunstall, whose CD Eye to the Telescope is on permanent rotation at home.

In the meantime, head over to Sereena's Metaphor Voodoo for this week's roundtable discussing the perfect song. So pitch in your two cents, unless your two cents consist of the words "Milli Vanilli," in which case you have no sense at all (get it? Cents and sense? Ha...ha. Oh my...the dust. It's the dust talking, I swear...)

Roundtable: Don't Piss Off the Advice Columnists

Dan Savage is mad as hell. And he's not going to give advice anymore. At least, not to straight people. Or straight people with marriage on their radar.

Ever since the New York Supreme Court denied gay couples the right to marry because straight people need it more (that sounds horribly reductive, but that really is the gist of their argument), Dan has been firing on all cylinders. First, there was his op-ed piece in the New York Times (sorry, you might have to pay to read it, but you can read an excerpt here) where he explained that the courts' ridiculous arguments against same-sex marriage (which I explained and picked apart here) are getting weaker, which is a good sign that they may disintegrate altogether in the near future.

But now his passion and frustration are influencing his day job as a nationally syndicated sex advice columnist. Not that he's been particularly hesitant to include his political views in his column, but now he's giving the total brush-off to those considering marriage or already married.

To a woman who wrote in about her wonderful, studly, well-endowed boyfriend who doesn't want her to use her beloved sex toys once they get married, Dan wrote:

"I just can't be bothered today, BAB [Blushing Anonymous Bride]. You see, state supreme courts in New York and Washington handed down blatantly bigoted rulings against gay marriage in July and I'm kind of pissed at the fact that you get to marry your big-dicked boyfriend but I can't marry mine."

Ouch. And then, to a married man who was given a "free pass" by his wife to indulge his kinks and wants suggestions on how to set up a gay one-night stand, Dan offered this:

"No ideas, MAK [Middle-Aged Kinkster]. No advice, no guidance, no pointers. You know why I got nothin' for you, MAK? Because if we gay guys aren't allowed to be married—to each other—then you married straight guys aren't allowed to be gay. Not even once, not even if you're just going to put it in a little, not even with the wife's permission."

And finally, the same week an 18-year-old girl wrote about being impregnated by her 18-year-old boyfriend, who not only doesn't want to get married (!), he doesn't even want to have sex with her anymore (!!) - which is unsurprising to anyone over the age of 18 - even though he still says he loves her (!!!).

Dan's response?

"Doesn't your boyfriend read the papers, PAD [Pregnant and Deprived]? According to the State of New York's highest court, the institution of marriage exists expressly to entice the likes of him—that is, irresponsible straight boys—into marrying the likes of you—that is, irresponsible straight girls. Since heterosexual relationships are 'often casual or temporary,' and since 'unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes,' the court found that the state can deny same-sex couples—with kids, without kids, whatever—the right to marry. Marriage is set aside exclusively for folks like you!

And you mean to tell me that your boyfriend doesn't want to marry you? What a fucking ingrate! I'm not sure what you can do about it, PAD, but perhaps those justices in New York can help you out. Maybe one of the justices can hold the shotgun while another officiates?"

Now, I loves me some advice columnists. I read Dear Prudence at Slate, Since You Asked over at Salon and try to keep up with the Chicago Tribune's not one but two daily columnists. Obviously their personal views are going to influence their responses, whether they're consciously aware of it or not (although they really should be self-aware enough to know it).

And I think Dan had a point. I mean, how much do help do straight people need with marriage? Aren't there like three dozen wedding/relationship magazines, four hundred books, the previous generation's hard-earned wisdom to turn to and, you know, the state and federal governments to help out?

But seriously, did he go too far? With one of the most widely-read columns in the country, plus editing Seattle's alternative The Stranger and the author of books such as The Kid and The Commitment, Dan is very influential to both straights and gays. This week he admits to getting flack from readers who want him to do his job - give advice. So he's back helping out with kinky fetishes and STD prevention. He made his point but now he's back doing what he does best.

What would happen if all the advice columnists turned on their readers? Or went on strike? Where would all the confused, directionless advice seekers turn to? How would we best know how to sign a "thank you" letter? Who would set boundaries for how to properly walk your dog? Who would start a movement to spread santorum without an advice columnist to help us? There'd be riots on the streets, I tell you. Sheer chaos.

Across the Universe

Stephen wants to know where you've been, what you did there, and if you would go back. So, considering we can't really fly anywhere right now without a lot of complications, we might as well revel in where we have travelled why we wait for things to clear up.

So grab a martini and a mini-packet of peanuts and head on over to Serenade in Green...

Like an After-School Special, With Liquor

Instead of describing what happens when I cook every single recipe in Giada de Laurentiis' Everyday Italian, I figured I would break it down into larger sections and inform you of some of the lessons I've learned along the way.

As a quick update, since I last blogged about my cooking experiences, I've made White Bean Dip with Baked Pita Chips, Sun-Dried Tomato and Chickpea Dip, Italian Egg Sandwiches, Nutella Sandwiches, Roasted Aspargus Wrapped in Prosciutto, Sweet Red Pepper Crostini, Simple Bolognese Sauce, Turkey Meatballs in Tomato Sauce, Brown Butter Sauce over ravioli, Seared Rib-Eye Steak with Arugula-Roasted Pepper Salad, Pork Milanese, Milanese Sandwiches, Chicken Spezzatino, Peas and Prosciutto, Broccoli and Green Beans, Smashed Parmesan Potatoes, Marinated Strawberries over Pound Cake, Affogato, Panna Cotta with Honey and Toasted Pound Cake with Mascarpone and Amaretto.

So far, that brings my total to 47 out 125 recipes. Not even halfway yet. Yeah. I know. But anyway, here's some things I've learned along the way so far:

1) Nutella is crack in a jar. Or an orgasm in a jar. Or sex in a jar. Whichever classy metaphor you prefer, Nutella should be its own food group. I don't care if you don't like chocolate (although if you don't, you're not really human, but I'm not here to judge) or hazelnuts. This gooey Italian treat is SO good smeared or drizzled over fruit, ice cream, waffles or just plain toast (with butter or peanut butter, too? Okay, then, if you insist) that you shouldn't go another day without it. Right out of the jar or nuked in the microwave to make it easier to spread, Nutella is so addictive you could pour it over a shoe and you'd swear Pumas were the tastiest sneakers ever.

But it's not just Nutella. Thanks to Giada, I now can't imagine my cabinets without amaretto (an almond liqueur that's great brushed over pound cake, mixed into jam, poured over ice cream, or just on the rocks), instant espresso (to be added to brownies or panna cotta or mixed with hot water and poured over ice cream to make Affogato) or capers (salty little green berries that add a lot of flavor to salads and pasta). My kitchen and my grocery store are now a lot more interesting.

2) I like peas! Okay, this may be the least significant personal discovery one could ever make. It's basically on par with "I like reading letters that form words!" or "My feet help me move!" But, the point is, I'm not only stocking my pantry with interesting new items, I'm extending my palate to foods and flavors I had previously avoided. Peas aren't bitter and mushy as I believed growing up, they're bright and firm (it helps if you add prosciutto and garlic, like Giada).

Also, while I still think spiciness can overshadow actual flavors in a dish, I now appreciate a little heat in my pasta sauces, vegetables and meats. So not only do I own a jar of red pepper flakes, I actually use them. It's good to get out of your comfort zones in many ways, and what you cook at home is one way to do that. (Although I still haven't made Eggplant Rollatini yet. Eggplant: ew.)

3) Cheese and potatoes are overrated. No, not really. Cheese and potatoes, are, in fact, pretty awesome, especially together. But sometimes the obvious winners don't live up to expectations and uninspiring recipes can yield surprise hits.

Smashed Parmesan Potatoes are just quartered red-skinned potatoes boiled, drained and then literally smashed with a fork while adding Parmesan cheese and olive oil. Cheesy potatoes - how could I lose? Well, maybe I didn't season them enough (Giada doesn't specify the salt and pepper amounts, which is strange because she usually does), but this assumed slam-dunk was bland and boring, even with freshly grated Parmesan and good quality oil.

Conversely, Toasted Pound Cake with Mascarpone and Amaretto, a recipe where you sandwich mascarpone cream between slices of toasted pound cake and then smear it with apricot preserves mixed with amaretto, was one of my favorites so far. When I looked at the recipe, it seemed fine but nothing special. Pound cake (eh) with some mascarpone (always good) with some jelly (eh) and liqueur (yum) and topped with sliced almonds (eh). That's 3 out of 5 "eh"'s...not a good sign. But when you put it together, the heat from the toasted cake slices gently melts the cream and the jelly mixture, which in turn ooze into each other and become a creamy, boozy, gooey mess (the Foodtv.com photo here doesn't do it justice). I was in heaven.

So I have 78 recipes to go before March. That doesn't sound too bad. And who knows? Maybe by the end of this whole thing I'll like eggplant, mushrooms (which I go back and forth on) and white wine, all of which appear more than once in Giada's book and all of which I'm not particularly keen on. We can save those for another lesson...

Butter: The 5th Food Group

Sereena X at Metaphor Voodoo doesn't approve of the government's new food pyramids. They try to customize it for each individual by their age, gender and exercise routines, so there's no one official pyramid anymore. While I can get behind the concept, when I entered my information, I think the website told me to eat 5 servings of twigs and Dr. Pepper every day, so I'm not sure how accurate it is.

So Sereena X is asking us to suggest what foods are left out of the pyramid altogether. So far, we've got chocolate, baked potatoes, Tostino's pizza rolls, prosciutto (my choice!), sushi, habanero hot sauce, and Scotch. What else are we missing?

Grab a martini (ah, there we go, that's the food group we're missing: cocktails) and head over to Metaphor Voodoo to add your own ideas.

Time to Hire a Personal Airbrusher

Jessica Herman, a writer at CenterStageChicago.com, interviewed me last week for her ongoing gig profiling local bloggers. Not only did she find out about the dirt underneath my bed, my love of brunches (do you think Angel Food Bakery will give me a free homemade Twinkie for mentioning them?) and my love of Project Runway, she was able to do something I've been avoiding for ten months...

She posted a picture of me. And a semi-decent one at that.

So you might as well take a look around CenterStageChicago while you're there, and check out Jessica's interviews with other bloggers, especially the uncommonly good Megan Stielstra, who introduced me to the concept of non-water-based ice. Who knew?

Wisconsin, Suckas

Since I started this blog, I went to Hawaii



and then Seattle



and now...



Wisconsin.

A quick descent from tropical paradise and crunchy-granola urban cool to midwestern cheese-and-hunting cultural void? Nay, I tell you. From Door County's fresh cherries to hiking in Devil's Lake, Wisconsin is our oft-overlooked northern neighbor, much as Canada is to the U.S, or as Alaska is to...Canada. Or something.

So I'll be gone for the weekend, but in the meantime, be sure to head over tomorrow to Atul's blog, Things I've Noticed, for this week's Roundtable discussion.

If you're bored without me, as you undoubtedly will be, you can always check out Slate's daily photography exhibit, with themes ranging from Tokyo to Fashion Week to motherhood.

And if you haven't been checking it out every day, you have to head over to Married to the Sea, the sister site to the equally funny Toothpaste for Dinner. They take an old illustration and add their own random, irreverant twist, such as this pre-email parallel:



Or this...um...cherub...spreading his love of fruit:



Hopefully I'll be out of my cheese coma sometime after Sunday to get back to my Chicago life of nightclubs, photo shoots and power lunches with Donald Trump and Charlie Trotter (which actually translates to Friends reruns, packed CTA trains and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches eaten at my desk while perusing Janet Jackson fan forums).

Enjoy!

Laughs and Tears, Courtesy of the New York Times

I'm pretty sure this doesn't really fall under any of the categories I usually talk about, and I'm also jumping on the bandwagon a little late, but last week I read about recent developments in the same-sex marriage debate and found a lot of it interesting.

So two weeks ago the New York Supreme Court ruled that a legislative ban on same-sex marriages does not violate the state constitution. The judges offered two arguments. One being the "role model" angle, stating that children are best raised by a man and a woman. The second is what is now referred to as the "reckless procreation" rule.

Kenji Yoshino, in an excellent op-ed piece for the New York Times, first uses actual evidence (imagine that!) to deflate the "role model" argument and then goes on to explain the "reckless procreation" approach.

But the New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”

Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples.”

To shore up those rickety heterosexual arrangements, “the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.” Lest we miss the inversion of stereotypes about gay relationships here, the opinion lamented that straight relationships are “all too often casual or temporary.”

First, as Dan Savage pointed out in an earlier New York Times piece, what does having children have anything to do with whether or not gay couples can marry? There are plenty of straight couples who get married without the intention or ability to have kids. Having children is not required for a marriage license.

Second, isn't this ruling insulting to both gays and straights? I picture the NY Supreme court as this condescending teacher patting the heads of all the straight-A gay students, saying "Gays, since you're all so devoted to your kids anyway, you don't need our help, right?" And then turning to the straights wearing dunce caps in the corner, snapping "Straights, you're too stupid to figure this out on your own. At least get married so you can do something right for your kids, because you obviously can't be trusted to do anything right on your own."

Third, does this mean that straight couples that go to the same lengths as gay couples to have children - adoption, artificial insemination - will also be unable to marry? You know, since they're obviously just as committed as gay parents to providing a stable environment for children and therefore don't need the stabilizing effects of marriage? Will they be deprived of a marriage license?

I love how apparently gay couples have become such beacons of parenting in the eyes of these judges (actually, to judges in Indiana, New York City and New York state), to the point where their abilities are so above and beyond that of straight parents they apparently don't need any governmental support at all. Well, isn't that flattering? Gosh, I guess a legislative bitch-slap doesn't sting as much when it's preceded by a hug.

And, oh yeah, if straight couples do need all that help, then fine. But, again, why do we need to deprive gay couples of the right to marry for straight couples to benefit from it? Wouldn't straight couples supposedly benefit from marriage even if gay couples could also marry?

The funny part? Where straight relationships are described as "all too often casual or temporary." Translation: "breeders, you're all a bunch of whores." (Which is true. You all are.)

The best part of the column is the fact that it appeared in the paper the same time as a piece about the hot new gay vacation spots, reminding us, yet again, that everyone can accept a friendly gay when he's contributing to their economy but God forbid he actually want to partake in the same economic benefits to which he's contributing.

Oh, well. I guess I shouldn't complain too much (but I probably will, anyway), since the House Republicans still can't pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Ha ha. Losers. The Republicans on the state level, on the other hand, are a little more succesful. Curse you, Tennessee, Nebraska and Georgia!

You should read about the House debate anyway. It's actually a funny break between all the Lebanon tragedies. Some highlights:

The Democrats accused Republicans of raising the issue even as they ignored what the Democrats said were more pressing problems, including the war in Iraq, an expanding conflict in the Middle East, high gasoline prices and North Korean missile tests.

Another Georgia Republican, Representative Phil Gingrey, said support for traditional marriage “is perhaps the best message we can give to the Middle East and all the trouble they’re having over there right now.”

Yeah, that really is the best message. Forget peace or gender equality or religious tolerance. It's a good thing they see our government denying its citizens civil rights at the exact same time we're trying to convince them that their governments are oppressive and intolerant and should emulate ours. Oh, thanks for the laughs, Rep. Gingrey.

But the best part is the so-logical-it-almost-hurts-that-some-people-don't-get-it quotes at the end:

“How does the existence of same-sex marriage discourage or retard heterosexual marriage?” asked Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is gay, calling it “the most illogical argument I’ve ever heard.”

Mr. Frank and others on the Massachusetts delegation said the state’s social fabric had not unraveled in the two years since its highest court recognized a right to same-sex marriage, a decision that set off a nationwide battle against it.

“It’s had no effect on my marriage,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, “except we get invited to more weddings.”

Amen.

All right, I'm done ranting. I'll get back to our regularly scheduled programming of trivial updates on Jessica Simpson's latest turd of a single and why Nutella is crack in a jar.

If I Had a Million Dollars...

I'd by a lifetime supply of Nutella.

After taxes, of course.

And then, maybe I'd give a little to RW, our Roundtable godfather, who's wondering just how much money is enough to be comfortable. $1 million? $10 million? Let's just round it up to a nice even $100 million, shall we?

How much would be enough for you? Drop a ten at the bar for your martini and join us at the Roundtable...

An Update on the Someone I'd Rather Not Mention and Our National I.Q.

I know, I know, I've already given her way too much attention as it is. My blogger's self-respect is plummeting down to zero as I type this, but I just thought I should update everyone about this.

Even though I recently stated that "Americans are getting more and more stupid," Americans are currently proving me wrong. In fact, maybe in three weeks, our collective I.Q. has actually ascended to a best-ever 45(-ish)! Because right now, Paris Hilton's first single, "Stars Are Blind," has fallen on Billboard's Top 100 chart from No. 18 (the third-highest debut of the year - ick) down to No. 30. And I've barely heard it on the radio at all. I seriously thought I wouldn't be able to escape her this summer. That's right, people are actually becoming less interested in the song. Now it seems the only person who keeps talking about her is me! Oh, the irony!

What's that I detect? Our nation's collective level of taste actually rising? Maybe there's something going on. After all, Johnny Depp is No. 1 at the box office, Johnny Cash in has the No. 1 album, and Project Runway is back on the air.

Soon, we'll be living in a land where Lauren Graham wins Emmys and Janet Jackson actually makes a decent album again; where Joseph Arthur actually receives at least half the airplay that James Blunt got and Jonathan Franzen writes another novel.

...sigh...

Well, a boy can dream, can't he?