I had to reread the article several times to try to figure out Cunningham's affiliation, and finally realized it just wasn't there. What was there -- in the very last paragraph -- was the line, "Cunningham's pleas came amid a series of GOP scandals." That wording, of course, leaves it rather ambiguous as to whether this is ANOTHER GOP scandal, or one that helps balance out GOP scandals with a Democratic scandal.

--Josh

While I tend to look dubiously on claims that the tape is a forgery, it is interesting that the CIA has been so quick to offer to a definitive affirmation of the tape's authenticity (at least, that it is bin Laden speaking). In most previous instances, the CIA has equivocated about its ability to definitively identify bin Laden on tapes.

It also strikes me as odd that in all this discussion, nobody brings up the irony that not only have Americans, in polls, expressed their desire to leave Iraq, but the Iraqis themselves, in their elections, have clearly asked that the Americans leave Iraq. It seems that the Bush administration and the US media are both quick to trumpet the Iraq elections and just as quick to shrug off the clear message those elections are sending.

--Josh

I have to agree with Anonymous on this one. Videogames, especially, are geekiness personified.

"Initially blended with cinnamon and sugar and served as a hot beverage to the privileged classes..."

Not so. Chocolate was not "initially" blended with sugar; not for many hundreds of years. Originally, royalty drank it bitter. Or, as Broudy would say, "like crayons."

Far from the "snobbery" of chocolate being a new thing, the new high percentage dark chocolates and the perception of chocolate as being a rare and valuable commodity is closer to a return to the way chocolate used to be regarded: bitter and high-falutin'.

--Josh

Matt,

It's highly unlikely that vanillin is responsible for the sour taste you're discerning. (Actually, Hershey uses a soured milk for much of its milk chocolate, and always has. Ref: "The Emperors of Chocolate: Inside the Secret World of Hershey's and Mars," by Joël Glenn Brenner; a marvelous book that should be required reading for any chocoholic.)

Cook's Illustrated, if you've never heard of it, is a magazine that accepts no advertising and which has extraordinarily high standards for their recipes and articles (they read more like engineering reports than recipes). They have, more than once since the magazine's inception, extensively tested vanillas and vanillins with a panel of pastry and dessert chefs, some of whom have names you would immediately recognize. The results of the tests -- much to their chagrin (since they, along with most other cookbooks, typically specify "pure vanilla extract" in their recipes -- have been the same: you cannot tell the difference between vanilla and vanillin in a finished product. The main chemical that comprises vanillin is the same chemical that gives true vanilla much of its flavor. And while it's true that real vanilla has scores of other chemicals that contribute subtleties, these are not detecable in finished products, especially in chocolate -- where vanilla is present in incredibly minute quantities to begin with, and where chocolate flavor is so overwhelmingly powerful and predominant.

The sour taste more likely comes from the milk (esp. if it's Hershey's chocolate), from poor storage, or from higher cacao content, which definitely adds astringency.

BTW, to all those who favor Hershey's Special Dark: be aware that Hershey's Special Dark is MILK chocolate, not dark chocolate, despite the name. Read the ingredients.

--Josh

...at the same time, I've heard an explanation for the cuts in NYC's antiterror budget that makes sense. What's the flaw in the logic?

The rationale I'd heard (on NPR, not on Fox, although I guess the distinction is becoming less apparent lately) was that one of the reasons for NYC's high original budget and comparatively small new budget is that much of the original budget went into establishing new programs, outfitting new facilities, etc. Many of these are one-time expenditures, and they devolve into (relatively) inexpensive overhead costs after the initial start-up costs.

Do the costs involved in any given region's antiterror programs really start at square one year after year after year?

I'm not asking this to be facetious. I'd really like to know if this rationale is an accurate reflection of reality, because it seems logical on the face of it.

...who mocked Karla Faye Tucker? "Please, don't kill me"?

...who grinned when he was asked about Texas's high excution rate, said he was proud of it, and said he'd just have to disagree with Jesus on that one?

Astounding.

If we are to believe what we hear from assorted rights groups, the following double standard applies:

Any woman who kills her children must, ipso facto, be insane, because only an insane mother would intentionally harm her children. They should all be treated for mental illness and then set free.

Any man who kills his children must, ipso facto, be a monster, because only a monster would intentionally harm his children. They should all be imprisoned and, ideally, executed.