An extraordinarily common theme in Cold War-era SF is the "we all band together to fight off marauding aliens" plot.

My favorite version, though, has always been the "Twilight Zone" take on the idea, which goes something like this:

*Aliens menace us, threatening destruction unless we "start living up to our potential". They give us 90 days.

*Treaty-signing breaks out at the UN, wars are stopped, nuclear weapons destroyed, a brotherhood of man declared.

*The aliens return, and say "But we bred you to be warriors! This is exactly the sort of namby-pamby nonsense we warned you about! Your "potential" was as stone-cold galactic killers! Oh the humanity..."

*Destruction pods drop out of the sky...

I tend to agree with Bertrand Russell that there's hardly any evidence in history, if you really look, of the "banding together to ward off a common danger". But there's an awful lot of "trying to get one over the other guy".

Look at the current debate over global warming, for yet more evidence. What's the most common reason for not doing anything? That's right -- it will affect our economic competitiveness...

Coulter's first line from her column:

The Edwards campaign is apparently still running low on donations, so this week they went back to their top fundraiser: me.

She asks rhetorically two paragraphs later:

did any TV host ever surprise [liberal commentators] with a call by the wife of someone made nasty remarks about?

So she's saying that her making nasty remarks about Democrats constitutes an effective way to channel funds to them.

So should we be yelling "Stop Ann stop!" or "Go Ann go!"?

Or, as I've said for years, is it now not manifestly obvious that Coulter is a plant -- effective only in driving Republicans away from the shrieking right and into the center where they could conceivably vote Democrat?

...not that he really needs any defense, but his "The Janeites" is really a super-sly send-up of all "Ancient Order of X" type clubs with their silly secret handshakes, passwords, and levels of "mystery".

It's a very clever story, working on multiple levels, that has fooled and annoyed several generations of critics, including one C.S. Lewis of Christian apologetics fame.

Perhaps Lewis objected to "The Janeites" cleverest metaphor -- Jane Austen's sublime novels as the "sacred texts" of a group of "believers" -- although I think it's rather a stretch to concoct anything terribly negative about the Austen-mania that shows no sign of halting its 200-year run.

What shines through in Austen is the underlying truth of her characters' timeless quests for, if not the "perfect" man, then the "right" one.

Visiting Coulter's website is great for a laugh at the moment.

Prominently displayed twice on the site is a huge banner ad for "Conservative Book Club" with their catchy slogan "3 Conservative Books for $1 each!"

Yeah, there's a couple of cheap laughs (That's about what they're worth! Boom tish! Conservative ideas: already remaindered! Ba bing!) but there's also a bigger laugh when you realize that one of the books displayed in the annoying animated picture is ..... drumroll .....

Coulter's book that was released yesterday in paperback!

Which really makes one wonder about how many people actually purchase her dreck at full-price.

Over here! Getcher Coulter! Hate by the pound! Only a dollar!

Moore's inclusion of the "cartoony bits" serve exactly the same purpose as Shakespeare's inclusion of drunk gatekeepers and cheeky gravediggers -- they lighten the otherwise claustrophobic and desperate mood of the tragedy we're watching unfold.

So, just as he's not saying the KKK caused the NRA -- he's simply highlighting a blackly amusing co-incidence -- so too he isn't saying King Dick caused the problems with the medical system. But isn't it funny how a crucial decision was made during that dark chapter... etc.

Strangely, it only seems to be critics and wingnuts who don't understand Moore's "clown scene" set-pieces. Wingnuts were never going to profess to understand anyway, and critics need to find "flaws" to justify their paychecks and appear "evenhanded".

It's all in the classics / what do they teach in these schools / curmudgeonly grumble grumble / etc.

There are at least eight distinct cuisines that make up "Chinese food" -- each as different from the others as Italian food is from Indian.

Once upon a time, in a different life, if fellow HTWW-ers can excuse me self-linking, I even co-wrote a primer. It lives here:

http://www.btmbeijing.com/contents/en/btm/2004-08/

It's the first article listed. We punnily called the series "China Eight". Not my proudest literary moment...

You can get acceptable regional Chinese meals in the US, you've just got to look really, really hard. In Chicago's Chinatown, for example, there is precisely one restaurant that is worth visiting. Now if only I could remember the name... it's across the street from a Walgreens, anyway, and away from the "main strip" of tasteless fare served in Chinatown proper. Anyone?

I don't know what Beijing Duck restaurant the "lump of fat" above went to, but I second the recommendation for Da Dong at the East 3rd Ring Road location in Beijing. Utterly superb. You may think you've had Beijing Duck, but until you've had it in Beijing, at Da Dong or a few other places, you don't know what you're talking about. If you're planning a trip, try to get someone to book you a table at Da Dong before you leave -- you need at least a week in advance to get a table.

After decades of US-like Canto-stagnation, Chinese cuisine in Australia and in the UK is likewise finally finding its feet (hooray!). Now if only the Europeans could join the party -- Paris has "ok for visiting Chinese students" quality, but nothing special, not for any money.

Funniest was travelling with a Chinese colleague to the US for a conference. After seeing his third restaurant advertising "Mandarin Food" he turned to me and said (and I quote) "What the hell is that?!?! You go there and they talk about the dishes?!?!"