I have never thought to toast banana bread before, but I’ll have to give it a shot the next time I buy or make some. Thanks!
I recently discovered the deliciousness of toasted croissants, which is not a type of bread I would have expected would be improved by toasting. In light of that experience, I’m wondering if there are any other types of bread that are not conventionally toasted but that are improved by the process. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Or watch any high school sports. I’ve watched high school boys play basketball, soccer, and volleyball, and I’ve watched the same from college girls. There’s never been any doubt in my mind that the high school boys would smash the college girls almost every time.
The people who actively push for position A may be doing so for cynical status jockeying reasons, but I think the organizational response that enables their success is an understandable, if unfortunate, reaction to decades of people using position C to argue for no consequences for immoral behavior ever. When people hear that Comrade Bob was accused of sexual misconduct, they immediately think of Harvey Weinstein and Father Jim, panic, and do whatever they can to avoid accusations of conducting their own cover-up. In that context, arguing for nuance is typically going to fail. Now, as those scandals fade into the background, there may be a chance to successfully push for position B. It seems to me that this is starting to happen, though that is admittedly just a gut impression.
Not long ago, I was struck for similar reasons when reading a Joyce Kilmer poem: To a Young Poet Who Killed Himself. I can’t imagine coming across anything similar from a modern-day poet.
Plus, Kilmer is most famous for his poem on trees (beloved by hippies everywhere), so I tend to think of him as a soft-hearted liberal. In reality, he was a devout Catholic, and he shared his church’s—and his society’s—negative views on suicide.
Partly “Innocent until proven guilty” and partly because communities which have the most murders also have the highest reluctance to talk to the police.
Did he have to, or did he choose to? It’s pretty common for Midwestern students to prefer to go to college somewhat close to home. A lot of us form lifelong friendships in high school, and going to college far away from home would tend to destroy those relationships.
I don’t think you’ve fully understood the objection. It’s not “somebody else would already be dealing with it.” It’s “Somebody else should now start dealing with it.”
A man jumped into a pond to save a drowning child. Halfway to shore, he stopped swimming and let the child go. From the shore, no one knows why—maybe he cramped up, maybe he decided he hated the kid, maybe there was some other reason—all the bystanders know is that he’s not going to keep helping the kid to safety. From that point on, it’s quite reasonable to ask why none of bystanders will jump in to take the man’s place instead of just standing around hurling abuse at him. If the kid’s safety is their true concern, they should do something to prove it. Otherwise their criticisms of the man ring hollow.
I think that’s most of it, but I think Eddie Izard also had a good point that Pol Pot and Stalin “killed their own people, and we’re sort of fine with that.”
Europeans absolutely have a shared history and culture, and, as with other racial groups, they form a distinct natural cluster. To take two obvious examples of shared culture, all European countries are historically Christian and trace their intellectual heritage back to Greece and Rome. That alone makes them more unified than “Native American” as a single ethnic category.
But you do have to kill God to do it.
But we did that 140 years ago. Nothing else should stand in our way.
there are too many people for the economy to sustain on its own
I’m struggling to understand why or how you think that is the case. Could you elaborate?
Unless Trump also orders more departments to move to Kansas or other non-coastal states.
Historically, marriage has pretty much always been primarily about child-rearing, which of course requires both a man and a woman, rather than pair-bonding, as most people see it today. In any society with that view, gay marriage is a ridiculous notion.
For the ancient Greeks, the highest love was that between two men (or a man and a boy) of equally high virtue. Those friendships were committed, largely lifelong, and frequently sexual, but they existed alongside opposite-sex marriages. The Romans weren’t quite as gay as the Greeks, but they generally didn’t see anything wrong with a freeman having sex with another man as long as he was the active partner (nobody cared what slaves got up to). Nevertheless, when Nero married two men (in one case as the active, and in another as the passive partner), all of Rome was appalled. If memory serves, we have other surviving sources ridiculing other purported same-sex marriages from that time as well.
Christians of course inherited the Jews’ extremely negative views on homosexuality, but even they saw clear differences between (chaste) same-sex friendships and marriage, usually extolling friendship as being the higher love. I believe St. Jerome even once wrote that marriage was only good because it produced children for the next generation of friendships to form. But the ancient Christians never condemned same-sex marriage because it just wasn’t a thing.
My understanding is that most Asian societies also didn’t really care about what sexual practices people got up to outside of marriage, as long as they also did their duty and had children within marriage (monks were of course excluded and apparently had a reputation for same-sex behavior).
Moving to the Middle East, even today in Afghanistan, there’s a saying that “women are for children and boys are for fun” (or something along those lines), which further emphasizes the universality of that link.
It seems to have been only in the past 150 years or so (at least in the Anglo world) that marriage began to be seen as obviously higher than mere friendship, and that the bond between husband and wife was seen as so special. I don’t know why that trend started, but I wonder if it might have had something to do with Victorian England’s strict anti-homosexuality laws leading to a de-emphasis on same-sex friendships just to be safe. Whatever the reason, that special bond started to redefine marriage. Once the Sexual Revolution and the pill severed the link between marriage and sex, and between sex and procreation, the common perception of marriage changed finally and completely. Now marriage is all about “the love of my life” and “marrying my best friend,” and all the tangled emotions that come with it. No-fault divorce helped here too, since it meant that the only thing keeping a marriage together—the only thing that actually mattered—was the emotional high of “being in love” with another human being. Once the high goes away, the marriage is dead, since those two are seen as completely synonymous. (Kids in such marriages are like houses, an asset to be divided when the marriage inevitably fails.)
With that redefined understanding of marriage, it’s completely arbitrary to restrict it to heterosexual pairings only. Two men or two women can love each other just as deeply as a man and a woman, and since that’s all that matters in a marriage, there’s no reason to deny it to them.
Now, take that final product, export it with McDonald’s, Elvis, and Levi’s, and you eventually redefine marriage for the rest of the world.
If there’s really 96.6% public support, I’m just shocked it took this long.
As did The Office. As of course did Chaplin himself.
I think you’re both right but looking at different time periods. Two story houses built on deep, narrow lots were the rule throughout much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in what were often called the “streetcar suburbs.” As the name suggests, residents originally relied primarily on public transportation and so didn’t need lots large enough to accommodate stables, carriage houses, or garages. That changed during the post-war era, when modern suburban neighborhoods with their one story houses on relatively large lots became the norm. Most newer subdivisions these days seem to contain relatively large houses on lots that are smaller than those of the 1950s but wider than those of the 1910s (though not necessarily much larger in terms of total square footage).
Where are you finding this information? CBS is still reporting, in an article updated 25 minutes ago, that everything will take place in the Rotunda and that Vance will be present.
Can we just give the Europeans this one and go back to calling it a meat and cheese tray/platter? Simple, descriptive, unpretentious, and less French. What’s not to love?
At the risk of being satirical, can I nominate this?
You also can’t go wrong with Take Five or the Pink Panther theme song. Of course, none of these are from the ’80s.
Presumably as a middle finger to the government for banning TikTok.
Oh, I agree. My point was that Biden didn’t make this decision out of nowhere. Influential members of his party were pushing him to make this announcement (and actually to go further, but it sounds like Biden isn’t planning to apply pressure to the archivist to certify the ratification).
Oh, Jews definitely have much higher levels of in-group bias than most Gentile whites (and, along similar lines, Evangelical Christians’ positive views of Jews are definitely not reciprocated), but it seems to me that Jewish success in America has less to do with nepotism than with higher IQ. White Baptists have nearly the same level of in-group bias as Jews do, yet they don’t have the same level of success despite having had a significant head start in this country. It seems to me that differences in IQ likely explain the bulk of those disparate outcomes.
Likewise, some blacks definitely experience some racial discrimination, but that doesn’t mean racism is the primary reason they have worse life outcomes on average.
This creates and purports to legitimize a blue-tribe consensus that there is a 28th Amendment and that it is the ERA
It helps to legitimize it, but it doesn’t create it. Just last month, 120 Democrats in the House and 46 in the Senate signed letters asking Biden to take this step, since, in their view, the amendment was already validly approved. Other blue tribe groups like the National Council of Negro Women and the New York City Bar Association also published similar letters in December. This move may have blindsided Republicans (myself included), but the Democrats were clearly preparing for it.
- Prev
- Next
Do you know if Trader Joe’s butter is anything like Kerrygold butter? I heard from many different people over a span of about 15 years that Kerrygold butter is the best butter. I finally bought some, and I have to say, I wasn’t impressed. I actually prefer regular old American-style salted butter.
More options
Context Copy link