Even Restaurant Critics Can Be President

Democrats to seat Burris - Chicago Breaking News [Link]

If E! ever wants to run a show that's nominally politics-related but characteristically content-free I think MS could host.

I suppose I should give him credit for declining to pile on today with the the current raft of inconsequential stories (e.g., Feinstein/Panetta and similar all-heat, no-light items), and I don't mean to encourage his return to regurgitating the oppo line of the day, but going to a new level of irrelevance by dredging up an eight-year-old local non-issue video is a waste of perfectly good electrons.

I am generally a consistent opponent of pigeon holing individuals. but for some reason I think I should amend that position when it comes to posters in swampland, well at least JNS and MS -- leave the humor to the professionals people because you don't quite cut it.

I'll give you a pass on this one MS.

Good stuff. I'm must glad there hasn't been any important economic news today so we can enjoy this stuff guilt-free.

"gorgeosly" written.

pmc@#1
From TPM-
We just asked Harry Reid spokesman Jim Manley for comment on whether the story about Roland Burris being accepted as a Senator from Illinois was true.

"It is wrong," Manley replied via e-mail.

Premature articulation.

Yes, but did Burris ever do restaurant reviews?

Anyone with the good sense to save room for peach cobbler is OK by me.

If we can have a failed haberdasher from Independence as president, we can have a erstwhile food critic from Chicago.

Yes, "Food that tastes good for a good price," (and talking about inner-city communities "starved for restaurants and retailers") sounds just like, "...intricately, gorgeously assembled dish with glimmer and good intentions but not enough punch," if you listen to it with the volume of your liberal elite decoder ring turned up just right.

Why do people use words they don't know the meaning of? It's true that so many people have mistakenly used "gourmand" as meaning "epicure" rather than "glutton" that its meaning has become fuzzy. But people who write for a living shouldn't contribute to this.

Gourmand has always meant lover of food.

You brought out my inner librarian --
Oxford English Dictionary -- gourmand (I left out the historical examples)
.
A. adj. Gluttonous, greedy; fond of eating.
Now regarded as attributive or appositive use of B.
.
B. n.

1. a. One who is over-fond of eating, one who eats greedily or to excess, a glutton.
.
2. One who is fond of delicate fare; a judge of good eating. In this sense only partially anglicized, and often pronounced (gurm). (Cf. GOURMET.)
.

OT to commentors: Anyone here missing K-Tum like I am?

Yes

MS-
.
That's only so through repeated misusage. It's like "scan" coming to mean both to read carefully and to skim. You can make a descriptive case for this--but it is because of repeated misuse.

how about we take a little break from our semantic discussion and point out that he was just randomly brought to this pbs show and was just supposed to be an extra dude in there (they were one guy short, or so goes the story). he just somehow kinda dominated the whole show without even trying...lol he's got a decent presence. lol

Yeah, my OED says much the same. If I'm to hold to my position, I have to note that the correct usage first shows up in the 15th century, while the recent misusage shows up in the 18th.