http://www.asianart.org/blog/index.php/2009/11/30/notable-books-asia-2009/

http://www.asianart.org/blog/?p=1863

Considering that books are such a large part of my job, I shouldn’t find questions like “Is this book any good?” complicated.  I won’t lie to you: if I don’t like a book, I’ll tell you (sorry, capitalism).  Ultimately it’s more important to find out whether or not you like a book for yourself.  You’d think a bookseller would tell you that there are no  bad books, but unfortunately, I have my standards. The best way to tell if a book is worth it?  Start reading.

That said, I would like to break with all my usual feelings about “best-of” lists and provide for you…a best-of list.  Word on the street is that it’s going to be one cold winter, and you know that you can’t spend that much time on Facebook…

Todd Shimoda: Oh! A mystery of ‘mono no aware’

The Hawaii-based  Shimoda teases an engaging novel from the hard-to-translate concept of mono no aware.  I would poorly translate mono no aware as that feeling one gets upon experiencing the passing beauty of transitory things.  On the obvious end of the mono no aware spectrograph, one finds cherry blossoms and autumn leaves.  For the misanthropic urban dweller such as myself, the sight of the freshly-trimmed trees in Civic Center (which render them nubby, alien plantlife) represent my “Oh!” moment.

farewell!

Why it’s worth it: The Seattle publisher Chin Music Press is also responsible for one of my favorite collections, Kuhaku (2004).  All of their books are works of art: from the quality of the binding to the illustrations (by Linda Shimoda), Oh! is a book you’ll want to give as a gift, and then immediately borrow.

For fans of anything McSweeney’s or the Japanese diaspora.

Gilles Béguin: Buddhist Art: An Historical and Cultural Journey

What sets this book apart from a spate of recent Buddhist surveys is the incredible scope of the French scholar’s newest work: 680 color illustrations, 22 maps and 78 plans bind Asia together in a historical atlas that is at once scholarly and yet approachable.

Why it’s worth it: While the incredible number of pictures means you don’t have to read a word, Béguin is an expert in Asian art and chief conservator of the Cernuschi Museum, Paris.

For those who spurn insubstantial coffee table books but love a big, shiny picture.

Eileen Yin-Fei Lo: Mastering the Art of Chinese Cooking

Probably the book I would most likely buy right now if I weren’t a vegetarian (and probably a book I will buy as a gift for my non-vegetarians), this represents another win from the accomplished chef and author.  Lovingly shot by Susie Cushner, the book demystifies Chinese cuisine  but doesn’t dumb it down.

Why it’s worth it: The book highlights a wide variety of Chinese regional dishes.  And you’re hungry.

For those who love food and/or love to read about food…so, most of San Francisco.

Patricia Tanumihardja: The Asian Grandmother’s Cookbook: Home Cooking from Asian American Kitchens

When our buyer put this on my desk it took all of a second for me to say yesyesyes.  Grandmothers.  Cookbook.  What more do you need?   Well, design-wise it’s probably one of my new favorites: lovely close-ups of patterns are interspersed throughout, recalling wallpaper and grandmotherly housedresses (or sari, or baro’t saya, or kimono).  The recipes are the real thing, but what really got me were the “Profiles of a Grandma,” in which the history of each extraordinary woman is told.

Why it’s worth it: Face it: food made by grandmas just tastes better.

For those who know that the secret to good food is love.

Victor Mair & Erling Hoh: The True History of Tea

In the last few years, I can count nearly ten new books on tea and tea culture (and that’s just what we’ve carried).  But few have come close to this most recent entry into the canon.  Mair, a China scholar, sorts apocrypha from truth and spins an engaging yarn.

Why it’s worth it: The history of tea is the history of  culture, trade, and war.

For polymaths and caffeine junkies.

Jaden Hair: The Steamy Kitchen Cookbook

Sorry, just one more cookbook.  I had to mention this one because it’s just so…easy-going.  The tone may put off some seasoned home chefs (hello, Food Network), but the idea behind the book –”101 Asian recipes simple enough for tonight’s dinner”–will appeal to those who aren’t up to a lot of prep time.   I’m liking every cookbook that Tuttle has put out recently, and this is no exception.

Why it’s worth it: Because you can’t spend every night cooking for three hours.

For those in search of an unpretentious guide to Asian cookery.

Salima Hashmi: Hanging Fire: Contemporary Art From Pakistan

Asia Society’s catalog for the first large-scale exhibition of Pakistani art in the U.S. treads neatly along the lines of message and media.  Ultimately, we are won over by the artists’ skill and wit.  There’s an especially strong showing of Pakistan’s women in the show, recalling that Pakistan’s Fahmida Mirza was the first woman in the Muslim world elected to be a speaker of Parliament.

Why it’s worth it: If everything you think you know about Pakistan has been informed by war, it’s time to see another side.

For the art lover who welcomes the challenge of new perspectives.

M.L. Pattaratorn Chirapravati & Forrest McGill: Emerald Cities: Arts of Siam and Burma 1775-1950

Hello, nepotism.  But seriously, I won’t recommend a bad book, and this book does what no other has done before.    Representative of a tremendous effort in both scholarship and conservation, this catalog also features the sumptuous photography of Kaz Tsuruta.

Why it’s worth it: When was the last time you were able to explain the complex relationship between Burma and the old kingdom of Siam?

For lovers of Southeast Asian art or those looking for something a little different.

This is a post from: the blog of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. Visit us at www.asianart.org.

Notable Books Asia: 2009

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/candyblog/~3/2ZYvejIEqpU/

http://www.typetive.com/candyblog/item/russell_stover_santas/#When:23:29:59Z

Russell Stover has a large assortment of holiday treats in Santa-themed packaging. What’s nice about them is that they’re always fresh and moderately priced (often on dramatic sale for three for a dollar but usually about 50 cents a piece). I picked up every variety I could find this year:

What I noticed first was that the packaging is inconsistent in its design. Sure they’re all a mylar wrapper, but beyond that the Santas are different drawing styles with the Maple Cream, Strawberry Cream & Coconut Cream sporting the same Santa holding a gift aloft as he sits in a chimney. But The Peanut Butter Santa is more streamlined, the Marshmallow Santa has some freaky bright red cheeks and insanely short arms and finally the Marshmallow & Caramel Santa is in the style of the European Saint Nicolas complete with staff.

What I also found out is that the definition of “Santa Shaped” is pretty loose in Russell Stover’s world. It’s not quite as egg shaped, and maybe the tapering ends can be a feet/boots and a head. But really, it’d be best to just call these Christmas Lumps or Snow Clods.

The Peanut Butter Santa is pure simplicity: a peanut butter bar covered in milk chocolate. The shape of it is kind of figure-like. It’s the smallest of the pack as well, clocking in at only .75 ounces. It smells nutty and sugary and a little bit like peanut butter cookies. The milk chocolate is quite slick and melts easily, it has a light cocoa flavor to it. Most of all the salty peanut butter center is grassy-tasting. It’s a strange green flavor more like edamame than roasted peanuts.

It was tasty enough for me to finish it easily, but being small didn’t hurt either. The center is moister and a bit oilier than the center of a Reese’s Peanut Butter Tree (or Egg or Cup). This wasn’t a bad feature, just different.

Rating: 7 out of 10
Size: .75 ounces

I thought perhaps I’d tried these before and looked up to find that I reviewed the Maple Cream Egg way back in 2006. But the Russell Stover Maple Cream Santa is actually different. While the Easter version is coated in dark chocolate, the Christmas version is Milk Chocolate.

The amorphous lump didn’t remind me of Santa’s silhouette in the slightest but the maple cream flavor is a bit more Christmassy than Easterish so kudos for that, Russell Stover.

It’s been a while since I’ve had the dark chocolate version so I’ll spare us all comparisons. What I can say is that this is ludicrously sweet. The milk chocolate is sugary and not terribly creamy and the center while moist and fluffy is also throat searingly cloying and sticky. The maple flavor was simply a flavor, not something that felt natural or integrated into the candy itself.

Rating: 5 out of 10
Size: 1.25 ounces

While the Strawberry Cream Santa is also milk chocolate like the Cream Egg, this one lacks the pretty little swirls and curls on the top. It does smell a little like berries, but mostly it smells like milky chocolate. It’s quite sweet and has only a faint hint of strawberry and is rather similar to a Nestle Strawberry Qwik shake. I know it was really sweet, but I like the texture of the cream center that Russell Stover uses for both this one and the Maple Cream. It’s rather like a marshmallow cream, quite smooth and fluffy and moist without being runny.

Rating: 5 out of 10
Size: 1.25 ounces

The Coconut Cream Santa is also unlike the Cream Egg in that it’s milk chocolate, not dark chocolate. In this case as well, I think the sugar-laden milk chocolate is simply over the top. I like the coconut flake texture of the cream filling and the nice size of the piece, but the sugary quality of the chocolate with its grainy and fudgy melt is just too much. It’s amazing what a difference dark chocolate can make, but it does.

Rating: 6 out of 10
Size: 1.25 ounces

Things were looking up when I found the Dark Chocolate Covered Marshmallow Santa. I didn’t really expect this to be terribly different from the Easter Rabbit version, except that one was huge at two ounces and only in milk chocolate where I shopped.

This one was by far the most attractive of my Santa set, a nicely detailed figure of Santa Claus scratching his head. Unfortunately I smashed him somewhere along the way and his face was a little worse for it (or maybe he wasn’t scratching his head, maybe he was holding his hand over his nose and cursing me).

The marshmallow is latexy and has a chewy pull. Not too sweet and with a faint whiff of vanilla flavoring.

Rating: 7 out of 10
Size: 1.00 ounces

The Marshmallow & Caramel Santa Covered in Milk Chocolate is the only other in the collection that estimates the shape of Santa Claus.

Of course this one looks like it could be a Mummy or Generic Figure for Unisex Bathroom Door.

It’s smaller in dimensions from the Dark Chocolate Covered Marshmallow Santa, yet it’s actually heavier, it’s the same 1.25 ounces as the Cream Santas. I’ve had the Caramel and Marshmallow Pumpkin before and found it interesting.

This one seems to be more evenly balanced between the caramel and the marshmallow. It’s dense for a marshmallow product, the marshmallow is fluffy and has a light hint of vanilla to it with a smooth and velvety melt. The caramel isn’t runny nor quite chewy but has a good stringy pull to it.

It’s lacking a punch like the See’s Scotchmallow, but for 50 cents and in the shape of a clothes pin, well, I don’t want to sound too ungrateful for a decent piece of candy especially since this one seems to have the proportions just right on this one. I wish the caramel was a little more chewy, a little more salty, but still a fun piece.

Rating: 7 out of 10
Size: 1.25 ounces

Related Candies

1. Russell Stover Eggs (2009 edition)
2. Reese’s Enigma & Chocolate Covered Peanut Butter Eggs
3. Russell Stover Marshmallow Rabbits
4. Russell Stover Eggs
5. Russell Stover Eggs (2007 edition)
6. See’s Scotchmallow Eggs
7. Russell Stover Coconut Wreath

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Designcollector/~3/oWRyRUjCkqY/5376

We are fast moving Network. So, today we announce the closure of Designcollector TV as a standalone site (tv.designcollector), but please follow us on Vimeo Channel: Designcollector TV from now. We closed Design Feeds month ago also.
AND NOW! We announce Your Designcollector, yes it is yours now! Share your stuff or findings there (photos, videos, music, links) and it will automatically spread over our social networks!

Приветствуем вас на обновленной сети Designcollector. Сегодня мы скоромно закрыли сайт tv.designcollector.net, но все шикарные ролики и шоурилы остались на нашем канале видео портала Vimeo. Но это не главное.
Сегодня встречайте Свой Дизайнколлектор, теперь на новом портале у вас есть возможность делится всем, чем захочется: от фотографий, до видео и музыки. Запостить интересное и упомянуть себя вы сможете теперь без особого труда. И главное, все интересное мгновенно расходится по нашим социальным сетям: твиттер и фейсбук (наш фликр пока убит, но мы отстоим его!)

The Designcollector Network:
"Designcollector.net", "My Designcollector" and "Fashion Communication"

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/regretsy/~3/9r0htkFNnqQ/

http://www.regretsy.com/?p=5300

Ok, but can I put my ideals in here?

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/celebuzz/RfKn/~3/PlYoPEwi8i4/fug_up113009.html

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/11/dont-know-much-about-history.html

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. ..."

So begins Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, and if you ever set out to write a novel you should try if you can to produce an opening sentence as good as that one. But don't bother trying to do better, it can't be done. That's perfection, right there -- a memorable quip that presents, in miniature, the world, plot and central conflicts of the novel while simultaneously and indelibly establishing the sardonic voice and view of the narrator. Genius.

Anyway, I repeat this line here not just to bask in the brilliance of Jane Austen -- although that's always worth doing -- but to point out that Jane would have been mystified by Ron Sider's recent description of marriage as an institution wholly unlike the economic arrangements described in her novels. Sider's further assertion that his conception of marriage represents a constant, enduring description of the institution as it has existed throughout all of human history -- in every culture and every civilization  -- would likely have left Jane not just baffled, but furious.

This discussion of marriage comes in a conversation with Stephen Thrasher of the Village Voice in which Sider gamely tries to defend his endorsement of the Manhattan Declaration which states, among other things, that opposition to marriage equality for same-sex couples is a non-negotiable Christian duty.

It's an interesting thing to watch a peaceable, gentle man attempting to defend a belligerent, aggressive document while trying to avoid personally insulting and demeaning the people the document he just signed insults and demeans. That leads to some curious developments, such as Ron's surprising endorsement for the first time I've seen of civil unions. Similar comments on NPR's Fresh Air wound up costing Richard Cizik his job with the National Association of Evangelicals -- to the NAE's great shame and detriment. Cizik went on to help lead the evangelical movement against climate change -- an effort that, according to Manhattan Declaration author Chuck Colson, this new document explicitly was created to counteract.

(How do you make homophobia even more wrong-headed and harmful? By trying to use homophobia to suppress action against climate change. Colson stands by his "principles" come Hell or high water because, apparently, Hell and high water are his principles.)

It's not easy to provide a pithy quote summarizing the vision of marriage Sider is trying to defend in his conversation with Thrasher, because that vision isn't coherent enough for such a summary. But what he's trying to do is to ground opposition to same-sex marriage in a sociological, rather than a sectarian, argument:*

I would be open to a legal category of civil partnership. Gay people could have a specified number of legal rights that would encourage their ongoing commitment. But what really matters, and what's really decisive, is what marriage means ... the reason every civilization in history has defined marriage between men and women, is that society has a lot at stake in preserving continuity, in a wholesome way. It's quite clear that when men and women who have sex and make babies stay together. It's better for their children, and it's better that children grow up with their moms and dads -- and that's why societies have defined marriage, to protect making babies. The real question is, what is marriage?

This is precisely not a religious argument. It's an argument about what a society needs, to preserve itself, to preserve what is wholesome from generation to generation. The core of that argument is historic, from every civilization. ...

My argument [is] not a religious argument. It is about what marriage means. It's true, a lot of contemporaries have redefined marriage. Marriage now means an emotional, romantic relationship between people. If that is what marriage is, then it should ought to be available to gays or lesbians. But if marriage is what every culture has always said it was, then it makes no sense to offer it to everyone ...

This argument, by his own admission, hinges upon the idea that "every culture ... in every civilization ... has always said" the same thing about what marriage is and what it means. It requires that every culture and civilization throughout human history must regard or have regarded marriage as a lifelong, monogamous commitment between one and only one heterosexual male and one and only one hetersexual female, and that this commitment exists primarily for -- in the celibate cleric's language used in the Manhattan Declaration -- "procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life."

And this claim of a constant, unchanging and enduring singular form of marriage across history, civilizations and cultures is insupportable. It is a truth almost universally acknowledged that such a claim requires a staggering ignorance of history, civilizations and cultures.

Consider the historical and cultural record of the book that the Manhattan signatories claim is their favorite: The Bible. Examples of this allegedly constant marital ideal of a heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong union of shopkeepers primarily for procreation are remarkably rare in the Bible. The patriarchs, kings and prophets who dominate the Hebrew scriptures almost never conformed to this model. Nor do the apostles and missionaries who dominate the New Testament. We can find a scattered handful of examples of such marriages in the Bible -- Moses and Zipporah, Priscilla and Aquila, maybe Pontius Pilate -- but as a historical document of human families and marriages, the Bible offers a dizzying diversity of polygamists, economic alliances, political alliances, concubines, serial adulterers, celibates, devout absentees and kinsman-redeemers, and none of those support Ron's contention of a monolithic, unchanging universal form of marriage.

And anyone who imagines that our world, today, does not contain just as diverse an array of models, forms and kinds of marriage must not get out much.

Seriously, Ron's supposedly exclusive, historically constant model of marriage doesn't even encompass my family -- and there are many millions like mine across America. No one is yet explicitly advocating that marriages like mine ought to be denied full legal legitimacy, relegated to second-class status as mere "civil unions," but that is, in fact, what a great number of Ron's co-signatories of the Manhattan Declaration -- celibate men in funny hats -- believe ought to be the case.

http://rarebirdfinds.typepad.com/rare_bird_finds/2009/11/turkey-in-a-hat-.html

  Now that Thanksgiving is over, the turkeys can all breathe a sigh of relief...well, until Christmas...actually...maybe they should just stay incognito like this one. Actually, there's a lot of animals in hats here, and they are all awesome. I just picked the turkey to be topical. (I think my favorite is the Van Gogh inspired chipmunk.) $20 at Poor Dog Farm.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=7137

Do you think those are PIRATED DVDs?

Alabama

http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/post/263839380

Do you love somebody? Don’t set them free, buy them Garfield minus Garfield the book for Christmas!

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/celebuzz/RfKn/~3/jhGXaCMqLdc/mad_fuggy113009.html