The Name by which we call Noodles in Cheese-based Pasta Dishes

We all have those little things that just plain bug us. Tiny things that shouldn't matter, but do.

...but when you find out that the entire premise of your annoyance is based on an invalid belief? That's a bit of a kick in the teeth right there.

Mac and Cheese. I used to get really annoyed if someone called a pasta and cheese sauce dish that was made with say, shell shaped pasta. Pfft, I would think to myself, That isn't Mac and Cheese. MAC and cheese is made with MACARONI. I was so sure of this "fact" that I would have had long, drawn out debates on the subject, had someone engaged me in it.

It turns out, though, that although traditionally Mac and Cheese is made with elbow macaroni, the term macaroni has nothing to do with the shape of the pasta. It has to do with the dough.

From Wikipedia: Macaroni is a variety of moderately extended, dry pasta made with durum wheat. Macaroni noodles do not contain eggs, and are normally cut in short, hollow shapes; however, the term refers not to the shape of the pasta, but to the kind of dough from which the noodle is made.

I have no idea what those shells (or whatever noodle shape in question) were made out of. Who was I to say they weren't macaroni?

So, to all the people who I thought nasty, superior thoughts about when they called something like this (or this, or this) Mac and Cheese: I was wrong and I'm sorry.

This is Wrong

I recently read this article and it absolutely horrified me. Short version: A man met a woman at a bar. Later, he raped her. He was found guilty. At sentencing, the judge basically said that the woman asked for it and gave the guy a slap on the wrist.
A quote from the article:

During the sentencing, Dewar also commented on the way the woman was dressed and her actions the night she was forced to have sex by a man in the woods along a dark highway outside Thompson, Man., in 2006.


The man and a friend met the woman, who is now 25, and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what Dewar called "inviting circumstances."


The judge pointed out the victim and her friend were dressed in tube tops, no bras, and high heels and noted they were wearing plenty of makeup.

 
Dewar called the man a "clumsy Don Juan" who may have misunderstood what the victim wanted.

Misunderstood? He misunderstood when she fought back so hard it left bruises? How can that be misunderstood? It does not matter what she was wearing, where they met or even if she flirted with him earlier in the night. None of that gave him the right to rape her. The judge's comments make me angry. It is sad in this day and age that anyone - esspecially a judge - would think that what a woman wears is has anything to do with consent. Has he never heard that No means NO? Or does he just not believe it.

This is so wrong.

I'm glad the protesters showed up. I agree with them, he should resign. Anyone who thinks this way has no business being a judge.