I was all set to make fun of DCist's bubble tea post -- it was going to go something like this: "Seriously, who gives a shit?" -- but amazingly it's turned into a pretty popular thread, with lots of folks sharing their recommendations for the best place to get this horrible treat.

This seems strange to me. For one thing, is this bubble tea junk really such a new phenomenon? I remember Asian student groups setting up tables on the Lawn in Charlottesville, hawking bubble tea with a cheery fervor matched only by the creepy Falun Gong adherents who'd occasionally wander around the Rotunda. I don't think it was a fundraising drive. I think they just really, really liked the crap.

Why is completely beyond me. In every formulation I've encountered, bubble tea is simply disgusting sweet tea with the addition of some milk and choking hazards. The tapioca is flavorless and chewy, and the tea is disconcertingly orange. I can appreciate bubble tea as an impressive engineering feat -- the precisely sized straw, the hermetically sealed cups, the little robot box in that Berkeley store that quietly hummed as it laid its tapioca eggs. But you know, Frankenstein was also well-engineered. Still an abomination, though.

So okay, tastes differ, but why the strange zeal for this particular product? It's not like Asia suddenly needs to make a contribution to world cuisine -- they invented General Tso's, for God's sake -- candied fried chicken! It's perhaps the greatest culinary innovation of all time (I anxiously await chocolate french fries)! Seriously guys, take my advice: learn to rest on your laurels till you've got another winner.

The Post has an article today on the shifting landscape of copyright law, focusing on how Arlen Specter's elevation to the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee may produce an environment less sympathetic to the content industry, if only because former chairman Orrin Hatch was squarely in the RIAA's pocket.

The article is an extended guess -- some folks think Specter will be preoccuppied with other issues and allow Hatch to continue to lead on IP law; others think Specter's detail-oriented nature will lead him wade into the debate, and that he may be more amenable to listening to organizations like the EFF.

Nobody really knows -- the article's evidence consists mostly of quotes from anonymous staffers talking up their bosses. All that you can really say is the end of Hatch's term is a good thing. Aside from sponsoring the vile DMCA, the man has approached copyright issues with a perspective warped by his aspirations to a recording career. I suppose brutally lame intellectual property deserves protection too, but I'm inclined to think that a chairman who identifies more with the commons than the content-owners would be a good thing.