• Charles Homans reported on the death of local conservative web venture Culture 11 for Washington Monthly. Homans' initial impression is spot-on, and one that conservative sites, by their prudish nature, can't help but cultivate: "On its surface, the softly launched beta (test) version of Culture11 hewed closely to the original vision, down to its Slateish design. Poking around the site was a bit like wandering into the Christian rock section of a record store: the bands were recognizably bands, with electric guitars and vaguely countercultural clothing, but there was something … different about them, the musicians just a little too healthy looking to be real rock stars." I tossed my two cents on conservative culture writing into murky waters a few months back. David Sessions at Patrol has a great response to Homans' piece, in which Culture 11's Joe Carter makes a CONSERVATIVES GONE WILD appearance in the comments.
• You know how all those political types have been frothing at the mouth about the AIG bonuses/Wall Street sodomizing Main Street/Etc.? WCP alumnus Dave Jamieson calls them on their bullshit in a fantastic TNR piece: "Last week, lawmakers dashed to the podiums of Capitol Hill to condemn AIG and the rest of those bonus-loving scoundrels on Wall Street. But not long before that, some of those same members had been dashing to fundraisers with the very financial bogeymen they were now skewering." Charlie Rangel? Crook. Chris Dodd? Douche hat. Carolyn Maloney? into Wall Street for big bucks. Don't trust a one of 'em.
• Why does William Saletan talk about Lady Parts all the time? Because they matter: "The reason I keep you posted on developments in IVF, surrogates, and embryo screening is that they're transforming the debate. They're changing the conditions on which our moral positions rely. Were you pro-choice because the embryo was in a woman? Now we have embryos in dishes. Did you support embryo screening for fatal diseases? Now we're talking about screening embryos for eye color. Does the value of an embryo depend on what its mother thinks? Now we have embryos with two mothers: a genetic one and a gestational one. Should they at least consult each other?"

That's it for me, folks. Enjoy your weekend.

The National Women’s History Museum has been celebrating the contributions of American women for 12 years. So far, Congress hasn’t been in on the party.

Since its inception in 1996, the NWHM has existed solely online, collecting Mall-friendly exhibits on “Rights for Women,” “American Women in the Olympics,” and “Women Spies” on the Web at nwhm.org. But despite years-long efforts to lobby Congress for a spot near the Smithsonians, the museum has yet to secure a physical site. Though the Senate passed a 2005 bill by unanimous consent to lease a location adjacent to the Old Post Office Building on Pennsylvania Ave. to the museum, the House of Representatives failed to act on the bill. Check out DCist’s history of the issue here.

Now, NWHM is again lobbying Congress for a physical home---this time at 12^th St. & Independence Ave NW. NWHM President Joan Wages says a physical museum focusing specifically on women will help balance the District's male-centric historical record. "If you look around the nation's capital, we have 219 statues in the Capitol Building, and only nine of them are of women," says Wages. "The National Museum of American History only had two exhibits focused on women prior to their renovation, one of which was a 'First Ladies' exhibit that focused on dresses."

Adds Wages, "We have museums in Washington that recognize postage stamps, and victims of the Holocaust, and Native Americans. Women’s achievements and contributions to our country should be honored in the most important place in our capital." The new legislation, House Resolution 6548, was introduced on July 17 by New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney.