Thursday, August 04, 2005
Alton Brown Tells It Like It Is
Be careful what you ask for, Alton. You just might find yourself audited, and NOT by the IRS!
Well Pasta Due
Last night I had a chance to try out a new recipe on TFR, and she heartily approved.
Anyone who knows my eating habits might find this hard to believe, but the one type of side dish I have the most difficulty creating is a starch. I'm great at cooking veggies, not so much at eating any (except a very few -- I'm finicky that way). So last night I had a dilemma.
I was making steak sandwiches, using beef flank steak instead of Buffalo tri-tip this time, and had decided on my green beans as the veggie. But I wanted one more dish, something starchy, maybe cool, and so I decided to try an idea I'd had for turning caprizzi into a pasta salad. This is what I came up with:
Caprizzi di Ferrari
2 cups radiatore pasta
6 ounces fresh mozzarella
4 Roma tomatoes
1 bunch fresh basil leaves
½ cup extra virgin olive oil
¼ cup red wine vinegar
2 cloves minced garlic
Salt
Pepper
Bring 3-4 cups salted water to a boil in a pot over medium heat. When water
reaches a boil, pour in 2 cups radiatore pasta (any smaller pasta, such as
rotini, will do, but I prefer radiatore). Cook 10 minutes or until al dente.
Strain, rinse with cold water until pasta is cooled.
While the pasta is cooking and cooling, cut the mozzarella into ½-inch cubes.
Slice the Roma tomatoes into similarly sized chunks, removing the seeds. Rinse
the basil in cold water and julienne. Combine all three with the now cold pasta
in a glass bowl.
In a small bowl, combine the extra virgin olive oil, red wine vinegar, and
garlic, and mix well. Drizzle over the pasta mix. Salt and pepper to taste (I
like it with more salt & pepper, but that’s up to you), mix gently but
thoroughly. Cover the bowl and refrigerate 1 hour. Makes 4-6 servings.
I gave it that name because of the colors and the fact that radiator translates as radiator (at least, that's what Babelfish tells me). I discovered radiatore by accident and love it. It's a rolled (slightly spiral) square of pasta that's flat on the inside and has wavy ridges on the outside. It's a smaller pasta, but has substance -- you can get it in one bite, and can really sink your teeth into it. Enjoy!
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
What the...???!!!
This is just weird.
I know how my Blog made the Google Search.
I don't WANT to know why someone was looking for "Chinese Miniskirts.
I know how my Blog made the Google Search.
I don't WANT to know why someone was looking for "Chinese Miniskirts.
The Devil's Brigade of Blogging
OK, it’s confession time. I have a deep, dark, shameful secret, and it’s time I come clean.
I like Canadians.
I know, I’ve been as guilty as any other American, especially of any other American conservative, of being mildly derisive of Canada. And let’s be honest – every country has its drawbacks, every country on Earth provides the rest of the world with material for jokes. Being next door to Canada, it’s easy to notice the specks in their eyes. I’ve oft repeated the joke that “The tragedy of Canada is that it had a chance to end up with French Cuisine, English Culture, and American Technology, but ended up with English Cuisine, American Culture, and French Technology”. It’s noteworthy that the originator of the quote is purported to be a Canadian.
And I’m no fan, obviously, of their government or its policies.
But on a personal level, I find Canadians to be some of the nicest, most generous, and sincerest people I’ve ever met. The only unpleasant interactions I’ve had with Canadians were work-related, and in my line of work, that’s to be expected. Growing up in the Rural West, there was an attitude that we had more in common culturally with Western Canadians than with East Coast Americans.
And despite the current dismal state of their military, that is in no way a reflection on the quality of the Canadian as a fighting man. Throughout their history, especially in the World Wars, Canadians proved themselves to be brave, fierce soldiers, and good allies to have at your back – although given their enthusiasm, you had to move fast to keep them behind you.
And they have proven particularly adept at fighting alongside us “Yanks”. Case in point is the “Devil’s Brigade” after which this post is named. In Afghanistan, a Canadian Sniper took out a Taliban target at a range of over 1 mile, saving the bacon of American Soldiers.
And so it’s with great admiration and friendship that I commend to you the Red Ensign Standard, a group of politically conservative Canadian Bloggers fighting the good fight in and for their beloved homeland. Go give them a read and your support.
(Thanks for the Memory to Cameron at Anthroblogogogy for making me aware of our friends, eh)
I like Canadians.
I know, I’ve been as guilty as any other American, especially of any other American conservative, of being mildly derisive of Canada. And let’s be honest – every country has its drawbacks, every country on Earth provides the rest of the world with material for jokes. Being next door to Canada, it’s easy to notice the specks in their eyes. I’ve oft repeated the joke that “The tragedy of Canada is that it had a chance to end up with French Cuisine, English Culture, and American Technology, but ended up with English Cuisine, American Culture, and French Technology”. It’s noteworthy that the originator of the quote is purported to be a Canadian.
And I’m no fan, obviously, of their government or its policies.
But on a personal level, I find Canadians to be some of the nicest, most generous, and sincerest people I’ve ever met. The only unpleasant interactions I’ve had with Canadians were work-related, and in my line of work, that’s to be expected. Growing up in the Rural West, there was an attitude that we had more in common culturally with Western Canadians than with East Coast Americans.
And despite the current dismal state of their military, that is in no way a reflection on the quality of the Canadian as a fighting man. Throughout their history, especially in the World Wars, Canadians proved themselves to be brave, fierce soldiers, and good allies to have at your back – although given their enthusiasm, you had to move fast to keep them behind you.
And they have proven particularly adept at fighting alongside us “Yanks”. Case in point is the “Devil’s Brigade” after which this post is named. In Afghanistan, a Canadian Sniper took out a Taliban target at a range of over 1 mile, saving the bacon of American Soldiers.
And so it’s with great admiration and friendship that I commend to you the Red Ensign Standard, a group of politically conservative Canadian Bloggers fighting the good fight in and for their beloved homeland. Go give them a read and your support.
(Thanks for the Memory to Cameron at Anthroblogogogy for making me aware of our friends, eh)
Monday, August 01, 2005
Wisdom of the Solomons
Over the course of the last two and a half years, as part of the ongoing debate over the Iraq War, one of the arguments put forth by those opposed to the war has been to point out all of the other places in the world in which Democracy is still not the order of the day, including (but not limited to) US allies, and then to ask a rhetorical question usually along the lines of, “Are we going to invade Saudi Arabia (or North Korea, etc.) next?” The logic behind the argument seems to be that if we fail to take the same action against every opponent of democracy that we did against Saddam Hussein, then the argument that the Iraq war was about Democracy is specious at best, and hypocritical at worst.
To begin with, for the sake of this post and any follow-on discussion, I refuse to debate if and when the war is or was about Democracy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is encouraged to go read the prewar 2003 State of the Union Address, then post on their own darned Blogs! For the sake of argument in this particular post, we shall grant that Democracy was indeed one of the goals of the war, and address the question of whether this is a consistent position. I ask that any comments be limited to that topic.
To answer the critics who point out the perceived inconsistency in going to war to, at least in part, establish Democracy in Iraq, but not elsewhere, we must first explore WHY the U.S. would pursue such a course of action.
Let's start by refuting the perception that this is part of some "Holy Crusade" for Democracy. That's just silly. While Democracy is a lofty goal and one that all good people should strive to acheive everywhere, that's not the basic motivation behind executing this war. If it were, I would be as opposed to the war as anyone else, for the stated reason as well as for reasons of constitutionality. The President and Military of the United States took vows to defend America and her constitution, not Democracy Everywhere.
And that actually brings us to the real reason I believe we should be and are fighting to establish Democracy in Iraq. That goal is based on a basic belief held by those who are (often derisively) called "Neocons", a belief that forms a pillar of the Bush Doctrine: It is strategically to the Advantage of the United States to promote Democracy elsewhere in the World. In other words, the freer and happier people in other parts of the world are, the less likely they will pose a threat to US Security. I happen to agree with this particular view. And while this view is certainly open to debate, again, that is not the goal of this post. Suffice it to say that in order to discuss the consistency of US actions in Iraq compared to other places, it is enough to understand that the people making Foreign Policy decisions also share this belief.
Once we have established that Democracy in Iraq, indeed, the promotion of Democracy ANYWHERE outside of the U.S., is a straegic means to an end, and not the end itself, it becomes easier to understand the justification for pursuing the same goal using different methods in different places. In fact, we have a fairly recent (within the last century) example of another strategic campaign, one in which the United States was spectacularly successful, which employs a similar method of picking and choosing ones fight. It's my assertion that the War in Iraq is actually just one battle in a bigger war, and that that war is being fought similarly to the Island-Hopping Campaign in the Pacific in World War II.
Let's Review:
By 1942, the United States and its allies were ready to start fighting back against the Japanese, and to retake the vast swaths of the Western and South Pacific that had been captured by the Empire of the Rising Sun. However, a strategic decision was made NOT to retake every inch of every island back from the enemy in a slow, costly, deadly rollback-style campaign. The allies understood how much time and energy and men would be lost trying to acheive victory by these means. So they chose instead to pursue a campaign that was called Island-Hopping. The Allies would bypass positions that were too heavily defended copmpletely, and attack other islands instead. As the Allies pressed northwards, bypassed islands to the south were cut off from supply from the Japanese homeland, and "withered on the vine", their positions rendered either untenable or strategically insignificant.
In choosing which islands to assault, there were two chief considerations: The relative ease with which the island could be taken, and the strategic importance of the island aside from it merely being the next in line. Priority was placed on islands whose capture either provided the Allies with additional advantages, or denied the Japanese of those same advantages. This usually meant islands with good natural harbors, or more importantly, established Japanese airbases that could be rapidly converted to use by the allies. In a few cases, the strategic advantage of such assets even warranted assaults on islands that were more strongly defended (Tinian and Iwo Jima come readily to mind).
In the end, the strategy worked. By the time of the War's End, when Japan surrendered unconditionally, there were numerous islands still in their control (in contrast with Europem where the Allies had rolled the Nazis back almost everywhere).
Let's take this model and see how it applies to the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. It is well known that there are plenty of countries out there whose dictatorial leaders either oppose Democracy, hate the U.S., and/or provide support for the forces of oppression, terror, and chaos -- whether that support is moral or material. So why "just" pick on Iraq?
Iraq is, I would argue, this war's Guadalcanal, it's Tarawa, it's Iwo Jima. It was chosen as the second "Island" we assaulted, after Afghanistan (and hopefully the last one we have to, though I have my misgivings there), because it was easier to take than other enemy "positions", and because it was strategically useful.
In terms of the relative ease of taking IRaq, I am referring to more than just military strategy and tactics -- I refer to political strategy as well. Because Iraq was ruled by a man openly hostile to the US, who had failed to live up to the expectations of a previous cease fire agreement with the US and the related UN Resolutions, and who had committed atrocities against his own people, it was much easier to convince the US public and Congress to support action against him. I dare say, as vocal as the opposition to this war has been, it's nothing compared to the reaction we'd have engendered by attacking Iran or Saudi Arabia, despite current protests to the contrary.
Furthermore, there is the actual military strategy to consider. Even had a war against another regime been approved, it would have been far more costly and less likely to succeed. Even now, Iraq is a cakewalk compared to what an invasion of Iran or North Korea would have been like.
As for strategic importance, Iraq has that in spades. By liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, we've placed pro-Democracy forces on both sides of Iran, placing a huge elephant in the middle of the Middle East's room. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein's very existence as leader of Iraq weakened US Strategic and diplomatic clout, as he was living proof that the US was all talk. By removing him, we showed we mean business, and increased our position of power from which to negotiate.
As for the final comparison to the Island-Hopping Campaign, the end results, the final verdict isn't in, but early indications are good: The introduction of women's suffrage to Kuwait, multi-party local elections in Saudi Arabia, the events in Lebanon, and Libya's unilateral disarmament of its WMD stockpile, all indicate that the bypassed enemy positions are, indeed, "withering on the vine."
On to Tokyo, as it were.
To begin with, for the sake of this post and any follow-on discussion, I refuse to debate if and when the war is or was about Democracy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is encouraged to go read the prewar 2003 State of the Union Address, then post on their own darned Blogs! For the sake of argument in this particular post, we shall grant that Democracy was indeed one of the goals of the war, and address the question of whether this is a consistent position. I ask that any comments be limited to that topic.
To answer the critics who point out the perceived inconsistency in going to war to, at least in part, establish Democracy in Iraq, but not elsewhere, we must first explore WHY the U.S. would pursue such a course of action.
Let's start by refuting the perception that this is part of some "Holy Crusade" for Democracy. That's just silly. While Democracy is a lofty goal and one that all good people should strive to acheive everywhere, that's not the basic motivation behind executing this war. If it were, I would be as opposed to the war as anyone else, for the stated reason as well as for reasons of constitutionality. The President and Military of the United States took vows to defend America and her constitution, not Democracy Everywhere.
And that actually brings us to the real reason I believe we should be and are fighting to establish Democracy in Iraq. That goal is based on a basic belief held by those who are (often derisively) called "Neocons", a belief that forms a pillar of the Bush Doctrine: It is strategically to the Advantage of the United States to promote Democracy elsewhere in the World. In other words, the freer and happier people in other parts of the world are, the less likely they will pose a threat to US Security. I happen to agree with this particular view. And while this view is certainly open to debate, again, that is not the goal of this post. Suffice it to say that in order to discuss the consistency of US actions in Iraq compared to other places, it is enough to understand that the people making Foreign Policy decisions also share this belief.
Once we have established that Democracy in Iraq, indeed, the promotion of Democracy ANYWHERE outside of the U.S., is a straegic means to an end, and not the end itself, it becomes easier to understand the justification for pursuing the same goal using different methods in different places. In fact, we have a fairly recent (within the last century) example of another strategic campaign, one in which the United States was spectacularly successful, which employs a similar method of picking and choosing ones fight. It's my assertion that the War in Iraq is actually just one battle in a bigger war, and that that war is being fought similarly to the Island-Hopping Campaign in the Pacific in World War II.
Let's Review:
By 1942, the United States and its allies were ready to start fighting back against the Japanese, and to retake the vast swaths of the Western and South Pacific that had been captured by the Empire of the Rising Sun. However, a strategic decision was made NOT to retake every inch of every island back from the enemy in a slow, costly, deadly rollback-style campaign. The allies understood how much time and energy and men would be lost trying to acheive victory by these means. So they chose instead to pursue a campaign that was called Island-Hopping. The Allies would bypass positions that were too heavily defended copmpletely, and attack other islands instead. As the Allies pressed northwards, bypassed islands to the south were cut off from supply from the Japanese homeland, and "withered on the vine", their positions rendered either untenable or strategically insignificant.
In choosing which islands to assault, there were two chief considerations: The relative ease with which the island could be taken, and the strategic importance of the island aside from it merely being the next in line. Priority was placed on islands whose capture either provided the Allies with additional advantages, or denied the Japanese of those same advantages. This usually meant islands with good natural harbors, or more importantly, established Japanese airbases that could be rapidly converted to use by the allies. In a few cases, the strategic advantage of such assets even warranted assaults on islands that were more strongly defended (Tinian and Iwo Jima come readily to mind).
In the end, the strategy worked. By the time of the War's End, when Japan surrendered unconditionally, there were numerous islands still in their control (in contrast with Europem where the Allies had rolled the Nazis back almost everywhere).
Let's take this model and see how it applies to the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. It is well known that there are plenty of countries out there whose dictatorial leaders either oppose Democracy, hate the U.S., and/or provide support for the forces of oppression, terror, and chaos -- whether that support is moral or material. So why "just" pick on Iraq?
Iraq is, I would argue, this war's Guadalcanal, it's Tarawa, it's Iwo Jima. It was chosen as the second "Island" we assaulted, after Afghanistan (and hopefully the last one we have to, though I have my misgivings there), because it was easier to take than other enemy "positions", and because it was strategically useful.
In terms of the relative ease of taking IRaq, I am referring to more than just military strategy and tactics -- I refer to political strategy as well. Because Iraq was ruled by a man openly hostile to the US, who had failed to live up to the expectations of a previous cease fire agreement with the US and the related UN Resolutions, and who had committed atrocities against his own people, it was much easier to convince the US public and Congress to support action against him. I dare say, as vocal as the opposition to this war has been, it's nothing compared to the reaction we'd have engendered by attacking Iran or Saudi Arabia, despite current protests to the contrary.
Furthermore, there is the actual military strategy to consider. Even had a war against another regime been approved, it would have been far more costly and less likely to succeed. Even now, Iraq is a cakewalk compared to what an invasion of Iran or North Korea would have been like.
As for strategic importance, Iraq has that in spades. By liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, we've placed pro-Democracy forces on both sides of Iran, placing a huge elephant in the middle of the Middle East's room. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein's very existence as leader of Iraq weakened US Strategic and diplomatic clout, as he was living proof that the US was all talk. By removing him, we showed we mean business, and increased our position of power from which to negotiate.
As for the final comparison to the Island-Hopping Campaign, the end results, the final verdict isn't in, but early indications are good: The introduction of women's suffrage to Kuwait, multi-party local elections in Saudi Arabia, the events in Lebanon, and Libya's unilateral disarmament of its WMD stockpile, all indicate that the bypassed enemy positions are, indeed, "withering on the vine."
On to Tokyo, as it were.
What Would Teddy have Said Back THEN?
President Bush has appointed John Bolton as US Ambassador to the Unityed Nations using a recess nomination.
Of course, Senator Ted Kennedy (D - Johnny Walker) was critical of the move.
As my good friend Vulture Six pointed out to me, The Senator's own brother used just such a manuover to put Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS bench.
But that's different, right, Ted Old Chap?
Of course, Senator Ted Kennedy (D - Johnny Walker) was critical of the move.
"It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N," Kennedy said."
As my good friend Vulture Six pointed out to me, The Senator's own brother used just such a manuover to put Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS bench.
But that's different, right, Ted Old Chap?
Removed Post
I have removed the post entitled Surface Tension until I have had time to review and refine it.
Friday, July 29, 2005
It Takes a Village (full of) Idiot(s)
Thanks for the Memory to the Llama Butchers.
The story's your typical modern tragedy. A father has inappropriate sexual contact with his infant child, the mother takes pictures, and only thanks to an alert, concerned citizen were authorities able to rescue the child from the horror.
Only that's not quite the way it happened.
The story's your typical modern tragedy. A father has inappropriate sexual contact with his infant child, the mother takes pictures, and only thanks to an alert, concerned citizen were authorities able to rescue the child from the horror.
Only that's not quite the way it happened.
The photo that raised alarms shows a naked Kristoff, now 16-months-old, getting a kiss from his father on the belly button, Teresa Hamaty said.
Let me get this straight. Dad was in jail for 6 months, mom jailed temporarily, and they almost lost their kids because of a Zerbert?????
Oh.
My.
Dear.
Lord.
It really frightens me to think how easily I could lose my son just because someone overreacts like that. Maybe I should stop changing his diapers -- after all, I'm stripping him naked and touching his private areas.
This really does frighten me.
Draft Surface Tension
I am always pleased when a post of mine garners the attention of our Maximum Leader (Long may He be read). I'm doubly flattered that it caused him to think. I'm hard-pressed to name many higher praise that could be lavished by one rational being on another's words. And I find myself returning the favor. When I wrote about my views on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I only vaguely had in mind the eternal tension between individual liberty and the common good.
But I suspect that the esteemed framers of those two documents were quite aware, even painfully aware, of that dichotomy. And in truth, I HAVE addressed it, just not in the context of these two documents. And upon reflection, I'm not sure the language of the two is as conflicting as Mike seems to think. Let me explain.
It is my conviction that the seeming tension between group and individual good is only what I will call a "Surface Tension", a perceived conflict caused by a superficial understanding of what constitutes the common good. I am of the belief that the common good is nothing more or less than the individual good, shared in common by all individuals. The reason I believe this stems from my view of human nature. I do not trust any other human to make decisions for me that are truly in my best interest with any consistency. Therefore, on a human level, the governing agent best equipped to make decisions for me, is me. In other words, the greatest common good is to protect the rights of the individual. Again, the Declaration of Independence enumerates the most important of these rights, and furthermore, I'm of the opinion it lists them in hierarchical order: Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness. The greatest common good, then, is to ensure that every individual, or at least as close to every individual as possible, enjoys those God-endowed, inalienable rights.
Of course, as always, it's when we explore the details that we find the devil lurking about. The obvious question raised is what happens when the exercize of those rights by one individual conflicts with the exercize of those rights by another? I would argue that their is, again, a hierarchy of those rights, and that each right trumps the right(s) named after it. Thus, my right to liberty can be taken away if I threaten another's life.
Of course, we can imagine a situation where the exercize of the very same right by two individuals conflicts. Cases like this are not easily remedied, and require great care and wisdom.
And I believe that was the intention, pr at least one of the intentions, of the framers of the Constitution. Let's review the Preamble again, but this time, in light of these beliefs:
We the people of the United States,
The People can and should be viewed in both the collective and individual sense.
in order to form a more perfect union,
A Union which protects the individual as well as the group.
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
I'd argue this is where we get into the issue of protecting the individual's rights from abuses by another individual exercizing rights lower on the hierarchy.
provide for the common defense,
Defend our collective rights from foreign powers who would subjugate them.
promote the general welfare,
This is the sticking point. What constitutes the general welfare? I'm inclined to interpret it as promoting an environment in which individuals may pursue their happiness.
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
This needs almost no interpretation.
We are a People. But we are also all persons. And it's my assertion that any law that attempts to enforce a perceived "good" for the "People" at the expense of each person's right to determine what is best for him or herself, ceases to truly be good, and renders less perfect our union.
But I suspect that the esteemed framers of those two documents were quite aware, even painfully aware, of that dichotomy. And in truth, I HAVE addressed it, just not in the context of these two documents. And upon reflection, I'm not sure the language of the two is as conflicting as Mike seems to think. Let me explain.
It is my conviction that the seeming tension between group and individual good is only what I will call a "Surface Tension", a perceived conflict caused by a superficial understanding of what constitutes the common good. I am of the belief that the common good is nothing more or less than the individual good, shared in common by all individuals. The reason I believe this stems from my view of human nature. I do not trust any other human to make decisions for me that are truly in my best interest with any consistency. Therefore, on a human level, the governing agent best equipped to make decisions for me, is me. In other words, the greatest common good is to protect the rights of the individual. Again, the Declaration of Independence enumerates the most important of these rights, and furthermore, I'm of the opinion it lists them in hierarchical order: Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness. The greatest common good, then, is to ensure that every individual, or at least as close to every individual as possible, enjoys those God-endowed, inalienable rights.
Of course, as always, it's when we explore the details that we find the devil lurking about. The obvious question raised is what happens when the exercize of those rights by one individual conflicts with the exercize of those rights by another? I would argue that their is, again, a hierarchy of those rights, and that each right trumps the right(s) named after it. Thus, my right to liberty can be taken away if I threaten another's life.
Of course, we can imagine a situation where the exercize of the very same right by two individuals conflicts. Cases like this are not easily remedied, and require great care and wisdom.
And I believe that was the intention, pr at least one of the intentions, of the framers of the Constitution. Let's review the Preamble again, but this time, in light of these beliefs:
We the people of the United States,
The People can and should be viewed in both the collective and individual sense.
in order to form a more perfect union,
A Union which protects the individual as well as the group.
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
I'd argue this is where we get into the issue of protecting the individual's rights from abuses by another individual exercizing rights lower on the hierarchy.
provide for the common defense,
Defend our collective rights from foreign powers who would subjugate them.
promote the general welfare,
This is the sticking point. What constitutes the general welfare? I'm inclined to interpret it as promoting an environment in which individuals may pursue their happiness.
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
This needs almost no interpretation.
We are a People. But we are also all persons. And it's my assertion that any law that attempts to enforce a perceived "good" for the "People" at the expense of each person's right to determine what is best for him or herself, ceases to truly be good, and renders less perfect our union.
New Linked Blog
I've added a bew Blog to the links on the side of my Blog, go check out Island Republican, another Redstater adrift on the deep blue sea that is the PNW.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Don't Tease
Thanks for the Memory to Vulture's Row and the Llama Butchers.
Helen Thomas has vowed to kill herself if Dick Cheney runs for President.
The "Run Dick, Run" jokes are already flying. 'Twould serve her right.
That's the amusing part. To me, the bemusing part is this:
She's a fixture in the DC media pool. She's expressed her view quite... forcefully. And we're still to believe there's no media bias?
Helen Thomas has vowed to kill herself if Dick Cheney runs for President.
The "Run Dick, Run" jokes are already flying. 'Twould serve her right.
That's the amusing part. To me, the bemusing part is this:
She's a fixture in the DC media pool. She's expressed her view quite... forcefully. And we're still to believe there's no media bias?
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
23 Days Late
I have for some time found myself at a loss as to which modern American political movement closest matches my own beliefs, political views, and philosophies. I understand that it is more and more common, as well as admirable, for individuals to eschew party names or other labels in favor of voting their conscience. While this is an excellent way of applying your beliefs to your voting habits and to choices you make that affect political outcomes, it can become time-consuming in discussions to have to explain just what your beliefs are. Thus, it is often more efficient to identify yourself with a particular party or movement in general, and divulge any variations from that norm only when they are germane to the conversation. This becomes more problematic the more eclectic ones beliefs, I suppose. But I digress. Well, only just a little. The point is that while I find myself agreeing quite frequently with particular parties or movements, there have been numerous occasions where I’ve had to make exceptions to my support or agreement.
Over the course of the last year (wow, I’ve been doing this a year!), while expressing my own views on this blog, I’ve read the comments by my readers, and I’ve read other blogs and the comments by their readers, and in doing so, have learned more about politics and political theories and history than I ever knew before. And while I’m still a novice in such things, I feel confident in saying that I now understand my OWN political views better.
There was a time when I was a staunch modern conservative. This was as a very young person, and was mostly influenced by my family upbringing. During my college and early adult years, I was strongly influenced by opinions and attitudes within the culture of Christian Missionaries, which is what I aspired to be. This led to an odd mix of beliefs all based on what I perceived to be sound biblical doctrine, and I suppose you could say I was socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and a dove with regard to foreign policy. The High Water Mark for my adherence to these positions was in my mid-20's.
Churchill’s (Winston, not Ward) comment about the effects of age on ones politics certainly rang true in my case, and as time wore on and I began to think out certain positions I held, I grew more hawkish and more fiscally conservative. On social issues, I found myself growing more conservative on some points and more liberal or moderate on others. Eventually I found myself once again firmly in what I believed to be the Republican camp (and, to be honest, that is the way I usually vote), though I found, and find, myself more in agreement with libertarians on some issues.
From there my understanding of my own views evolved to the point where I considered my self a constitutionalist. I believed, and for the most part still believe, that the Constitution was and should be the final benchmark for law in the United States. But recently I found myself challenged – not to question my belief in the Constitution, but to question its exact place in my political philosophy. As I mentioned in an essay early on in my blogging days, my political views are still guided by my religious beliefs, as horrifying as that might be to some. The First Amendment was established, I believe, not to prevent an individual’s religious beliefs from having ANY effect on that individual’s political views, but rather to prevent organized religion from dictating public policy, and to prevent government from dictating religious doctrine. Therefore, I reject the Separation of Church and Brain.
This has put me in a dilemma with regards to my stance as a constitutionalist on several occasions, the most notable of which was the Schiavo case. Without launching into a separate debate on the merits of that case, for the purpose of THIS discussion, it must suffice that I believed I was helping to defend an innocent life in taking the stand I did on that occasion. In doing so, and in actively following the blogosphere’s discussion of the case, I was challenged by a post by Naked Villainy’s Smallholder, questioning the depth of commitment to the Constitution of Republican congressmen who were interfering in the case; and the depth of commitment to the Constitution of conservatives in general by their approval of these actions.
And while I’m not sure he was 100% right (not being as much of an expert in the Constitution as I am a believer), he did have a point, one I had to consider and finally concede, at least on my own behalf. In this case, I had to admit, I was willing to waver in my commitment to the constitution in order to remain firm in my commitment to defending life. I found myself further troubled when confronting the argument that the Federal Government was acting unconstitutionally in waging the Civil War, a war I believe achieved great good. This put me, you can imagine, in the unenviable position of once again needing to readjust exactly how I represented myself politically. Eventually I concluded that I still considered myself a constitutionalist, but what I call a Means Constitutionalist, as opposed to an Ends Constitutionalist. By that, of course, I mean that I believe that adherence to the Constitution is NOT the highest end of American Law, but rather, that the Constitution itself is the greatest means by which we strive to the highest ends of American Law. And what is that highest end?
For a very long time, in fact, ever since the days when I was an anti-abortion socialist-leaning pacifist, I held firm to a belief that in arguing the constitutional merits of any given policy or law, modern politicians were overlooking the importance of the Preamble to the Constitution. It was, and is, my belief that within the Preamble, the framers laid out exactly what end they intended to achieve, and in the rest of the Constitution, expounded on how to achieve it.
These are the ends of Law in the United States, and of the Constitution itself: Union, Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Common Defense, General Welfare, and Liberty. Any law that opposes those ends, whether technically adherent to the rest of the Constitution or not, should be opposed. Any law that promotes those ends, whether technically adherent to the rest of the Constitution or not, should be supported. The former should be rendered unconstitutional as quickly as possible, the latter rendered constitutional. But if the day ever comes when the Constitution ceases to uphold those ends, I will cease to be a constitutionalist. In short, my loyalty to the Constitution and to the United States is conditional upon their loyalty to the principles upon which they were founded.
How can I say such a thing? Sedition! Well, not yet. But sadly, the day may come when my words above would be seditious. So be it. For this belief of mine is based on another set of words that were, when coined, equally seditious. But you just said that the Constitution is the final authority on what the ends of our law are! No, I said that the Constitution, or specifically the Preamble, expresses what those ends ARE, and the rest of the Constitution expounds on how they’re to be achieved, but it is not the final AUTHORITY on what they are. Well, then, what or who is? I am. You are. We all are, individually and collectively.
It’s simple, really. With regards to the end of American government, the Constitution addresses almost all of the most important “5W/H” questions:
Who?
We the People of the United States
What?
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
Where?
Philadelphia
When?
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven
How? do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notice the glaring omission?
Why?
At first blush, I thought that that was what the preamble was about. But I came to believe that the preamble explains WHAT we are setting out to do. But why do we want to form this more perfect union? Why bother creating this finely crafted, well-thought out document?
I finally concluded that the reason WHY, the authority and motivation behind the Constitution, could be found in a document several years older than the Constitution. And I have come to view THIS document as the authority on which rests the constitution. Of course, I am referring to the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, I believe the foundational concept, the authority upon which rests the entire US Constitution and government, is expressed in the following clause from the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed...
...That’s it. That’s why we have a constitution, why we have THIS constitution. And the rest of that clause goes on to explain why I think it right and proper and altogether fitting to hold to the position I do, which is that I am a constitutionalist only as long as the Constitution achieves this end. Because I believe…
...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
More on Beer
Yesterday I had the good pleasure of trying a very well-made Belgian Cherry-flavored Lambic ALe called Kriek Boon. The waiter brought it out, opened, poured, and served it like it was a bottle of fine champagne. It deserved such treatment. Absolutely stunning -- sparkling, very fruity, a bit tart, with the smooth Ale part of the brew hanging in the background, giving it support and depth. In a word, Yummy.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Oregon Beer Review
The last couple of years, I’ve had a new additional reason to love summer. Well, heck, to love every season. My favorite Oregon brewery, Deschutes, puts out a series of seasonal brews, only available in that given season. And while their winter Jubel Ale is the most well-known of these, my favorite is their summer brew, Twilight Ale. Last year was its debut season, and I’m absolutely in love with the stuff. It’s an American Pale Ale, light without being lightweight, crisp, and bitter without being overpowering. It’s refreshing but still has real body and depth, and it’s the ideal beer to go with barbecue.
On the other hand, my second favorite Oregon brewery, Full Sail, just released a new beer, “Session”, in a bottle that looks like a shameless knockoff of Jamaican Red Stripe. I tried it, and was unimpressed. Of course, that’s because I freaking HATE Lager, so I’m not exactly the best judge. I’m told it’s excellent.
On the other hand, my second favorite Oregon brewery, Full Sail, just released a new beer, “Session”, in a bottle that looks like a shameless knockoff of Jamaican Red Stripe. I tried it, and was unimpressed. Of course, that’s because I freaking HATE Lager, so I’m not exactly the best judge. I’m told it’s excellent.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Scots Wha Hae
Thanks for the Memories to The Llama Butchers.
James Doohan, who played Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott on the original Star Trek episode, has died.
"Scotty" was always my favorite character. I loved his personality, his wry humor, his bravery, his harried denigration of his own skills. He'd always tell Captain Kirk, "I canna werk mirrrracles", and then he'd turn around and work one.
Beam yourself up, Scotty, you'll be missed.
James Doohan, who played Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott on the original Star Trek episode, has died.
"Scotty" was always my favorite character. I loved his personality, his wry humor, his bravery, his harried denigration of his own skills. He'd always tell Captain Kirk, "I canna werk mirrrracles", and then he'd turn around and work one.
Beam yourself up, Scotty, you'll be missed.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
SPOON!
Thanks for the Memory to The Maximum Leader.
I now have my own battle cry:
OK, so it's not as glorious as "SPOON!" but it still beats Arthurs "Not in the face! Not in the face!"
I now have my own battle cry:
OK, so it's not as glorious as "SPOON!" but it still beats Arthurs "Not in the face! Not in the face!"
Blegging In AND About the Northwest
Despite being a native of the Pacific Northwest, I haven't been to Seattle since I was 5. For the most part, my treks into Washington have been limited to the area in and around Vancouver/Camas, and one jaunt up to Longview to take the bridge back into Oregon (as a shortcut to Astoria). Most of my knowledge of the PNW is of Idaho and my native Oregon.
That will change this weekend. TFR and I are celebrating our 6th wedding anniversary by taking a long weekend trip up to Seattle. We plan to drive from Eugene to Portland Friday night, and stay the night at her sister's house (the SIL has offered towatched The Lad for the weekend, so this will be the first time we're BOTH away from him for more than a few hours). Saturday Morning we leave as early as possible for Seattle. W plan to spend the night Saturday night, and spend as much of the day as possible on Sat. and Sun. in Seattle, returning to Portland Sunday afternoon/early evening, and back to Eugene on Monday.
So my bleg to my readers is this: What should we do while in Seattle? We already have our sights set on Pike's Place, the Underground Tour, Space Needle, and the Monorail. What else is there to do that's distinctly Seattle, and is cheap and not too time consuming? Bear in mind we don't have a lot of time or money, and don't want to feel rushed. I was considering taking a Ferry, just to say we've been out on the Sound, but which one will burn uyp the smallest amount of our day? Which ones go places worth visiting just for an hour or two?
If you're a Seattle resident, or even WA resident in general, or know the city in any way, your input would be greatly appreciated.
That will change this weekend. TFR and I are celebrating our 6th wedding anniversary by taking a long weekend trip up to Seattle. We plan to drive from Eugene to Portland Friday night, and stay the night at her sister's house (the SIL has offered towatched The Lad for the weekend, so this will be the first time we're BOTH away from him for more than a few hours). Saturday Morning we leave as early as possible for Seattle. W plan to spend the night Saturday night, and spend as much of the day as possible on Sat. and Sun. in Seattle, returning to Portland Sunday afternoon/early evening, and back to Eugene on Monday.
So my bleg to my readers is this: What should we do while in Seattle? We already have our sights set on Pike's Place, the Underground Tour, Space Needle, and the Monorail. What else is there to do that's distinctly Seattle, and is cheap and not too time consuming? Bear in mind we don't have a lot of time or money, and don't want to feel rushed. I was considering taking a Ferry, just to say we've been out on the Sound, but which one will burn uyp the smallest amount of our day? Which ones go places worth visiting just for an hour or two?
If you're a Seattle resident, or even WA resident in general, or know the city in any way, your input would be greatly appreciated.
Obi Wan Has Taught Me Well
As anyone who has followed my food posts on this Blog knows, I acquired for myself earlier this summer a smoker shaped, as one reader commented, like a stripped-down R2D2. I've spent a good deal of my time this summer taking what I already knew about cooking and grilling, and applying it to developing my abilities in the pursuit of barbecue. And I feel that I've been fairly successful. I may not have the years of experience that some barbecue chefs do, but I was already a good cook, and took to this new cooking form.
But something was missing, something that held me back from true mastery of the form, and I knew what it was. This weekend, I set about to right that wrong, and I believe I have. I've accomplished what is, in my esteem, the barbecue equivalent of a jedi building his own lightsabre to mark his graduation.
I have made my own sauce.
Oh, I'd come up with recipes of my own before -- I'd modified certain techniques to fit my own taste, even delveloped my own dry rub and baste recipes. But the finishinf sauce, that was still coming out of a bottle. Until now.
My sauce is definitely a more western-style sauce, since it's a sweet and spicy tomato-based sauce. TFR tried it by itself and thought it too sweet, but had to admit that once applied to the meat and cooked in, it was quite good.
And so, without further ado, my sauce recipe:
In a medium saucepan combine the following ingredients:
2 cans (10 3/4 oz. each) tomato puree
1/4 cup molasses
1/4 cup honey
1/4 cup turbinado sugar
1 tbsp salt
1 tbsp oregano
1 1/2 tbsp paprika
1 tbsp garlic powder
1 tsp chili powder
1 tsp cayenne pepper
1 tbsp onion powder
1/4 tsp cumin
1/2 tsp mustard powder
1/4 tsp ground sage
1/2 tsp white pepper
1 tbsp Worcestershire sauce
Heat over medium heat, stirring constantly until sauce starts to bubble. Reduce heat, simmer, stirring frequently until sauce is smooth. Apply to food by taste.
I tried it on beef short ribs Saturday. The sauce was good, the flavor was goot, but the ribs were too damned fatty. I'm sticking with pork spare or back ribs when it comes to rib barbecueing. TFR suggests I should try this on chicken. I'm going to try slow-cooking a Beer Butt Chicken (TFR prefers I use the term "Beer Can Chicken", but let's be honest...) on the smoker with this sauce recipe, I'll let you know how it goes.
But something was missing, something that held me back from true mastery of the form, and I knew what it was. This weekend, I set about to right that wrong, and I believe I have. I've accomplished what is, in my esteem, the barbecue equivalent of a jedi building his own lightsabre to mark his graduation.
I have made my own sauce.
Oh, I'd come up with recipes of my own before -- I'd modified certain techniques to fit my own taste, even delveloped my own dry rub and baste recipes. But the finishinf sauce, that was still coming out of a bottle. Until now.
My sauce is definitely a more western-style sauce, since it's a sweet and spicy tomato-based sauce. TFR tried it by itself and thought it too sweet, but had to admit that once applied to the meat and cooked in, it was quite good.
And so, without further ado, my sauce recipe:
In a medium saucepan combine the following ingredients:
2 cans (10 3/4 oz. each) tomato puree
1/4 cup molasses
1/4 cup honey
1/4 cup turbinado sugar
1 tbsp salt
1 tbsp oregano
1 1/2 tbsp paprika
1 tbsp garlic powder
1 tsp chili powder
1 tsp cayenne pepper
1 tbsp onion powder
1/4 tsp cumin
1/2 tsp mustard powder
1/4 tsp ground sage
1/2 tsp white pepper
1 tbsp Worcestershire sauce
Heat over medium heat, stirring constantly until sauce starts to bubble. Reduce heat, simmer, stirring frequently until sauce is smooth. Apply to food by taste.
I tried it on beef short ribs Saturday. The sauce was good, the flavor was goot, but the ribs were too damned fatty. I'm sticking with pork spare or back ribs when it comes to rib barbecueing. TFR suggests I should try this on chicken. I'm going to try slow-cooking a Beer Butt Chicken (TFR prefers I use the term "Beer Can Chicken", but let's be honest...) on the smoker with this sauce recipe, I'll let you know how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)