It has come to my attention that my lack of postings has caused concern among my readers. I'm touched, and sorry for the silence. I've been rather busy with work and home life, and frankly, unmotivated to blog about much of anything. Work is fulfilling but not exciting, I'm too burned out to get worked up about politics, I've had nothing to say for some time.
But I did manage something last night that I thought was worth mentioning -- I invented a new cocktail. It's based on the Mojito, but with a culinary twist. Like any good cook, I like playing with ingredients, especially giving something a twist by switching out one similar but non-identical ingredient, then going from there.
In this case, it was switching out the mint and replacing it with basil (which is related to mint botanically). From there I started building on similar switch-outs for other mojito ingredients, with the idea of replacing them with ingredients that were both similar to the ones they replaced; and that went well with basil. This is what I came up with. I'm hoping my readers can help me with ideas for a name for it:
4 or 5 medium-sized basil leaves
1 oz. honey
1 oz. lime juice
1 1/2 oz. citrus-infused vodka
6-8 oz. ginger beer
1 cup ice cubes
Combine the basil and honey in the bottom of a Collins glass and muddle until the basil is crushed. Add the lime juice and vodka, stir until the honey is dissolved. Add ice to the top of the glass, fill with ginger beer, and stir again. garnish with a lime wedge, sprig of basil, and slice of candied ginger.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Quote(s) of the Year
UPDATED 06/04/08
"someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
- Michelle Obama, campaigning on her husband's behalf
"someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
- Michelle Obama, campaigning on her husband's behalf
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
If You Tell a Lie Big Enough, and Keep Repeating It, You're Probably Barack Obama
A tip of the Toque to Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ.
The Scranton (PA) Times-Tribune first claimed it (no media bias there). KeithGoebbel Olbermann parroted it. Barry brought it up in the debate tonight. But it turns out that according to the Secret Service, The allegation of a "Kill Him!" epithet regarding Obama has no merit.
Will the MSM retract their repetition of it?
Will Obama stop beating this horse?
Don't hold your breath.
The Scranton (PA) Times-Tribune first claimed it (no media bias there). Keith
Will the MSM retract their repetition of it?
Will Obama stop beating this horse?
Don't hold your breath.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Paying Back a "Pay It Forward"
As some of my longtime readers (all 5 of them) may recall, back in 2005, I went down to Houston to help out in a post-Katrina Red Cross Shelter. While I was there, I stayed with one of my best friends and his wife, who live in Spring, a suburb of Houston. The hospitality they showed me was far more generous than anything I did by going down there. They fed and housed me, they entertained me, heck, his brother gave me my first taste of God's Own Food.
Well, they say that no good deed goes unpunished, andGustav Ike has them in a bad way. They thought their house had come through undamaged, but they've discovered that the roof is leaking, and the drywall in the master bedroom is... well, not DRYwall anymore, and not WALL for much longer. They don't expect power back for another week (he called me from his cell phone, which they use the car to recharge). They can get some food in the local grocery stores, but the lines are long there's not much left by the time they get in some times, and they're running out of money -- today they had to go to FEMA for MRE's. To top it all off, his wife's temp job is up, so they're down a paycheck as of this week.
My friend is not one to beg, he prides himself on being self-reliant, but things are tough, and he has agreed to let me ask my readers for help. This is a chance to give direct aid -- it isn't tax-deductible, it's not giving to an overarching charitable organization, but it is taking the bull by the horns and doing somehting to help someone. Hell, he helped me do the same for others 3 years ago, I have no problem asking for help for him now.
He says the most useful way of sending aid directly is through gift cards and gas cards. If any of you are interested, contact me in the comments or via email, and we'll talk.
Well, they say that no good deed goes unpunished, and
My friend is not one to beg, he prides himself on being self-reliant, but things are tough, and he has agreed to let me ask my readers for help. This is a chance to give direct aid -- it isn't tax-deductible, it's not giving to an overarching charitable organization, but it is taking the bull by the horns and doing somehting to help someone. Hell, he helped me do the same for others 3 years ago, I have no problem asking for help for him now.
He says the most useful way of sending aid directly is through gift cards and gas cards. If any of you are interested, contact me in the comments or via email, and we'll talk.
Musical Geography Trivia Question of the Day
Where does the southbound odyssey start, and where does it end?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Quote of the Week
A tip of the Toque to Patrick at Born Again Redneck.
"Lurking just below the surface of the second-guessing about Sarah
Palin's fitness to be president is the serious question of whether we still
believe in the American people's capacity for self-government, what we mean when
we affirm that all American citizens are equal, and whether we tacitly believe
there are distinct classes of citizens and that American government at the
highest levels is an elite occupation. "-- Steven F. Hayward, commenting at The Weekly Standard
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Just Keep Telling Yourself
There is no liberal media bias. There is no liberal media bias. There is no...
A tip of the toque to Ace of Spades.
A tip of the toque to Ace of Spades.
90%
My granddad used to like to say, "Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure". It was his gruff way of reminding people that numbers and statistics, no matter how technically accurate, can be presented in such a way as to imply much more than they really say.
The point was also driven home to me in my college statistics class. I did ok -- Math is not my passion, and statistics really pushed my limits. I escaped it with a C -- and that was just introductory statistics. But what DID stick with me, no matter how much the actual mathematics started to swamp me, was the professor's constant reminder to us whenever we were presented with statistics to ask questions -- never accept uncritically the assertions made by those presenting the statistics. Ask about the methods used to gather the information. If, for instance, the statistics are from a survey, and the presenters claim that X% of people favor Y, ask questions -- how many people did you ask? How were they selected? How representative of the population in general was the sampling? What exactly did they ask the people surveyed? How were the questions worded? Was it a yes/no question? If not, how many responses were available? How were THOSE worded? As you can see, statistics involves more than just numbers.
I have been struck by the importance of this recently, given the fact that one of the Obama campaign's main points of attack against John McCain has been "John McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time".
Ninety Percent.
It's an interesting statistic to me, because it's the exact same number quoted by the Jeff Merkley campaign in attacking Gordon Smith -- "He voted with President Bush 90% of the time".
So let's start asking questions.
The first question that sprang to my mind was "How did you come up with that figure, 90%?" It seemed the obvious question to ask, but I soon realized that the answer to that question was dependent on another more fundamental question -- How do you define "Voted with President Bush"?
Obviously you can't mean "Voted the same way that Bush did", since Bush, not being a member of Congress, doesn't vote. So what DOES it mean? Voted in favor of 90% of the bills that Bush then signed into law, and against 90% of the bills that eventually passed but he vetoed? Voted 90% of the time the way Bush actively urged congress to vote? Voted the way the Republican Party leadership urged you to vote? Voted with the majority of your fellow Republicans? Please clarify.
But ok, for the sake of argument, let's accept the 90% claim for now. My next question is, how many times did Obama vote "with President Bush", using the same standard to determine the percentage? 0%? I doubt that10%? 20%? 50%? And if Obama voted "with President Bush" say, 30% of the time (as an example, I'm not making the claim that he did), would it still be fair to criticize McCain or Smith for all 90% of their pro-Bush votes? This is important to ask because just saying "they voted with Bush 90% of the time" and presenting that as a criticism implies "They voted wrong 90% of the time". That's unfair to both the senators AND President Bush. NO matter HOW bad a president you believe Bush is, it would be unreasonable to argue that he's been wrong about everything.
Here's what I mean: If Obama and the Democracts and the Republicans and Bush could all manage to agree on, again, say 30% of all the laws passed, that means that the Dems and Bush disagreed 70%, and the Dems and McCain disagreed 60% of the time (90-30=60), with McCain and the Dems agreeing with each other and against Bush 10% of the time. So even from the Democratic POV, arguing that Bush was wrong 70% of the time, McCain was only wrong 60% of the time. Given the way that the country is so split down the middle on so many issues, do you really think that's a strong criticism of your oponent?
The point was also driven home to me in my college statistics class. I did ok -- Math is not my passion, and statistics really pushed my limits. I escaped it with a C -- and that was just introductory statistics. But what DID stick with me, no matter how much the actual mathematics started to swamp me, was the professor's constant reminder to us whenever we were presented with statistics to ask questions -- never accept uncritically the assertions made by those presenting the statistics. Ask about the methods used to gather the information. If, for instance, the statistics are from a survey, and the presenters claim that X% of people favor Y, ask questions -- how many people did you ask? How were they selected? How representative of the population in general was the sampling? What exactly did they ask the people surveyed? How were the questions worded? Was it a yes/no question? If not, how many responses were available? How were THOSE worded? As you can see, statistics involves more than just numbers.
I have been struck by the importance of this recently, given the fact that one of the Obama campaign's main points of attack against John McCain has been "John McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time".
Ninety Percent.
It's an interesting statistic to me, because it's the exact same number quoted by the Jeff Merkley campaign in attacking Gordon Smith -- "He voted with President Bush 90% of the time".
So let's start asking questions.
The first question that sprang to my mind was "How did you come up with that figure, 90%?" It seemed the obvious question to ask, but I soon realized that the answer to that question was dependent on another more fundamental question -- How do you define "Voted with President Bush"?
Obviously you can't mean "Voted the same way that Bush did", since Bush, not being a member of Congress, doesn't vote. So what DOES it mean? Voted in favor of 90% of the bills that Bush then signed into law, and against 90% of the bills that eventually passed but he vetoed? Voted 90% of the time the way Bush actively urged congress to vote? Voted the way the Republican Party leadership urged you to vote? Voted with the majority of your fellow Republicans? Please clarify.
But ok, for the sake of argument, let's accept the 90% claim for now. My next question is, how many times did Obama vote "with President Bush", using the same standard to determine the percentage? 0%? I doubt that10%? 20%? 50%? And if Obama voted "with President Bush" say, 30% of the time (as an example, I'm not making the claim that he did), would it still be fair to criticize McCain or Smith for all 90% of their pro-Bush votes? This is important to ask because just saying "they voted with Bush 90% of the time" and presenting that as a criticism implies "They voted wrong 90% of the time". That's unfair to both the senators AND President Bush. NO matter HOW bad a president you believe Bush is, it would be unreasonable to argue that he's been wrong about everything.
Here's what I mean: If Obama and the Democracts and the Republicans and Bush could all manage to agree on, again, say 30% of all the laws passed, that means that the Dems and Bush disagreed 70%, and the Dems and McCain disagreed 60% of the time (90-30=60), with McCain and the Dems agreeing with each other and against Bush 10% of the time. So even from the Democratic POV, arguing that Bush was wrong 70% of the time, McCain was only wrong 60% of the time. Given the way that the country is so split down the middle on so many issues, do you really think that's a strong criticism of your oponent?
Friday, September 12, 2008
Is This "Hope", or "Change"?
A Tip of the Toque to NRO via Ace of Spades HQ.
Obama's latest criticism of McCain? He's so out of touch, he doesn't even know how to send an e-mail.
Well, it's a fair cop, to be honest. John McCain doesn't use e-mail. You got him there, Barack. He he... yep, nailed him to the wall.
One small problem. The reason he doesn't use e-mail? His war wounds prevent him from:
"combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball. "
Nice, there, Barry. Way to keep it classy. What's next, questioning his patriotism for not saluting the flag?
Obama's latest criticism of McCain? He's so out of touch, he doesn't even know how to send an e-mail.
Well, it's a fair cop, to be honest. John McCain doesn't use e-mail. You got him there, Barack. He he... yep, nailed him to the wall.
One small problem. The reason he doesn't use e-mail? His war wounds prevent him from:
"combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball. "
Nice, there, Barry. Way to keep it classy. What's next, questioning his patriotism for not saluting the flag?
Monday, September 08, 2008
Blogging Buddies
Yesterday, one of my favorite bloggers was in town, so we got together for a couple of beers. Ken's a great guy, as nice in person as he is on his blog. Thanks again, Ken, for the beer and the company. Next time I'm buying.
Gainfully Employed
A big thanks to all the well-wishers regarding my recent big news. So without further ado, here's the scoop on where I interviewed yesterday, how it went, and what I decided:
My working interview on Friday was at a local university other than U of O. The interview yesterday was at Marche'. The interview went ok, but the chef there has a poker face, so I don't know how well HE thinks it went. He informed me that if they decide to call me back for a second interview, it'll be a "stage" (French, pronounced "Stozh"), which means working one shift without pay (but I'd be fed) to see how I work out.
I've decided to go with the University job, unless Marche' offers me either A) a really good shift and higher pay (in which case I'll leave the university job); or B) a part time position (where I can moonlight after the other job).
I know it sounds crazy, giving up a job at a high end restaurant to work as a prep cook and steward at a college cafeteria, but there are several reasons I went with this decision:
1) The college job is M-F, 6:30-2:30, regular work hours, which allows me to actually have a family life, and also minimizes the amount of time The Lad has to be at daycare.
2) The pay is $10/hour, which is pretty good for a starting wage in this town.
3) Because the job revolves around the school year, I'll be getting Christmas and Spring breaks off with pay. The downside is that I'll be layed off every summer, but as I mentioned before, there are a couple of possibilities there: I can find seasonal work (perhaps at King Estate, I'm told they do hire seasonally), and I can also use that time to start and build my own business.
Today was my first day on the job. I'm sore and exhausted but also elated. It's good to finally be back at a steady, full-time, permanent job. I loved culinary school, but that was the longest stretch of unemployment/underemployment I've been through in my entire adult life, and I'm glad to have it behind me.
My working interview on Friday was at a local university other than U of O. The interview yesterday was at Marche'. The interview went ok, but the chef there has a poker face, so I don't know how well HE thinks it went. He informed me that if they decide to call me back for a second interview, it'll be a "stage" (French, pronounced "Stozh"), which means working one shift without pay (but I'd be fed) to see how I work out.
I've decided to go with the University job, unless Marche' offers me either A) a really good shift and higher pay (in which case I'll leave the university job); or B) a part time position (where I can moonlight after the other job).
I know it sounds crazy, giving up a job at a high end restaurant to work as a prep cook and steward at a college cafeteria, but there are several reasons I went with this decision:
1) The college job is M-F, 6:30-2:30, regular work hours, which allows me to actually have a family life, and also minimizes the amount of time The Lad has to be at daycare.
2) The pay is $10/hour, which is pretty good for a starting wage in this town.
3) Because the job revolves around the school year, I'll be getting Christmas and Spring breaks off with pay. The downside is that I'll be layed off every summer, but as I mentioned before, there are a couple of possibilities there: I can find seasonal work (perhaps at King Estate, I'm told they do hire seasonally), and I can also use that time to start and build my own business.
Today was my first day on the job. I'm sore and exhausted but also elated. It's good to finally be back at a steady, full-time, permanent job. I loved culinary school, but that was the longest stretch of unemployment/underemployment I've been through in my entire adult life, and I'm glad to have it behind me.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Palin the Destroyer
This is the movie quote that comes to mind whenever I think of the aneurisms being suffered by the likes of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, et al, regarding the turn of events in the presidential race.
Negotiating from a Position of Strength
Well, the "Working Interview" turned out to be an emergency fill-in for the person who just quit. I worked 2 hours, through the lunch rush, survived a minor catastrophe (not my fault), and have the job if I want.
I'm still going to the interview on Sunday, just to see how it goes. Actually, I'm looking forward to it a lot more now. There's a lot less pressure on me -- if I don't get it, I'm still employed. If I do, then I have to weigh my decision. But it's nice to have the "do or die" pressure off of me.
So here's the dilemma:
The interview Sunday is at probably the single best, and undoubtedly the best-KNOWN, restaurant in all of Eugene. The menu is exquisite, the owner AND the chef have stellar reputations. Working there for any amount of time would be a feather in my cap.
The other job is working in an educational setting. It's not nearly as prestigious, though it isn't exactly mere cafeteria work. It won't look AS good on a resume. But what it WOULD afford me is saummers off to pursue my OWN business -- I hope to save up and buy a concessions trailer and start doing fairs and festivals, selling my barbecue. I would have winter and spring breaks off, with pay, which would allow for vacations AND for moonlighting.
But the big draw is the annual summer layoff. That's three months free to try my hand at self-employment, as well as the possibility of working seasonally in some of the more tourist-driven businesses around (like King Estate). I've reached the conclusion that the likelihood of me, at this late stage in the game (I'm 40), working my way up through hte ranks from prep to line to chef de parti to sous to Chef are pretty slim. My best shot at self-employment will be to start soon, start small, and grow my business at the same TIME as gaining experience.
In terms of pay, I doubt either place will be offering a wage significantly higher than the other, but we'll see. That's DEFINITELY a consideration, but it would have to be in the neighborhood of $1.00/hour difference at LEAST for that to be enough to decide one way or another on its own.
I'm still going to the interview on Sunday, just to see how it goes. Actually, I'm looking forward to it a lot more now. There's a lot less pressure on me -- if I don't get it, I'm still employed. If I do, then I have to weigh my decision. But it's nice to have the "do or die" pressure off of me.
So here's the dilemma:
The interview Sunday is at probably the single best, and undoubtedly the best-KNOWN, restaurant in all of Eugene. The menu is exquisite, the owner AND the chef have stellar reputations. Working there for any amount of time would be a feather in my cap.
The other job is working in an educational setting. It's not nearly as prestigious, though it isn't exactly mere cafeteria work. It won't look AS good on a resume. But what it WOULD afford me is saummers off to pursue my OWN business -- I hope to save up and buy a concessions trailer and start doing fairs and festivals, selling my barbecue. I would have winter and spring breaks off, with pay, which would allow for vacations AND for moonlighting.
But the big draw is the annual summer layoff. That's three months free to try my hand at self-employment, as well as the possibility of working seasonally in some of the more tourist-driven businesses around (like King Estate). I've reached the conclusion that the likelihood of me, at this late stage in the game (I'm 40), working my way up through hte ranks from prep to line to chef de parti to sous to Chef are pretty slim. My best shot at self-employment will be to start soon, start small, and grow my business at the same TIME as gaining experience.
In terms of pay, I doubt either place will be offering a wage significantly higher than the other, but we'll see. That's DEFINITELY a consideration, but it would have to be in the neighborhood of $1.00/hour difference at LEAST for that to be enough to decide one way or another on its own.
Hope
No, not the Obama kind. Real hope, right now, and a request for prayers and good thoughts.
Most of you know I quit my job two weeks ago. The job hunting has been pretty discouraging since then.
But that's just changed. A couple of days ago, I got a call from one of the best restaurants in Eugene, I have an interview with them on Sunday. And less than an hour ago, I got a call from a former culinary classmate, and now have an interview in less than an hour at another location.
Both jobs have different strengths and weaknesses. At this point I'd be happy with either, but if I get offered both I want to make the right choice. I'll explain more after the interview, wish me luck.
Most of you know I quit my job two weeks ago. The job hunting has been pretty discouraging since then.
But that's just changed. A couple of days ago, I got a call from one of the best restaurants in Eugene, I have an interview with them on Sunday. And less than an hour ago, I got a call from a former culinary classmate, and now have an interview in less than an hour at another location.
Both jobs have different strengths and weaknesses. At this point I'd be happy with either, but if I get offered both I want to make the right choice. I'll explain more after the interview, wish me luck.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Dems Giggle While Nola Drowns
A tip of the Toque to Dave in Texas from Ace of Spades HQ.
So glad to know that the suffering of of the people of the Gulf States is worth it to the Left if that means winning this election.
Because, you know, they're for the little guy.
"Light" Blogging
A little break from politics...
I took The Lad to the park down the street from our house today. It was gorgeous outside today, but there was a bit of coolness in the breeze, even when the sun was high overhead. It definitely had that late summer/early fall feel to it, when the sun feels like it's farther away than you've been used to all summer, and it feels like twilight even when the sun is high overhead. I wonder if the angle of the suns rays striking the earth affects our perception of its light in the same way it affects the amount of warmth we receive from it.
I've been doing a lot of reflecting on the qualities of sunlight this summer, and how things like time of year and time of day and ones surroundings affect sunlight, and how that sunlight in turn affects how we perceive our surroundings. And like today, most of that reflection has occurred while taking The Lad to the park -- though unlike today, it has mostly been at Skinner Butte Park in Eugene. Usually, I've taken him there near the end of the day while waiting to pick TFR up after work. Even with the late sunset of summer, it's been late enough in the day most times that the sun, while not on the horizon, was low enough to be below the park's treeline.
But Skinner Butte Park, as its name implies, is located at a butte. Not just on top of the butte, but also extending next to it, between Skinner Butte and the Willamette river. The playground to which I take The Lad is located on the lower land between the river and the butte. So while it was in shadows by the time we would leave, the butte itself was high enough that it was still bathed in light. And what strick me was the way the light striking the butte while we were in shadow made the features of the trees on the butte stand out -- it was as if I could see each branch, each leaf and needle in greater detail and clarity. The light often had a warm, golden quality to it that enhanced the effect. It was glorious -- relaxing, warm, and distinctly summerish.
After I'd enjoyed the sensation for a while, I found myself pondering what the cause of this effect was -- was it the fact that my eyes, accustomed to the shadow, was more sensitive to the light coming off the butte? Was it psychological, in that the dimness of the lower altitude enabled the brain to ignore it, and focus on the butte? Or was it the angle of the sun's rays, coming in under the leaves and highlighting them, instead of coming down more directly from above and washing everything into one mass of green? Or was it, as I suspect, some combination of all these causes?
I'll have to ponder this further -- next time I'm at the park.
I took The Lad to the park down the street from our house today. It was gorgeous outside today, but there was a bit of coolness in the breeze, even when the sun was high overhead. It definitely had that late summer/early fall feel to it, when the sun feels like it's farther away than you've been used to all summer, and it feels like twilight even when the sun is high overhead. I wonder if the angle of the suns rays striking the earth affects our perception of its light in the same way it affects the amount of warmth we receive from it.
I've been doing a lot of reflecting on the qualities of sunlight this summer, and how things like time of year and time of day and ones surroundings affect sunlight, and how that sunlight in turn affects how we perceive our surroundings. And like today, most of that reflection has occurred while taking The Lad to the park -- though unlike today, it has mostly been at Skinner Butte Park in Eugene. Usually, I've taken him there near the end of the day while waiting to pick TFR up after work. Even with the late sunset of summer, it's been late enough in the day most times that the sun, while not on the horizon, was low enough to be below the park's treeline.
But Skinner Butte Park, as its name implies, is located at a butte. Not just on top of the butte, but also extending next to it, between Skinner Butte and the Willamette river. The playground to which I take The Lad is located on the lower land between the river and the butte. So while it was in shadows by the time we would leave, the butte itself was high enough that it was still bathed in light. And what strick me was the way the light striking the butte while we were in shadow made the features of the trees on the butte stand out -- it was as if I could see each branch, each leaf and needle in greater detail and clarity. The light often had a warm, golden quality to it that enhanced the effect. It was glorious -- relaxing, warm, and distinctly summerish.
After I'd enjoyed the sensation for a while, I found myself pondering what the cause of this effect was -- was it the fact that my eyes, accustomed to the shadow, was more sensitive to the light coming off the butte? Was it psychological, in that the dimness of the lower altitude enabled the brain to ignore it, and focus on the butte? Or was it the angle of the sun's rays, coming in under the leaves and highlighting them, instead of coming down more directly from above and washing everything into one mass of green? Or was it, as I suspect, some combination of all these causes?
I'll have to ponder this further -- next time I'm at the park.
The Noble Left
A Tip of the Toque to NewsBusters.
This is disgusting. The Kos-tic slime over at daily Kos started with a wild speculation, and ran with it. The allegation is that Sarah Palin's son, Trig, isn't really hers, but her teenage daughters, and that she faked her pregnancy to cover up her daughters.
It's bad enough that such a tabloidesque rumor could be given credence without any evidence to support it, and in fact, with some pretty compelling arguments against it (for starters, Downs Syndrome is much more common in children of older mothers). What's really disgusting is the depth of ugliness the posters at Kos have gone to, and the glee with which htey have done it. There's a references to Trig as a "Mongreloid", and much much worse.
You know how the other day I wrote that I believe that most people on the left are not truly evil, merely misguided? The scum over at Daily Kos are an exception to that.
This is disgusting. The Kos-tic slime over at daily Kos started with a wild speculation, and ran with it. The allegation is that Sarah Palin's son, Trig, isn't really hers, but her teenage daughters, and that she faked her pregnancy to cover up her daughters.
It's bad enough that such a tabloidesque rumor could be given credence without any evidence to support it, and in fact, with some pretty compelling arguments against it (for starters, Downs Syndrome is much more common in children of older mothers). What's really disgusting is the depth of ugliness the posters at Kos have gone to, and the glee with which htey have done it. There's a references to Trig as a "Mongreloid", and much much worse.
You know how the other day I wrote that I believe that most people on the left are not truly evil, merely misguided? The scum over at Daily Kos are an exception to that.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Alaskan Gold
He did it! I had despaired of it happening, I had actually been foolish enough to listen to the MSM pundits discussing Romney and Pawlenty, but McCain did it! He nominated the running mate I've been hoping for some time that he would -- Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. What a ballsy choice, and I believe the right one. Palin's a staunch conservative, And her pro-life stance reinforces my growing belief that McCain is pro-life too. By tapping a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, fiscal conservative, McCain has effectively reached out to those in the party to the right of himself, while at the same time, by picking a strong, accomplished woman, he's effectively reached out to those in the center.
And let's be clear about this, Palin's gender is not, by any stretch of the imagination, her only asset. She is an accomplished, successful person we can all respect. She married her high school sweetheart, and together they built their own fishing business. She's the mother of 5 children, the eldest of whom is about to deploy to Iraq. She fought her way up through Alaskan politics, making a name for herself as a public servant, she fought corruption within the ranks of her own party, she faced down the backlash from that, and won the gubernatorial election without help from her party's state apparatus.
She is bright, articulate, passionate, and committed. She is a good person, and she'll make a great VP.
It was a brilliant move on McCain's part. Her choice blunts one of the main talking points of the Obama camp. He who spouts "Change" as his mantra selected a longtime DC insider as his running mate, while his opponent selects an outsider, a normal person who earned her place, and a reformer at that. Are you more likely to reform Washington with someone like Biden at your side, or someone like Palin?
And McCain's choice of when to announce was as politically canny as his choice of running mate. Talk about stealing Obama's thunder.
I had hoped for some time she would be his pick, and I'm absolutely thrilled. I was already resolved to voting for McCain, but now I won't be holding my nose when I do.
And let's be clear about this, Palin's gender is not, by any stretch of the imagination, her only asset. She is an accomplished, successful person we can all respect. She married her high school sweetheart, and together they built their own fishing business. She's the mother of 5 children, the eldest of whom is about to deploy to Iraq. She fought her way up through Alaskan politics, making a name for herself as a public servant, she fought corruption within the ranks of her own party, she faced down the backlash from that, and won the gubernatorial election without help from her party's state apparatus.
She is bright, articulate, passionate, and committed. She is a good person, and she'll make a great VP.
It was a brilliant move on McCain's part. Her choice blunts one of the main talking points of the Obama camp. He who spouts "Change" as his mantra selected a longtime DC insider as his running mate, while his opponent selects an outsider, a normal person who earned her place, and a reformer at that. Are you more likely to reform Washington with someone like Biden at your side, or someone like Palin?
And McCain's choice of when to announce was as politically canny as his choice of running mate. Talk about stealing Obama's thunder.
I had hoped for some time she would be his pick, and I'm absolutely thrilled. I was already resolved to voting for McCain, but now I won't be holding my nose when I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)