If I had that here, do you honestly think I'd be a measly Large Mammal in the TTLB Ecosystem?
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Good Luck With That
If I had that here, do you honestly think I'd be a measly Large Mammal in the TTLB Ecosystem?
It Was a Very Good Year
Thanks for the Memory to Robert of the Llamabutchers.
This is a pretty fun meme. Go to Music Outfitters, and lookup the year you graduated from high school. The search will bring up a list of the top 100 songs from that year. Post them. Put any you liked in bold, strikeout any you didn't like, and leave alone any you don't remmember or don't care about one way or the other.
So without further ado,
1987:
1. Walk Like An Egyptian, Bangles
2. Alone, Heart
3. Shake You Down, Gregory Abbott
5. Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now, Starship
6. C'est La Vie, Robbie Nevil
7. Here I Go Again, Whitesnake
8. The Way It Is, Bruce Hornsby and the Range
9. Shakedown, Bob Seger
10. Livin' On A Prayer, Bon Jovi
11. La Bamba, Los Lobos
12. Everybody Have Fun Tonight, Wang Chung
13. Don't Dream It's Over, Crowded House
14. Always, Atlantic Starr
15. With Or Without You, U2
16. Looking For A New Love, Jody Watley
17. Head To Toe, Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam
18. I Think We're Alone Now, Tiffany (hey, I thought she was cute, ok?)
19. Mony Mony, Billy Idol
20. At This Moment, Billy Vera and The Beaters
23. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, U2
24. I Want Your Sex, George Michael
25. Notorious, Duran Duran
26. Only In My Dreams, Debbie Gibson
29. Lean On Me, Club Nouveau
30. Open Your Heart, Madonna
31. Lost In Emotion, Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam
32. (I Just) Died In Your Arms, Cutting Crew
33. Heart And Soul, T'pau
34. You Keep Me Hangin' On, Kim Wilde
35. Keep Your Hands To Yourself, Georgia Satellites
36. I Knew You Were Waiting (For Me), Aretha Franklin and George Michael
37. Control, Janet Jackson
39. U Got The Look, Prince
40. Land Of Confusion, Genesis
41. Jacob's Ladder, Huey Lewis and The News
42. Who's That Girl, Madonna
43. You Got It All, Jets
44. Touch Me (I Want Your Body), Samantha Fox (There wasn't a teenage boy in America who didn't break into a sweat thinking of Sam Fox singing this song to them!)
45. I Just Can't Stop Loving You, Michael Jackson and Siedah Garrett
46. Causing A Commotion, Madonna
47. In Too Deep, Genesis
48. Let's Wait Awhile, Janet Jackson
49. Hip To Be Square, Huey Lewis and the News (Shut up! I did NOT identify with this song!)
50. Will You Still Love Me?, Chicago
51. Little Lies, Fleetwood Mac
52. Luka, Suzanne Vega
53. I Heard A Rumour, Bananarama
54. Don't Mean Nothing, Richard Marx
56. Carrie, Europe
57. Don't Disturb This Groove, System
58. La Isla Bonita, Madonna
59. Bad, Michael Jackson
60. Sign 'O' The Times, Prince (One of the few Prince songs I can't recall)
61. Change Of Heart, Cyndi Lauper (Ditto Cindy)
62. Come Go With Me, Expose
63. Can't We Try, Dan Hill
64. To Be A Lover, Billy Idol
65. Mandolin Rain, Bruce Hornsby and the Range
66. Breakout, Swing Out Sister
67. Stand By Me, Ben E. King
68. Tonight, Tonight, Tonight, Genesis
69. Someday, Glass Tiger
70. When Smokey Sings, ABC
71. Casanova, Levert
72. Rhythm Is Gonna Get You, Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine
73. Rock Steady, Whispers
74. Wanted Dead Or Alive, Bon Jovi
75. Big Time, Peter Gabriel
76. The Finer Things, Steve Winwood
77. Let Me Be The One, Expose
78. Is This Love, Survivor
79. Diamonds, Herb Alpert
80. Point Of No Return, Expose
81. Big Love, Fleetwood Mac
82. Midnight Blue, Lou Gramm
83. Something So Strong, Crowded House
84. Heat Of The Night, Bryan Adams
85. Nothing's Gonna Change My Love For You, Glenn Medeiros
86. Brilliant Disguise, Bruce Springsteen
87. Just To See Her, Smokey Robinson
88. Who Will You Run Too, Heart
89. Respect Yourself, Bruce Willis
90. Cross My Broken Heart, Jets
91. Victory, Kool and The Gang
92. Don't Get Me Wrong, Pretenders
93. Doing It All For My Baby, Huey Lewis and The News
94. Right On Track, Breakfast Club
95. Ballerina Girl, Lionel Richie
96. Meet Me Half Way, Kenny Loggins
97. I've Been In Love Before, Cutting Crew
98. (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right To Party, Beastie Boys
99. Funkytown, Pseudo Echo
100. Love You Down, Ready For The World
Hmmmm.... that's 47% of the top 100 that I liked (back then, some still today), and only 7% (well, really 6%) that I didn't. Yup, as I recall, it was a fun time to be young, and the soundtrack was part of that.
Ovofacial
In retrospect, I should have contacted him personally with my objections before airing a feud that really wasn't to begin with. For thisd I am ashamed and offer my apologies to my readers and to my friend, you all should have been able to expect better from me.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
The Other Foot
For the most part I've been heartened by the outpouring of support and compassion shown by so many. My cousin sent me a link to news of her boyfriend's ship being sent as part of the relief efforts. Good friend Vulture Six has a rundown of different government and private relief efforts. There's even a Blogger Relief effort getting under way.
Despite this, I am disturbed to see the looting and a few other incidents of barbarism, and I'm disgusted that some would use this as an opportunity to slam Bush and the United States.
I can't help but wondering. Countries like Germany, whose Green Party leader blames this on Bush, and who was among the countries critical of US relief efforts after the Tsunami, they're already scrambling their navies and air forces to send relief, and their people are holding huge fund-raising drives to help the people of Louisiana, right?
Right?
Update (Thanks to reader Filou):
Actually, right.
I stand happily corrected.
Darfur: No More Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Something needs to be done about the Genocide in Darfur.
This isn't a partisan issue.
The efforts so far are a good start, but need to go further.
The last thing we can afford to do right now is to assume that since the slaughter has abated, everything's just fine. The group darfurgenocide.org agrees, and in an email I received from them today, makes some excellent poits as to why:
The Sudanese government is playing a game, the same one they've played throughout Sudan for 20 years. They claim to want peace, but will try to fix the negotiations to get what they really want - despotic control over the people of Darfur and the power to begin the genocide again anytime the international community looks away.They then explain that one of their fund-raising efforts is to help raise awareness of the situation and increase the public awarenss, media coverage, and thus negotiating leverage of the people of Darfur.
Only one thing can stop them: a peace agreement that gives real power to the people of Darfur through representation in government and a fair share of Sudan's resources. To get this, the Darfurians need international support - our support.
I think that's an excellent campaign, and I think that we as Bloggers can do more than give them our financial and moral support. I believe we can use our Blogs as a collective Bully Pulpit from which to give Darfur a voice. I have borrowed and modified Pastor Niemoller's quote, but this time the original is more germane. I will not be silent and wait for someone to come for me, I will speak out. Write your congressmen, your local paper, and post to your Blogs. Keep talking about Darfur until even the Sudan listens.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
What Part of "In Harm's Way" Don't You Understand?
UPDATE (8/30/2005):
The more I learn about the incident, the less inclined I am to think of this as a tragic accident and the more inclined I am to think of this as a tragic accident brought on by the stupidity of the actions of the victims. Read on, from Rusty's Blog:
Here is an update on this incident from a reader:
The cameraman in question was
shot by soldiers in my son's unit. First hand reports are that the moron sped
into the middle of a firefight, jumped out of his car and threw up to his
shoulder a TV or Movie camera with a sound boom and telephoto lens.
It was [understandably
considering the circumstances] mistaken for an RPG and the moron quickly became
the late moron.
Incidentally, this crew was
told beforehand NOT to go into the area of the firefight, as it was entirely too
dangerous.
After a post-battle
debriefing and investigation, the soldiers were determined to have adhered
properly to the rules of engagement, and were found innocent of any
wrongdoing.
Actually, the first hand
report was: "Some dumb b**tard came up to us in a speeding car, jumped out and
pointed his camera at us. We thought it was an RPG and lit him up."
Perhaps Reporters Without Borders should be complaining about Reuters not training their crews to have some common sense instead of seething against the U.S.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Paging Neville Chamberlain
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades and Vulture Six.
Supporters of Israel knew this would happen. We knew that the capitulation of Gaza would not bring peace. We knew that it was a mere Lebensraum ploy, and that with each Israeli concession, the demand from the Palestinians would be "more!" We knew that this would not bring peace.
And the Palestinians agreed with us. They said as much. And now they've backed their words with deeds -- dark deeds.
Understand one thing, and be very clear about it. The violence in Israel will not end when the Israelis abandon Gaza. It will not end when there is no Israeli left in The West Bank, in the Golan Heights, or in Jerusalem. The forces carrying out these bloody attacks will not rest until there remains not a single jew in all of what is now the State of Israel. Indeed, many of them will feel the restless itch of the trigger finger, the allure of the Cemtex, so long as there exists any Jewry on the entire planet.
The time for appeasement is at an end. It is time to recognize that no amount of surrender will ever bring real peace.
All We Are Saying is Give Peas a Chance
But last night we tried peas. That was a No Go. And while The Feared Redhead and I have agreed not to express our own personal distaste for any food in his presence, so as to avoid biasing his decision, neither of us like peas, either. In fact, the baby food peas were making TFR sick just trying to serve therm, so when it became obvious he wasn't going to keep them in, it was no skin off our noses.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Pandora's Box
Ken points out an interesting quote regarding assassination. Let's compare.
Who said:
We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,"..."We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," ..."It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
?
That's right, Pat Robertson. Now, who said:
A misplaced moral squeamishness should not stop the president from talking about assassination. ... If we can kill [him], we should. ... What's unlawful and unpopular with the allies is not necessarily immoral. ... The president would no doubt pay a heavy political price if the operation failed but he would be a huge winner if he succeeded.
?
If you answered "George Stephanopoulis", you win a prize!
Stephanopoulis's comment drew a rebuke in the article from Chris Matthews, but beyond that, I don't recall nearly the furor being raised by that comment that Robertson has caused. In fact, these days, George is one of the Democrats' point man in media circles.
So what's the difference between the two? Some would argue it's Robertson's position as a leader in Evangelical Christian circles, and the bad light in which it casts us. But just doesn't cut it, because Robertson's "fan base" within the Church has been slipping for some time -- for both religious and political reasons. His influence over and position as a voice for Evangelicals isn't nearly what it used to be. But he's still watched like a hawk by those outside the Church, especially the detractors of Evangelicalism. As I stated over at Ken's Blog, I suspect that the reason for this is that as long as they can characterize Robertson as our leader, the media and the left can summarily dismiss all conservative Christians as being as "loony as Robertson", without having to consider our points. As I said, he's a living, breathing, walking, talking straw man.
Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, Robertson was not appealing to religious authority as his reason for espousing the view he did. He was speaking on a practical matter, not a theological one.
And the irony is, in this case, he's absolutely right. And so was Stephanopoulis. Or at least, if he was wrong, it was in that this may not be the time and place to assasinate Chavez. But that doesn't mean it will never be the time and place. Yes, you heard me, I'm saying that I think that in certain specific situations, assassination is a valid strategic weapon. For example, the ambush of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, or the bombing of Saddam's presidential palace.
There's a story that's part of Churchillian apocrypha -- sometimes related as being told BY Winston, about an anonymous man and an anonymous woman, sometimes in the story Churchill is the man. Either way, the gist of the story is that the man in story asks the woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. After a shocked pause, she admits that yes, she supposes she would. He then asks her if she would sleep with him for ONE pound. She indignantly asks him wehat kind of woman he thinks she is! His reply is, "Madame, we have already determined what kind of woman you are. Now we are merely negotiating a price."
The same principle applies to assasination. I believe that in certain situations, the pplication of deadly force, the taking of one or more humann lives to defend other humans, is justifiable. That means a criminal in the act of murdering an innocent victim, that means an enemy soldier aiming at your platoon mate, and that certainly means the commander in chief of an enemy force. In for a penny, in for a pound. That doesn't mean I think assasination should be a commonly used option, nor an easily reached conclusion. Like any decision to take a life, it is not an easy one to make, and must be weighed as carefully as the situation allows against other options. But once you've established that deadly force CAN be justifiable, you cannot summarily rule it out.
UPDATE:
I Scooped my Blogfather!
State Politics
Fortunately, thanks to my fellow Bloggers Coyote, Sailor Republica and Gullyborg, I am getting a look at what other conservative Oregonians think, where I agree and disagree with them, what the state of the party is in this state, and who to keep an eye on.
So when all THREE of them, along with Blogger Daniel support the same candidate, and give some compelling reasons why, I sit up and take notice.
That's why, after reading their comments, I am joining them in supporting Jason Atkinson for Governor.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
It's the Thought That Counts
This is installment #4 in a series.
Among the many ports of call my father had occasion to visit during his time in the Navy, one of the most amusing stories comes from the time his ship made a call on Darwin, Australia. Darwin is a port city on Australia’s northern coast. The town was in a festive mood due to some visit by royalty or some commemorative celebration (my father wasn’t clear on what). I’ve been told by friends who’ve been to Australia on their Navy tours that Australians are skilled masters in the art of hospitality.
Just prior to the arrival of the USS Bausell, a Royal New Zealand Navy ship pulled in to port and had been there several days, and the townsfolk had been showing the Kiwi tars quite a grand time. This high level of attention given to them by their antipodean neighbors quickly waned, however, when the Yanks sailed in to port. From that point on, it was the American sailors who got the attention of the local lasses and the free rounds, and the Kiwis who were left, for the most part, to their own devices. Fortune is a fickle mistress.
This, as may be expected, did not sit well with the New Zealanders. Very soon, my dad and his mates learned that when walking down a Darwin street, it was wise to walk as far from the doorways as possible, because if the door led to a pub, you were likely to receive a cold-cocking from a Kiwi fist.
This went on for several days until one event “turned the tide of history,” so to speak. My father and a buddy were walking back to the ship after spending the day in town, when they came upon an individual wearing the uniform of an officer of the Royal New Zealand Navy, lying in the street, drunk as a… well, as a sailor, appropriately enough. Now, my father was a teetotaler – his father had died an alcoholic, and my father had a lifelong aversion to liquor. So he and his buddy were stone cold sober when they hoisted the Kiwi officer to their shoulders, carried him the few blocks to the HMNZS Whatsitsname, walked him up the gangplank, left him in the gentle care of his shipmates, belatedly saluted the quarterdeck, and marched back down the gangplank and into the darkness. But the New Zealanders didn’t know this. So while my father thought the crew was cheering him for an act of kindness, he learned later that the New Zealanders thought they were cheering the two Yanks who had drunk their XO under the table.
After that and for the remaining time the two ships were in port, there was no further trouble between the crews.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Crazy Is as Crazy Does
Despite being a "Mindless Christian Conservative", I don't watch Robertson daily -- or even on a regular basis. I do watch his show occasionally, and TFR enjoys it a bit more than me, more for the inspirational sections than anything else. And by no means do I agree with much of what Robertson says -- from a theological perspective or from a political. I don't even agree with him on this issue.
And while I think this is a bad idea and that Christians are going to catch flak for this comment, I don't think that a political pundit represents himself as a Christian advocating assassination of one individual for strategic reasons is quite the same as a group of Mullahs advocating Jihad simply because the targets are dirty infidels who don't worship the right god.
Furthermore, I have a question for Scott. Let's agree for the moment that it would be wrong for the United States government to assassinate Chavez simply because we don't like his politics or his foreign policy towards the US. Let's agree that even though he's openly hostile and hateful towards the US, it would be political and diplomatic suicide to assassinate him even if he openly declares himself our enemy. I'll grant you, and even agree with you, that it would be stupid, arrogant, and probably illegal right now to even consider Robertson's advice.
My question is, if it became apparent that Venezuela were actively supporting terrorist groups like Al Quaeda, if it was provable, say (for the sake of argument) to a degree even admissable in a court of law that he was providing aid and comfort to enemies of the United States and actively encouragin them or even supplying them with the resources needed to carry out terrorist attacks on the United States or its citizens, if that were the case, then how would assassinating him be any different than bombing the Presidential Palace in Baghdad in attempt to kill Saddam Hussein?
Child Sacrifices
Now THAT'S Florida Sunshine!
Electric Screwdriver
1 oz. vodka
1/2 oz. Grand Marnier
3 oz. orange juice
2 oz. ruby red grapefruit juice
1 cup ice
Combine all ingredients in shaker, shake well, serve over ice in an Old Fashioned. Garnish with a lime wedge.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Corrupt Capitalistic Pig
Vulture 6
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Insult to Injury
Remember the Kelo case? The one in which the Supreme(ly arrogant and stupid) Court ruled that it was just hunky-dory to strip people of their property rights in order to line the pockets of developers?
Well, the winners of that case have decided that that was merely pillaging -- now they've moved on to raping.
All of the residents of the condemned property have received letters informing them that they owe the city back rent for the time they've remained in their homes since the initial evictions which sparked the court battle.
That's right. Not only are they taking these people's homes, paying them a price that I GUARANTEE you will not be what the property's worth (or a SMIDGEN of what it will make the city in income), but they expect these folks to PAY them for the privilege of being treated like chattel!
I want to rant, but this is so infuriating, I don't know where to begin or end. As one of my liberal coworkers just said, "This is the kind of sh!# that makes people start dragging out guns!"
The HMS Pinafore of Blogs
Just saying.
Blessed Are Those Who Mourn, For They
This week I thought I'd share a recipe not of my own making, but one my father came up with (sorry, Rusty, I'll try to keep posting on other issues, but the recipes keep coming).
I'd have to say that my parents are the key influence in my becoming as good a cook as I am. Both my parents had a love of cooking (Mom still does), and they both shared that love with my sister and me. We were allowed to help in the kitchen from an early age, and even allowed to "take over", to do the cooking ourselves, with their "help" (read: guidance and emergency backup). From my mother I learned the technical skills required for cooking -- how to simmer vs. boiling, how to fry, how to check temperature, how to guage and regulate heat, prep, stirring, etc. From my father, I learned how to improvise, how to experiment, and a sense of presentation.
While my ability to develop gourmet dishes has, I believe, far surpassed my father's, the one area in which I believe he was still my superior before his death, and probably would still be today (or at the very least, my equal), is in his ability to throw together simple but tasty comfort food dishes.
Not long before his death, my wife, The Feared Redhead, was treated to one of these dishes, and insisted that he give her the recipe. He complied, and thanks to her, it lives on. Whenever we think of him and miss him, we think of this dish, and the simple joy he got from her delight in it. It's a food that comforts not just in eating it, but in reminiscing upon it. And so I share with you:
Charlie's Potato Soup
2 strips lean bacon
1 small onion
3 stalks celery
4 cups water
1 cup instant mashed potato flakes
1 large carrot
1/2 cup milk
butter
salt
Pepper
Chop the bacon, celery, and oniond into small pieces. Sautee in a saucepan until the bacon is brown and the onions are caramelized. Add 2 cups of water, bring to a boil, stirring frequently. Reduce heate to a simmer. Mix together 1 cup of instant potato flakes and 2 cups water. Stir the potato mixture into the soup. Peel and grate 1 large carrot, add to soup. Slowly stir in 1/2 cup milk, stir constantly until smooth. Add butter, salt and pepper to taste.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Thanks, everyone
First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their well-wishes, support, and prayers regarding my sister.
Sadly, they have all been in vain.
After a series of bone scans, CAT scans, and MRI's, we have learned the true extent of the spread of cancer. In addition to the breast cancer and the bone cancer, which we already know about, there have been additional complications. The cancer has spread to the lymphatic system, to the spinal cord, and to the liver. According to the doctors, the prognosis is terminal. At this point, it's just a matter of time.
-Vic
Unexpected Company
Welcome. Make yourselves at home. Curious about the name? I can explain. Ditto for the mangled Niemoller quote.
While you're here, have a beer and something to eat. Give the place a tour, and feel free to sign the numerous "guest books". I'm a benevolent dictator when it comes to comments -- flames, Trolls, and blatant non sequiturs are likely to be deleted and their posters may be banned, but respectful, well-reasond disagreement with me is welcome.
Separation of Church and War
While the comments section on my own Blog remains a fairly tame place with few dissenters, let alone trolls, my daily surfing takes me to some Blogs where the discussions can get somewhat heated, shall we say. For this reason, I’ve become fairly familiar with some of the arguments proposed by those whose political views differ from my own in defense of their own beliefs or in rebuttal to mine.
When the discussion turns to the issue of the War in Iraq, or even of war in general, it’s not uncommon to encounter an appeal to my religion, an argument that goes along the lines of “How can you call yourself a Christian and support war? Didn’t Jesus teach you to turn the other cheek?” Often this argument will be coined as a reproach of hypocrisy – “How can you, as a Christian, support/oppose X position, and not oppose war? You hypocrite!”
For the moment I shall actually avoid getting into the details of Christian Pacifism vs. Just War Theology – that’s another post, and one I’m working on. I shall also refrain from an in depth discussion on the differences in kind between the issues raised in comparison and the one at hand. What I wish to explore in this post is another interesting dichotomy posed by this type of discussion, one of which I’m sure my opposites are unaware.
I’ve noted with bemusement that, more often than not, the individuals who, in discussion, will try to convince you that Christians should oppose war on a theological basis are the same individuals who, if a Christian Blogger tries to base their position on any one of a number of other political issues – Abortion, Evolution vs. ID, Gay Marriage, Drugs, Education, etc. – will immediately cry “Separation!” and loose the dogs….
So let me get this straight. When it comes to the issue of war, you are suggesting that I should let my faith (or at least, your interpretation of it) inform my politics. But when it comes to any other issue, if I let my faith inform my politics, I’m suddenly posing some grave threat to the constitution, and must be stopped at all cost? What’s the difference? Does the fact that war is a foreign policy decision somehow exempt it from the same uber-interpretation of the First Amendment that you apply to domestic issues? Or is it, as I suspect, that you apply a different set of rules to each situation in order to give your own position the advantage?
Seriously, if there’s anyone reading this that has made both those arguments to a righty: Oppose war because your faith says you should; Keep your faith out of politics because it’s a personal matter; I’d love to hear from you. Please explain to me why it’s ok to apply my religious beliefs to one issue, but not to the others. I’m sure the explanation’s a good one.
UPDATE:
LaShawn Barber yesterday asked her readers an equally intriguing question. And I think the questions have a point in common -- what do you do when two values you hold highly conflict with each other? Which do you really believe in more than the other?
I'm just jealous because she actually has people who are willing to give answering the question a shot.
And Then I Woke Up
| Your Summer Ride is a Jeep |
![]() For you, summer is all about having no responsibilities. You prefer to hang with old friends - and make some new ones. |
Of course, that's not what I ACTUALLY drive! The questions don't seem to allow for marital and parental status, and that's the only reason my summer ride isn't "Station Wagon" or "Minivan".
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
One Prayer Down, More to Go
Well, he just gave me the good news that he finally has a court date - October 13th. Please keep Scott and his kids in your prayers.
And Then There's The Other Side....
Monday, August 15, 2005
Deeply Hurt
Regardless, I pass on the news here:
Man Acquited After Prosecutors Fail to Prove that Miller is Beer
I don't think they could have accomplished that task even if the head of Miller himself were a witness for the prosecution!
Bush Lied, (Fewer) People Died
For some time, one argument put forth by those opposing the War in Iraq has been the death toll. They would have us believe that we have unleashed a bloodbath upon what was previously a relatively safe, if not free, country.
The Strategy Page puts lie to that argument with new information indicating that the death rate in Iraq is now lower than it was under Saddam's regime.
Imagine that.
So if you're an Iraqi, you're LESS likely to die in Iraq now than before the invasion, AND you now have the right to vote AND a multi-party slate of candidates to choose from.
But just remember, you're worse off.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Happy Birthday
Friday, August 12, 2005
Quick Note
Welcome. Enjoy your stay. Thank you for your service. You are not unappreciated.
When You're HOT You're Hot
For the most part, I'm not a big fan of self-promotion as a fashion statement, like T-shirts that say "Princess", etc. The Vanity plate I saw yesterday that said "Cutee" made me want to reply "No, no you're not," regardless of what the driver looked like. But I've just been reminded that there's an exception to every rule. Even this one.
When Kristen Maddox wears a T-shirt that says, "I'm HOT", I have to respond with "Yes, yes you are!" But while Kristin is quite a lovely young woman, that's not what makes her HOT. As the article explains, HOT stands for Helping Our Troops. That's the name of the non-profit she founded to help support our troops by sending care packages to the troops. But what makes her effort special is that her shipments are to specific service personnel who have requested specific items in their care packages.
Damn. This young woman spends almost all her time and money on this effort. she gives of herself, makes sacrifices, to make sure the men and women standing in the thin red line know that someone on the home front has their back. She's not just a pretty face. Along with looks and a brain, she obviously has a heart that's bigger than the entire Golden State. So yes, she's a hot hottie who's HOT.
You can help her be even more HOT, and be HOT yourself, by going to her website and contributing.
See HOT. Be HOT.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
What Lies Beneath... Or Not
Like most Oregonians surveyed, I wanted this design to be chosen:

But Governor Kulongoski went with this one:

He said this about the process of choosing a quarter design: "This is a unique opportunity for Oregon," said Edwards. "Our quarter will communicate to the nation and the world our values and Oregon´s natural beauty."
I think this one falls short.
I have to admit, in it's final minted form it's a rather pretty design:

But despite my love for Crater Lake, it really doesn't convey the significance of the Oregon Trail design. The Oregon Trail was the single most defining event in the history of this state, and indeed, one of the most important events in the history of the NATION. It's that significant.
The rationale behind Kulongoski's decision was at least in part a desire to avoid upsetting Native American groups. And while I understand that the colonization and settling of this continent by Europeans is a sore issue for First Peoples, pretending it didn't happen isn't going to make things any better for anyone. There's more to this state than pretty scenery. There's history here, there are stories to be told.
In a way, the image on the quarter itself suffers from the same lack of depth in portraying Crater Lake as it does in portraying the depth of this state. You see a shiny, flat surface to the lake. What it doesn't -- indeed what it CAN'T portray, is the fact that Crater Lake, at over 1,400 feet, is the deepest fresh water in North America. It's also some of the cleanest, clearest, bluest water anywhere in the world.
So come visit this state. When you do, go see Crater Lake -- it's worth the trip, and the quarter doesn't do it justice. The sight will take your breath away.
And while you're at it, see the rest of the state too. Take in all the beauty about which I've blogged. Visit Fort Clatsop, where Lewis and Clark spent their Pacific winter. Visit the Oregon Trail museums (we have 2), and the Brownsville Pioneer Museum. learn about our culture, our history, as well as our scenery. The quarter doesn't do them justice either.
Better Late Than Never
I developed a vinaigrette recipe for a cooking competition I was too late to enter, but thought I'd share the recipe with you anyway.
The ingredients are, again, focused on Oregon flavors. As I've mentioned, we produce almost the entire US crop of filberts (hazelnuts), and are the top berry producing state in the nation -- included in our crop are Blackberries, Marionberries, Strawberries, Raspberries, Blueberries, Boysenberries, Huckleberries *gasp* and cranberries. In addition, an Oregon cheesemaker, Rogue Creamery, is considered one of the best blue cheese makers in the world. Personally, I don't like blue cheese, but TFR loves it and it goes well with this recipe.
Blackberry Vinaigrette
1/4 Cup blackberry wine*
1/4 Cup red wine vinegar
1/3 Cup oil**
1 Tsp. sugar
1 Tsp. minced garlic
Pinch salt
Pinch white pepper (more or less to taste)
1 Tbsp. chopped celery
*You can heat this to cook off the alcohol if you want, but I don’t bother. If you do, let it cool before continuing.
** I use hazelnut oil, which can be hard to find and expensive. Other options include almond oil, sesame oil, or, of course, extra virgin olive oil.
Filbert & Blue Cheese Salad
Dry Ingredients:
6 Cups raw fresh spinach leaves
1/4 Cup chopped filberts
1/4 Cup dried cranberries
1/4 cup blue cheese
Toss all dry ingredients. Drizzle lightly with blackberry vinaigrette, transfer to individual salad bowls. Makes 6 servings.
Sgt. Rusty Taught The Moron to Blog
A lot has changed since then.
The Rathergate scandal (Which resulted in my busiest readership month yet). The candidate I backed won the presidency (not that I'm taking any credit for that). Numerous news events, including the Kelo decision, Terri Schiavo, and of course, daily events in Iraq.
And I've changed. I became a father during this past year. Amazing how it changes your perspective. Even being a PROSPECTIVE father does nothing to prepare you for the sudden and dizzying shift your paradigm makes when you hold a tiny life you helped to create and for whose sustenance and protection and nurturing you are jointly responsible.
I'd like to thank all the people who have helped make Blogging so enjoyable. Starting with the Blogfather who gave me the final nudge, [Update to the Blogmother who gave me such good advice in those early days, to the newsmakers and my family who provided my material, to the other Bloggers (especially Maximum Leader at Naked Villainy) who linked to me, and especially to my readers, the casual perusers and the people who, amazingly enough, make me a regular part of your reading schedule. It still blows my mind that on occasion I manage to write something people think is worth paying attention to. Thatnk you all, and here's to more to come.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
A Call to Arms (Or At Least To Google Bombs)
Well, today's cartoon, as you can see, has nothing to do with politics. He's asking for help supporting the cancer clinic that is keeping his sister alive. It's simple, really. Click on the link to their site, and it will help their Google ratings. They're running an ad on TV soon, so the combined exposure should help them garner business and keep them operating.
I'm still not savvy enough to know if that's how a Google Bomb works, but if not, I think someone should start one of those too.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Mmmmmm....
I made my green beans to go with it, and also cut into four pieces a loaf of potato rosemary artisan bread from the FM bakery department. I buttered thes and toasted them on the grill. The tenderloin I cooked simply -- salt and pepper, and cooked it hot and fast, to avoid drying out the buffalo. I acheived both beautiful grill marks AND medium rare perfection. I complemented the meal with a bottle of Bridgeview's cab-merlot blend.
It was a wonderful way to end the weekend.
Peter Jennings Signs Off
Over the last couple of years, as the MSM has seemed increasingly adversarial towards the President, up to and including the open hostility displayed by the likes of Helen Thomas, it struck me that, at least from my perception, Peter Jennings made the most admirable effort among the Big 3's anchors to separate his personal opinions from his presentation of the news. I had respect for him due to that.
Furthermore, I was greatly impressed with his candor regarding his illness and the smoking habit that caused it. Especially human and oddly touching was the fact that it was the impact of the 9/11 attacks that caused him to take it up again. No one will ever be the same who witnessed those events, and Jennings' death bears witness to their continued influence on us.
In the end, though I no longer have much regard for the news arms of the old major networks, Jennings always struck me as genuine and personable. His death is tragic and he is to be mourned.
Look at the Bones, Man!
Take the quiz: "Which Holy Grail Character Are You?"

The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog
That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
Hmmm... interesting results. Not nearly as impressive as being King Arthur, but hey, being unstoppable short of deploying an instrument of Holy wrath against me ain't such a bad gig.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Alton Brown Tells It Like It Is
Well Pasta Due
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.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
What the...???!!!
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
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
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?
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
Friday, July 29, 2005
It Takes a Village (full of) Idiot(s)
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
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
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Don't Tease
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
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 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
Friday, July 22, 2005
Oregon Beer Review
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.
