Thanks a lot for the Memory to Gullyborg.
And I had a rum and coke last night.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Your Weekly Dose of Steve Taylor Lyrics: Installment #4
Not feeling so hot today, I'll probably be going home early, so I thought I'd get down to business and share with you the Steve Taylor song that's been on my mind this week. It addresses the idea that faith, or belief in God, is a crutch. Taylor rejects the notion, and observes that it often requires more fortitude to continue believing when you don't see an immediate return on your spiritual investment. He borrowed the title of the song from a letter written by a mid-twentieth century poet who had a mystical streak to her Christianity (though the name of the poet escapes me):
Harder To Believe Than Not To
From the album "I Predict 1990"
Nothing is colder than the winds of change
where the chill numbs the dreamer till a shadow remains
among the ruins lies your tortured soul
was it lost there or did your will surrender control?
Shivering with doubts that were left unattended
so you toss away the cloak that you should have mended
don't you know by now why the chosen are few?
it's harder to believe than not to
harder to believe than not to
It was a confidence that got you by
when you know you believed it, but you didn't know why
no one imagines it will come to this
but it gets so hard when people don't want to listen
Shivering with doubts that you left unattended
so you toss away the cloak that you should have mended
you should know by now why the chosen are few
it's harder to believe than not to
Some stay paralyzed until they succumb
others do what they feel, but their senses are numb
some get trampled by the pious throng still they limp along
Are you sturdy enough to move to the front?
is it nods of approval or the truth that you want?
and if they call it a crutch, then you walk with pride
your accusers have always been afraid to go outside
They shiver with doubts that were left unattended
then they toss away the cloak that they should have mended
you know by now why the chosen are few
it's harder to believe than not to...
I believe
Harder To Believe Than Not To
From the album "I Predict 1990"
Nothing is colder than the winds of change
where the chill numbs the dreamer till a shadow remains
among the ruins lies your tortured soul
was it lost there or did your will surrender control?
Shivering with doubts that were left unattended
so you toss away the cloak that you should have mended
don't you know by now why the chosen are few?
it's harder to believe than not to
harder to believe than not to
It was a confidence that got you by
when you know you believed it, but you didn't know why
no one imagines it will come to this
but it gets so hard when people don't want to listen
Shivering with doubts that you left unattended
so you toss away the cloak that you should have mended
you should know by now why the chosen are few
it's harder to believe than not to
Some stay paralyzed until they succumb
others do what they feel, but their senses are numb
some get trampled by the pious throng still they limp along
Are you sturdy enough to move to the front?
is it nods of approval or the truth that you want?
and if they call it a crutch, then you walk with pride
your accusers have always been afraid to go outside
They shiver with doubts that were left unattended
then they toss away the cloak that they should have mended
you know by now why the chosen are few
it's harder to believe than not to...
I believe
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
A Paltry Poultry Recipe
On Sunday, Professor Chaos issued a challenge to me regarding the complexity of my recipes. I replied yesterday with a 1-2 punch of Carne Asada and Arroz con Pollo, issuing in turn a challenge of my own -- to both Professor Chaos and myself.
The good professor has not let me down. And so, true to my word, I ovver the following recipe in return. As promised, it contains a meat of my choice, 1 ingredient from Prof. C's cupboard, one from his fridge (go ahead and drink the beer, sir, it's safe for now).
Oven-Fried Chicken
4 boneless skinless chicken breasts
1/4 cup mayonnaise
2 cups italian bread crumbs
Preheat oven to 325 F. Lightly coat chicken breasts with mayonnaise, then coat with bread crumbs. Place on a cookie sheet, bake for 15 minutes. Turn over, continue baking until the coating is golden brown.
The good professor has not let me down. And so, true to my word, I ovver the following recipe in return. As promised, it contains a meat of my choice, 1 ingredient from Prof. C's cupboard, one from his fridge (go ahead and drink the beer, sir, it's safe for now).
Oven-Fried Chicken
4 boneless skinless chicken breasts
1/4 cup mayonnaise
2 cups italian bread crumbs
Preheat oven to 325 F. Lightly coat chicken breasts with mayonnaise, then coat with bread crumbs. Place on a cookie sheet, bake for 15 minutes. Turn over, continue baking until the coating is golden brown.
Turning "La Mesa"
Thanks for the Memory to Darth Apathy.
In response to the "Day Without Immigrants" that occureed on Pinko de Mayo er... May 1 (heh. Thanks, Vic), someone has come up with a great way to repsond -- "Nothing Mexican Day" -- a day without customers -- on Friday, May 5 (Cinco De Mayo).
Count me in.
In response to the "Day Without Immigrants" that occureed on Pinko de Mayo er... May 1 (heh. Thanks, Vic), someone has come up with a great way to repsond -- "Nothing Mexican Day" -- a day without customers -- on Friday, May 5 (Cinco De Mayo).
Count me in.
Thanks For Asking
For those of you wondering about the status of Culinary School:
I called the coordinator yesterday, since she had told me in March that I should hear by the end of April. One of the two chef instructors who make the decisions on who gets accepted hasn't reviewd the applications yet, so not only do *I* not know if I'm in yet, *THEY* don't know either.
Head, meet desk.
I called the coordinator yesterday, since she had told me in March that I should hear by the end of April. One of the two chef instructors who make the decisions on who gets accepted hasn't reviewd the applications yet, so not only do *I* not know if I'm in yet, *THEY* don't know either.
Head, meet desk.
Carne Asada Held Hostage
Thanks for the Memory toDrudge via Mr. Priapus via 1 Girl, 4 Martinis.
My first reaction was anger, fear and panic. No burritos? What a world, what a world. But then I remembered how easily we've assimilated pizza, and now I can sleep at night (except for the gas -- I reallly need to use fewer beans next time).
My first reaction was anger, fear and panic. No burritos? What a world, what a world. But then I remembered how easily we've assimilated pizza, and now I can sleep at night (except for the gas -- I reallly need to use fewer beans next time).
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Oh, Please
Thanks for the Memory to Mr. Atoz at Agent Bedhead's.
In an effort to be more sensitive and politically correct, Sea World in Sydney, Australia has stopped referring to their specimens of the the world's smallest penguins as fairy penguins, opting instead for "Little Penguins".
What's next, the San Diego Zoo renaming their exhibit ofblack African-American rhinos?
In an effort to be more sensitive and politically correct, Sea World in Sydney, Australia has stopped referring to their specimens of the the world's smallest penguins as fairy penguins, opting instead for "Little Penguins".
What's next, the San Diego Zoo renaming their exhibit of
Musical Geography Question for the Day
If you're in the third boxcar of a midnight train, what's your destination?
Who's Your Cheffy?
Professor Chaos has thrown down the gauntlet. He seems to think my recipes are too complex, at least for a bachelor like him.
OK, buddy, you're on. And in keeping with the theme of his recipe, theyre both Mexican dishes:
Carne Asada
1 lb. flank steak
1 tsp oregano
1 tsp salt
1/4 tsp black pepper
1/4 tsp cayenne pepper or chili powder
2 cloves minced garlic (If you don't have the garlic, ise 1/2 tsp gsarlic powder. If you don't have either, well, beyond wondering what you're doing in the kitchen, all of the dry ingredients can be replaced by a packet of taco seasoning.)
1 lime
1 beer (Any bachelor who tells me there's no beer in his fridge is either a recovering alcoholic, has The Ghey, or is a damned dirty liar.)
Combine all dry ingredients and sprinkle/rub onto flank steak. Squeeze the lime over the steak (yes, yes, a couple squeezes from one of those plastic lime juice bottles will do), cover, and refrigerate overnight. In the morning, add the beer and marinate another 6-8 hours. Sear the steak, cut into 1 inch pieces, and return to heat, cooking until medium well. Serve on tacos with your favorite Mexican condiments.
No? Too complex still? Try this:
Arroz Con Pollo
1 cup rice
4 boneless skinless chicken breasts
1 jar chunky salsa
enough water or chicken broth to increase the volume of the salsa to 2 1/2 cups
Preheat oven to 350 F. Place rice in a glass casserole dish. Set chicken on top of the rice. Pour salsa and liquid over the chicken. Cover, bake for 1-1 1/2 hours, until liquid has evaporated and rice is tender.
And now for the Coup de Grace:
Professor chaos used 2 ingredients other than meat and water in his recipe. I challenge Professor Chaos to list in my comments 10 items each found in his fridge and his pantry/spice cupboard. I'll pick one from each list, combine it with a meat of my choice, and create a recipe. If he responds by 3 PM Thursday afternoon (Pacific Daylight Time), I'll have the recipe ready on Friday.
OK, buddy, you're on. And in keeping with the theme of his recipe, theyre both Mexican dishes:
Carne Asada
1 lb. flank steak
1 tsp oregano
1 tsp salt
1/4 tsp black pepper
1/4 tsp cayenne pepper or chili powder
2 cloves minced garlic (If you don't have the garlic, ise 1/2 tsp gsarlic powder. If you don't have either, well, beyond wondering what you're doing in the kitchen, all of the dry ingredients can be replaced by a packet of taco seasoning.)
1 lime
1 beer (Any bachelor who tells me there's no beer in his fridge is either a recovering alcoholic, has The Ghey, or is a damned dirty liar.)
Combine all dry ingredients and sprinkle/rub onto flank steak. Squeeze the lime over the steak (yes, yes, a couple squeezes from one of those plastic lime juice bottles will do), cover, and refrigerate overnight. In the morning, add the beer and marinate another 6-8 hours. Sear the steak, cut into 1 inch pieces, and return to heat, cooking until medium well. Serve on tacos with your favorite Mexican condiments.
No? Too complex still? Try this:
Arroz Con Pollo
1 cup rice
4 boneless skinless chicken breasts
1 jar chunky salsa
enough water or chicken broth to increase the volume of the salsa to 2 1/2 cups
Preheat oven to 350 F. Place rice in a glass casserole dish. Set chicken on top of the rice. Pour salsa and liquid over the chicken. Cover, bake for 1-1 1/2 hours, until liquid has evaporated and rice is tender.
And now for the Coup de Grace:
Professor chaos used 2 ingredients other than meat and water in his recipe. I challenge Professor Chaos to list in my comments 10 items each found in his fridge and his pantry/spice cupboard. I'll pick one from each list, combine it with a meat of my choice, and create a recipe. If he responds by 3 PM Thursday afternoon (Pacific Daylight Time), I'll have the recipe ready on Friday.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Talk About Single-Minded
Thanks for the Memory to Darth Apathy.
This is simply amazing. I've read of shots like that being made by snipers who had time to set ther shot up -- but in a reactive situation like this? Wow.
And as was pointed out, given the circumstances, I doubt there'll be any problem establishing that the police fired in self defense.
This is simply amazing. I've read of shots like that being made by snipers who had time to set ther shot up -- but in a reactive situation like this? Wow.
And as was pointed out, given the circumstances, I doubt there'll be any problem establishing that the police fired in self defense.
The Closest They'll Come to Meeting This Side of Heaven
While we were in San Diego for my grandmother's funeral, w took The Lad to visit my father's grave at Fort Rosecrans National cemetery. My mother took pictures:
I'll never be ok with the fact that my son will never know my father. But he will know of him, and he will know to honor him.
I'll never be ok with the fact that my son will never know my father. But he will know of him, and he will know to honor him.
Blogging Hope
Thanks for the Memory to The Llama Butchers.
If you haven't read her before, I second the Llamas' recommendation that you go read Melissa at Here in the Bonny Glen. She's witty, she's insightful, and she's a wonderful mom.
Today, she gave me a shot in the arm. Her post is sweet, and full of maternal love and pride. And it was what I needed to hear.
Why? Well, you see, The Lad just turned 15 months and still isn't walking. He can pull himself up to a standing position, but still leans on furniture, including human furniture (that's me!). Yesterday he managed to stand without support for a full second -- a huge accomplishment in my eyes.
But it's been discouraging. We knew from the start that despite how well he's done, he's still a preemie, and some htings might just take longer. And I'm delighted that in all other areas, he's right on track -- he's developing a vocabulary (last week he pointed at his shelf and said, clear as a bell, "book!"), and a distinct personality, and his fine motor skills are... well, fine. But the gross motor skills are still an issue. Part of it, I think is that his method of scooting is so effective (he's fast, and it leaves a hand free to carry stuff) reduces the incentive to walk. But whatever the reason, It worries me.
Then I read a post like Melissa's, and it reminds me that I'm not the only parent dealing with these things, and that if Melissa's "Wonder Boy" can do it, so can MY wonderful little boy. So thank you, Melissa. And congratulations.
If you haven't read her before, I second the Llamas' recommendation that you go read Melissa at Here in the Bonny Glen. She's witty, she's insightful, and she's a wonderful mom.
Today, she gave me a shot in the arm. Her post is sweet, and full of maternal love and pride. And it was what I needed to hear.
Why? Well, you see, The Lad just turned 15 months and still isn't walking. He can pull himself up to a standing position, but still leans on furniture, including human furniture (that's me!). Yesterday he managed to stand without support for a full second -- a huge accomplishment in my eyes.
But it's been discouraging. We knew from the start that despite how well he's done, he's still a preemie, and some htings might just take longer. And I'm delighted that in all other areas, he's right on track -- he's developing a vocabulary (last week he pointed at his shelf and said, clear as a bell, "book!"), and a distinct personality, and his fine motor skills are... well, fine. But the gross motor skills are still an issue. Part of it, I think is that his method of scooting is so effective (he's fast, and it leaves a hand free to carry stuff) reduces the incentive to walk. But whatever the reason, It worries me.
Then I read a post like Melissa's, and it reminds me that I'm not the only parent dealing with these things, and that if Melissa's "Wonder Boy" can do it, so can MY wonderful little boy. So thank you, Melissa. And congratulations.
Caps Lock & Load
Thanks for the Memory to the Colossus via The Llama Butchers, and also to Villains Vanquished.
Over the course of the last three years or so, in the ongoing discussion of the war in Iraq, one of the memes that opponents of the war throw in the faces of supporters is the the epithet of "chickenhawk". They've even come up with a nickname for pro-war bloggers -- "The 101st Fighting Keyboardists".
A few bloggers, including Captain Ed, Frank J, and Chief at Freedomdogs, decided to pull a "Yankee Doodle Dandy" on the phrase and turn it into a badge of honor. The result is a blogroll of proud "chickenhawks" -- and a unit patch:
Sign me up.
I've always thought that the "Chickenhawk" argument was disingenuous at best, especially when it's used as a rebuttal to arguments for the necessity of the war. So what's your point? Are you say I'm a hypocrite for making the pro-war argument, but not fighting myself? Maybe I am, maybe I'm not -- judging me on that point would require that you know a HELL of a lot more about me than is possible, considering I don't know you from Adam. But even if it were true, it has nothing to do with the validity of the argument I'm making -- it's an ad hominem attack.
Or are you saying that only those who serve are qualified, either morally or by merit of experiencial knowledge, to have an opinion on matters of national defense? I seem to recall that when Robert Heinlein proposed that system in Starship Troopers, it was decried as "fascist". And if you truly believe that, doesn't that disqualify YOU from speaking out on these matters as well? Sauce for the goose, you know. And what about the 132 million Americans who let only 4 millions fight for them in WWII? And are we all hypocrites for believing in laws, but not joining the police force? No, sorry, this argument doesn't hold up. While those who serve have earned a greater level of respect and honor than the rest of us, and while their acheivements in service of the country may make their qualifications for leadership more evident, they are no more qualified (or less, for that matter) to form and express opinions on matters that aafect us all than any of us are.
Beyond the logical inconsistency of the "Chickenhawk" attack is the personal nastiness of it. It states, often explicitly and always at least implicitly, that those who support the war but are not enlisted in the military are too afraid to fight. In fact, this insult is at the core of the supposed hypocrisy in being a chickenhawk -- why else the word "chicken"? But it commits another fallacy, that of the false dilemma -- it ignores a panoply of possible reasons why a person would be willing but unable to serve, and it ignores the fact that many of those who are not currently serving HAVE served in the past. I can't speak for veterans, but I should think they find this particular attitude insulting.
So that's why I'm joining the 101st. Yes, I support the war. It is horrific, and tragic, but not nearly so much so as the alternatives. No, I am not enlisting -- I tried that route, years ago, and got a "don't call us, we'll call you" brush-off from the Navy. But if I can't fight, I'll at least do my part by making sure that I honor those who can -- and do.
Over the course of the last three years or so, in the ongoing discussion of the war in Iraq, one of the memes that opponents of the war throw in the faces of supporters is the the epithet of "chickenhawk". They've even come up with a nickname for pro-war bloggers -- "The 101st Fighting Keyboardists".
A few bloggers, including Captain Ed, Frank J, and Chief at Freedomdogs, decided to pull a "Yankee Doodle Dandy" on the phrase and turn it into a badge of honor. The result is a blogroll of proud "chickenhawks" -- and a unit patch:
Sign me up.
I've always thought that the "Chickenhawk" argument was disingenuous at best, especially when it's used as a rebuttal to arguments for the necessity of the war. So what's your point? Are you say I'm a hypocrite for making the pro-war argument, but not fighting myself? Maybe I am, maybe I'm not -- judging me on that point would require that you know a HELL of a lot more about me than is possible, considering I don't know you from Adam. But even if it were true, it has nothing to do with the validity of the argument I'm making -- it's an ad hominem attack.
Or are you saying that only those who serve are qualified, either morally or by merit of experiencial knowledge, to have an opinion on matters of national defense? I seem to recall that when Robert Heinlein proposed that system in Starship Troopers, it was decried as "fascist". And if you truly believe that, doesn't that disqualify YOU from speaking out on these matters as well? Sauce for the goose, you know. And what about the 132 million Americans who let only 4 millions fight for them in WWII? And are we all hypocrites for believing in laws, but not joining the police force? No, sorry, this argument doesn't hold up. While those who serve have earned a greater level of respect and honor than the rest of us, and while their acheivements in service of the country may make their qualifications for leadership more evident, they are no more qualified (or less, for that matter) to form and express opinions on matters that aafect us all than any of us are.
Beyond the logical inconsistency of the "Chickenhawk" attack is the personal nastiness of it. It states, often explicitly and always at least implicitly, that those who support the war but are not enlisted in the military are too afraid to fight. In fact, this insult is at the core of the supposed hypocrisy in being a chickenhawk -- why else the word "chicken"? But it commits another fallacy, that of the false dilemma -- it ignores a panoply of possible reasons why a person would be willing but unable to serve, and it ignores the fact that many of those who are not currently serving HAVE served in the past. I can't speak for veterans, but I should think they find this particular attitude insulting.
So that's why I'm joining the 101st. Yes, I support the war. It is horrific, and tragic, but not nearly so much so as the alternatives. No, I am not enlisting -- I tried that route, years ago, and got a "don't call us, we'll call you" brush-off from the Navy. But if I can't fight, I'll at least do my part by making sure that I honor those who can -- and do.
Schrodinger's Kid
Over the weekend as I was thinking about the parenting observation I made last week, I became aware of several other truisms about parenting and children (especially small children still in the larval and rugrat stages of development). These are mostly things I was aware of before becoming a father thanks to exposure to kids as an uncle, but became more acutely aware, and more introspective towards, as a parent -- namely these two: The more tired a child is, the more violently he will resist being put down for a nap; and the quieter a child is being, the more likely it is that they're getting onto trouble. I decided to express them as mathematical formulas.
The first is pretty simple: Ws=1/Ns where Ws is the willingness of the child to sleep and Ns is the need to sleep.
That second one is the trickier of the two. At first it seemed like simple Newtonian parenting: T=M/L, where T= The likelihood that the child is getting into trouble, M is their natural mischeivousness, and L is how loud they're being. But there is another variable here, and that's time -- it takes time to get into trouble (though not always a LOT of time). So I reassigned the variable L to represent the Length of time since you checked on them, and assigned V as the volume of the noise the child is making, and got T=(M/V)L.
But that's where Uncertainty and Superposition come into play. For starters, the value of M varies from child to child, and can even change for a given child, depending on mood, maturity, and how much trouble they got in last time. Furthermore, while it is true that as L increases, T approaches 1, you can never be sure that T has become 1 and the child really has gotten into trouble until you go check on them. Doing this, however, affects the outcome in a couple of ways: Like Schrodinger's cat, it fixes the value of T at either 1 or zero -- either they're in trouble or they're not. Secondly, checking on the child resets L to zero, and finally, if the child becomes aware that you are checking on them, this will alter their behavior (M).
There you have it, folks -- Quantum Parenting.
The first is pretty simple: Ws=1/Ns where Ws is the willingness of the child to sleep and Ns is the need to sleep.
That second one is the trickier of the two. At first it seemed like simple Newtonian parenting: T=M/L, where T= The likelihood that the child is getting into trouble, M is their natural mischeivousness, and L is how loud they're being. But there is another variable here, and that's time -- it takes time to get into trouble (though not always a LOT of time). So I reassigned the variable L to represent the Length of time since you checked on them, and assigned V as the volume of the noise the child is making, and got T=(M/V)L.
But that's where Uncertainty and Superposition come into play. For starters, the value of M varies from child to child, and can even change for a given child, depending on mood, maturity, and how much trouble they got in last time. Furthermore, while it is true that as L increases, T approaches 1, you can never be sure that T has become 1 and the child really has gotten into trouble until you go check on them. Doing this, however, affects the outcome in a couple of ways: Like Schrodinger's cat, it fixes the value of T at either 1 or zero -- either they're in trouble or they're not. Secondly, checking on the child resets L to zero, and finally, if the child becomes aware that you are checking on them, this will alter their behavior (M).
There you have it, folks -- Quantum Parenting.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)