This is an interesting development; ABC News has discovered that Republican politicians have accepted contributions from companies that distribute pornography! Cable companies such as Comcast, Adelphia along with Hoteliers such as Marriott provide pay per view services that include "adult" fare.
Interestingly enough ABC, which has no liberal bias at all - just ask them, included interviews with people that believe these politicians should stop accepting donations from these companies, because of the politician's family values positions. How convenient!
I'm sure, in the interest of fairness we'll soon see the story on Democrats who currently accept donations from:
Automotive manufacturers that produce global warming products
Large Corporations that outsource jobs, and take other advantage of American workers
Clothing companies, pharmaceutical companies, and cosmetics manufacturers that torture animals
Oil companies that helped President Bush trick us into war
Haliburton, because we all know they're just evil
Defense contractors that support this country in our war based on lies
Food manufacturers and fast food chains that trick us into eating unhealthy food
Liquor producers, that addict drinkers and ruin families.
Any others that I forgot? I'd hate for the Demo's to inadvertently fall victim to hypocrisy!
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
Monday, February 7, 2005
KISS Haiku Genius
Well it may not be the height of intellectual achievement, but then again how many of you have achieved finalist status in your FIRST HAIKU EVER? Yup, Annika ran a haiku contest with the subject being those aging rockers KISS. At the end of the day, your buddy Pursuit is a proud, proud man.
Friday, February 4, 2005
The Good Professor Churchhill
The recent controversy over whether this guy ought to be fired is interesting. I've thought quite abit about it and I'm tempted by the free speech arguments against firing Churchhill, but in the final analysis they don't hold water. High profile professionals in all careers are held to standards of behavior that transend their professional duties into their private life. The justification for these arrangements is simple; what they do or say in their private life can impact the reputation of their employers.
Churchhill's idiotic statements, and his refusal to repudiate them, put the credibility of any University that would hire him into question. Indeed, his tenure is subject to minimum standards of professional behavior. If CU cannot relieve him of his duties for his Eichman comments then what will it take?
The good professor is more than welcome to he rights to free speech. He just needs to learn that with rights come responsibilty, and as we all know, payback is a bitch baby.
Churchhill's idiotic statements, and his refusal to repudiate them, put the credibility of any University that would hire him into question. Indeed, his tenure is subject to minimum standards of professional behavior. If CU cannot relieve him of his duties for his Eichman comments then what will it take?
The good professor is more than welcome to he rights to free speech. He just needs to learn that with rights come responsibilty, and as we all know, payback is a bitch baby.
Thursday, February 3, 2005
Wine Tasting Notes
As I mentioned below, I was at a rather large wine tasting event the other night....Monday to be exact. Its taken me a while to get some notes up, but I've finally managed to get some time.
The event was fun, met some new people and saw a couple old friends as well. Also scheduled another Cali Red event for two weeks from now, and I'll post my opinions from there as well.
This event was also, mostly California wines. Frankly, I prefer the French style as more elegant and nuanced, but of the few French wines that I had at this tasting, none were really worth mentioning. Most of the wines that I focused on were in the USD 10 - 30 per bottle range.
Daniel Gehrs: For a guy that likes nuance, my continued attraction to Gehrs "high fidelity" wines is a bit inexplicable. I'm enjoy the bold approach, and generous mouth that come with his style, although, based on my taste Monday it seems he may be tempering his style for greater appeal. Most wines had been in the bottle for two years already and struck me as more smooth on the palate, but less structured as well. Specifically:
Pinot Noir, Santa Barbara County 2001 - Priced in the $12 range, this was a great value, providing typical Pinot fruit, and some structure.
Merlot 2002: Not a stand out, although I am not typically a Merlot drinker
Syrah, Paso Robles 2001 - Another excellent value, great spice, decent mouth. Around $12.
Spring Mountain: I always want to hate Spring Mountain, and I don't know why. This week was no different, and the didn't let me down.
Syrah 2001 - Nice fruit, great spice very big mouth. I enjoyed this wine, but in the $40 range, not worth it in my opinion.
Estate Red 2001 - Just flat, blah
Elivette 2001 - Better than the Estate Red, but at 60 - 70 American I was disappointed
Keenan Winery - I've always liked Keenan and believe they deliver value for the money.
Merlot 2001 - At 20 to 25 American an outstanding value. Big tast, lasts in the mouth, excellent structure.
Penner-Ash Winery: I am unfamiliar with these folks, but really enjoyed their stuff.
Pinot Noir 2002 Willamette - Very nice, good fruit, hints of vanilla, and spice. Nice buy at $30-35
Pinot Noir 2002 Syrah Rubeo - A little sweet for my taste but as above good fruit. Not a bad buy at $14-18.
Biggest Suprise of the Tasting: Peacock Family Vineyards 2001 Cabernet Sauvignon. I had never had this wine and it was great. Nice tannins, good structure. At $40 -45 still a good buy.
I've got more, but those were the highlights, if there is interest, I'll put more thoughts up later.
The event was fun, met some new people and saw a couple old friends as well. Also scheduled another Cali Red event for two weeks from now, and I'll post my opinions from there as well.
This event was also, mostly California wines. Frankly, I prefer the French style as more elegant and nuanced, but of the few French wines that I had at this tasting, none were really worth mentioning. Most of the wines that I focused on were in the USD 10 - 30 per bottle range.
Daniel Gehrs: For a guy that likes nuance, my continued attraction to Gehrs "high fidelity" wines is a bit inexplicable. I'm enjoy the bold approach, and generous mouth that come with his style, although, based on my taste Monday it seems he may be tempering his style for greater appeal. Most wines had been in the bottle for two years already and struck me as more smooth on the palate, but less structured as well. Specifically:
Pinot Noir, Santa Barbara County 2001 - Priced in the $12 range, this was a great value, providing typical Pinot fruit, and some structure.
Merlot 2002: Not a stand out, although I am not typically a Merlot drinker
Syrah, Paso Robles 2001 - Another excellent value, great spice, decent mouth. Around $12.
Spring Mountain: I always want to hate Spring Mountain, and I don't know why. This week was no different, and the didn't let me down.
Syrah 2001 - Nice fruit, great spice very big mouth. I enjoyed this wine, but in the $40 range, not worth it in my opinion.
Estate Red 2001 - Just flat, blah
Elivette 2001 - Better than the Estate Red, but at 60 - 70 American I was disappointed
Keenan Winery - I've always liked Keenan and believe they deliver value for the money.
Merlot 2001 - At 20 to 25 American an outstanding value. Big tast, lasts in the mouth, excellent structure.
Penner-Ash Winery: I am unfamiliar with these folks, but really enjoyed their stuff.
Pinot Noir 2002 Willamette - Very nice, good fruit, hints of vanilla, and spice. Nice buy at $30-35
Pinot Noir 2002 Syrah Rubeo - A little sweet for my taste but as above good fruit. Not a bad buy at $14-18.
Biggest Suprise of the Tasting: Peacock Family Vineyards 2001 Cabernet Sauvignon. I had never had this wine and it was great. Nice tannins, good structure. At $40 -45 still a good buy.
I've got more, but those were the highlights, if there is interest, I'll put more thoughts up later.
Sullivan Leaves
So Andrew Sullivan has decided to admit what we all have known for a while....his blog is an unreadable mess. I guess he hasn't actually admitted this, but tell me; who has been able to read this guy for the past couple of years?
I'll admit that back when he was leading the charge against the NYT, I avidly read every line of attack and hoped that he would help bring some change to the paper. Even then though, I was always troubled that his attacks seemed to me as oddly personal, and full of needless vitriol. The same was true during the Iraq War lead up. He was on the right side, so I ignored some of the less than gracious ways that I thought he treated his critics.
Shame on me, I'm afraid those of us that were troubled by his style, but chose to ignore it, ultimately helped create Bad Andrew.
I stopped reading Andrew when his poison keyboard began to be directed at those of us that didn't support his Gay marriage crusade, or his "its going good today","now its a collasal failure" mood swings on Iraq. The breaking point for me was when he held a pledge drive and then went on vacation for a month the day after it was over. I thought this was extremely disrespectful to his supporters.
And now he is packing it in, at least temporarily. I hope as the rest of us move on, we remember to remain passionate about those things that matter to us, but also considerate of those with whom we disagree. I'm new to this game, but have found quickly that blogging does encourage a shoot now, ask questions later approach. It can also be an easy place from which to mount a venomous attack against our "enemies". I think Andrew to one degree or another fell victim to these temptations. I also think his reputation has suffered because of it.
The rest of us are into this gig with a lot less capital on the line. The lesson though, is no less important to us. If all we have is our reputation, then we need to ensure that we protect it.
I'll admit that back when he was leading the charge against the NYT, I avidly read every line of attack and hoped that he would help bring some change to the paper. Even then though, I was always troubled that his attacks seemed to me as oddly personal, and full of needless vitriol. The same was true during the Iraq War lead up. He was on the right side, so I ignored some of the less than gracious ways that I thought he treated his critics.
Shame on me, I'm afraid those of us that were troubled by his style, but chose to ignore it, ultimately helped create Bad Andrew.
I stopped reading Andrew when his poison keyboard began to be directed at those of us that didn't support his Gay marriage crusade, or his "its going good today","now its a collasal failure" mood swings on Iraq. The breaking point for me was when he held a pledge drive and then went on vacation for a month the day after it was over. I thought this was extremely disrespectful to his supporters.
And now he is packing it in, at least temporarily. I hope as the rest of us move on, we remember to remain passionate about those things that matter to us, but also considerate of those with whom we disagree. I'm new to this game, but have found quickly that blogging does encourage a shoot now, ask questions later approach. It can also be an easy place from which to mount a venomous attack against our "enemies". I think Andrew to one degree or another fell victim to these temptations. I also think his reputation has suffered because of it.
The rest of us are into this gig with a lot less capital on the line. The lesson though, is no less important to us. If all we have is our reputation, then we need to ensure that we protect it.
Addition To The Blogroll
I've added a new addition to the blogroll today, my new favorite liberal - sorry Functional Ambivalent - Habitat Girl, who blogs over at Hammer and Nail. I've been enjoying her site lately with thoughtful, although decidely misguided, posts on politics and more accurate yet equally thoughtful posts on life. She also added me to her blogroll (but didn't tell me, for shame) so I've got to follow through on my strict policy of returning the love.
So what are you waiting for, stop by say hello for me!
So what are you waiting for, stop by say hello for me!
Tuesday, February 1, 2005
Iraq: Minds They Are A Changin?
I'm not a huge reader of the Chicago Sun-Times, but Limbaugh was talking about Mark Brown's column today, so I thought I should check it out. It is quite interesting, perhaps more so than Mr. Brown intends, as it indicates the profound impact the Sunday elections have had on people in the U.S., and exposes the underlying theme of elitism that so many American liberals display towards people of color.
I've been quite curious as to why so many otherwise good people seem to have aligned themselves against a chance for freedom for the Iraqi people. While I disagreed with their resistance to the war, these anti-freedom liberals (oxymoron anyone?) went from disagreeing with policy to aligning with the forces against freedom once the war was over. As with the French and the Germans, it appears now that these Americans will increasingly be fighting the tide of history if they continue to deny, and yes, resist helping in Iraq.
Brown's column provides the first hint that perhaps this is dawning on some folks. It also includes some lines that indicate to me at least, that maybe they're resistance goes beyond standard Bush hatred to a little cultural elitism.
Catch these quotes, which I've selectively taken from the article, you should read the whole thing yourself:
"You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead."
Rabble? These people live under the boot of Saddam for twenty years, endure executions, rape rooms and torture, and are nothing more than rabble on the day of their liberation? Next time, we must remember to drop leaflet and inform the populace that their expected to dress for the occasion!
"But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?"
Why is it that after the last twenty years, when we saw the fall of the wall in Berlin, the execution Romania's dictator at the hands of a newly freed people, the revolution in Russia, the students willing to die in Tiananmen Square, that it continues to be a shock to liberals that freedom is something worth dying for. Aren't liberals supposed to be society's main proponents for freedom, and if so, how have they so routinely ended up on the wrong side of history?
"For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility."
After all he has seen in the past week, the clear desire for freedom, the courage to display their purple fingers, Mr. Brown continues to cling to the thought (hope?) that maybe these people really don't want the chance that we've given them. Indeed, later in the article he claims we've forced a brave new world on them.
"On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing: Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something."
In the name of all that is good, why in the world is this so hard to swallow? Have we not spent the last two decades witnessing the march of freedom? That last part is particularly astounding - it would really be worth something? Uh, ya I think it might be worth a whole lot, but you know, maybe Mr. Brown will need a few more decades to work that out. This freedom stuff is messy business after all
"Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain."
In fact, they demonstrated that our soldiers fought and died for a very brave people who are slowly shaking off the effects of decades of fear and torture. In fact, many said that while they want us to leave, they need us to stay until security is fully established.
There is more, so much more and as I said you should read it all. While Mr. Brown seems to finally be "getting it", it is hard to see what is more stunning; his initial lack of faith in the "rabble" or his unwarranted cynicism of the President's foreign policy.
I've been quite curious as to why so many otherwise good people seem to have aligned themselves against a chance for freedom for the Iraqi people. While I disagreed with their resistance to the war, these anti-freedom liberals (oxymoron anyone?) went from disagreeing with policy to aligning with the forces against freedom once the war was over. As with the French and the Germans, it appears now that these Americans will increasingly be fighting the tide of history if they continue to deny, and yes, resist helping in Iraq.
Brown's column provides the first hint that perhaps this is dawning on some folks. It also includes some lines that indicate to me at least, that maybe they're resistance goes beyond standard Bush hatred to a little cultural elitism.
Catch these quotes, which I've selectively taken from the article, you should read the whole thing yourself:
"You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead."
Rabble? These people live under the boot of Saddam for twenty years, endure executions, rape rooms and torture, and are nothing more than rabble on the day of their liberation? Next time, we must remember to drop leaflet and inform the populace that their expected to dress for the occasion!
"But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?"
Why is it that after the last twenty years, when we saw the fall of the wall in Berlin, the execution Romania's dictator at the hands of a newly freed people, the revolution in Russia, the students willing to die in Tiananmen Square, that it continues to be a shock to liberals that freedom is something worth dying for. Aren't liberals supposed to be society's main proponents for freedom, and if so, how have they so routinely ended up on the wrong side of history?
"For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility."
After all he has seen in the past week, the clear desire for freedom, the courage to display their purple fingers, Mr. Brown continues to cling to the thought (hope?) that maybe these people really don't want the chance that we've given them. Indeed, later in the article he claims we've forced a brave new world on them.
"On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing: Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something."
In the name of all that is good, why in the world is this so hard to swallow? Have we not spent the last two decades witnessing the march of freedom? That last part is particularly astounding - it would really be worth something? Uh, ya I think it might be worth a whole lot, but you know, maybe Mr. Brown will need a few more decades to work that out. This freedom stuff is messy business after all
"Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain."
In fact, they demonstrated that our soldiers fought and died for a very brave people who are slowly shaking off the effects of decades of fear and torture. In fact, many said that while they want us to leave, they need us to stay until security is fully established.
There is more, so much more and as I said you should read it all. While Mr. Brown seems to finally be "getting it", it is hard to see what is more stunning; his initial lack of faith in the "rabble" or his unwarranted cynicism of the President's foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)