Merry Christmas!!! Will be pursuing happiness on the slopes next week, so no posting. See you in 2005!!!
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Welcome Carnivalers!
Welcome to my humble site, dedicated to, well it's dedicated to the Pursuit of Happiness. Have a look around, we've got Ravioli recipes, commentary on ED commercials, and right thinking politics. By the way, if you don't agree, let me know, I always open to learning new things.
Most importantly, enjoy!
Most importantly, enjoy!
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Thank You Tony Blair
Did you hear Mr. Blair speak this morning? It was an inspiration.
Sometimes I listen to the media in this country and I just wonder if they realize that they're Americans. I suppose the answer is yes, but I wonder if they really know what that means. Sure, anybody can sign up to support the troops, but now is the time that it is most important to support the mission. Mr. Blair sent the world a wake-up call today, and we need to listen.
As Americans we have an obligation in this world that no other country has. Those that came before us died for the freedoms that we have today. On Bunker Hill, at Gettysburg, D-Day, the Pacific Theater, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War they met the call and our lives are better for it today. We wake up, go to work, pay taxes, and love our families. Some of us volunteer for service, but most don't. This is okay, its the system that we have built, but for those of us at home supporting the troops requires that we support missions that are honorable.
At this point how can anyone question the honor of our mission? There are three sides to this battle in Iraq; Saddam's old regime, the murderers and terrorists trying to stop the elections and return to darkness, and democracy. Do we even have a choice if we are to be true to our fathers? What would history say if we choose otherwise?
This was not the easy path. Dealing with Saddam and turning a blind eye to mass murder would have been simple. We could easily have chosen the French way, and work out a deal for a smooth supply of oil. The screams of the innocent would have been overwhelmed by distance and ignorance. George Bush knew that America could no longer ignore its responsibility to fight evil, and now so many Iraqis have bravely come forward to begin this historic step.
Its not easy, but it is undoubtedly noble. Iraqi's are being murdered in the streets to stop the elections. Yet, every morning they get up keep going. Same thing happened in Afghanistan. Remember when that was going to be a disaster? The true lesson that we learn again and again is that if we give people anywhere in this world a chance for freedom 9 times out of 10 they take it.
We are on the path to victory. Sure, we can question whether or not we had enough troops, or planned properly for the insurgency, or whether Rummy personally signs every letter of condolence. These questions must be asked after we win. The real questions we should be asking now are what else must we do to win? The constant carping in the media isn't focused on this goal, because in their hearts, they have not committed to victory. It appears in fact, that many would celebrate an American loss. They then wonder way they're labeled as anti-Americans.
Ask yourself one question. When was the last time you saw a major U.S. publication conduct a full review of the thousands or good things we've built in Iraq. The opposition gets full reporting on every bomb they manage to ignite. Fair and balanced?
Now go and listen to Tony Blair. Man, I wish Bush was as eloquent. Unfortunately he is not. This is what makes Bush and Blair such great partners. Tony for all his gifts simply does not have the resolve that our President has - few people do. Can there be any doubt that fate has brought these two men together as partners to begin the historic transition to peace in the middle east.
Go and listen to Tony Blair. Then you will understand why our President had to take us down this path. You will also understand why our victory is certain.
Sometimes I listen to the media in this country and I just wonder if they realize that they're Americans. I suppose the answer is yes, but I wonder if they really know what that means. Sure, anybody can sign up to support the troops, but now is the time that it is most important to support the mission. Mr. Blair sent the world a wake-up call today, and we need to listen.
As Americans we have an obligation in this world that no other country has. Those that came before us died for the freedoms that we have today. On Bunker Hill, at Gettysburg, D-Day, the Pacific Theater, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War they met the call and our lives are better for it today. We wake up, go to work, pay taxes, and love our families. Some of us volunteer for service, but most don't. This is okay, its the system that we have built, but for those of us at home supporting the troops requires that we support missions that are honorable.
At this point how can anyone question the honor of our mission? There are three sides to this battle in Iraq; Saddam's old regime, the murderers and terrorists trying to stop the elections and return to darkness, and democracy. Do we even have a choice if we are to be true to our fathers? What would history say if we choose otherwise?
This was not the easy path. Dealing with Saddam and turning a blind eye to mass murder would have been simple. We could easily have chosen the French way, and work out a deal for a smooth supply of oil. The screams of the innocent would have been overwhelmed by distance and ignorance. George Bush knew that America could no longer ignore its responsibility to fight evil, and now so many Iraqis have bravely come forward to begin this historic step.
Its not easy, but it is undoubtedly noble. Iraqi's are being murdered in the streets to stop the elections. Yet, every morning they get up keep going. Same thing happened in Afghanistan. Remember when that was going to be a disaster? The true lesson that we learn again and again is that if we give people anywhere in this world a chance for freedom 9 times out of 10 they take it.
We are on the path to victory. Sure, we can question whether or not we had enough troops, or planned properly for the insurgency, or whether Rummy personally signs every letter of condolence. These questions must be asked after we win. The real questions we should be asking now are what else must we do to win? The constant carping in the media isn't focused on this goal, because in their hearts, they have not committed to victory. It appears in fact, that many would celebrate an American loss. They then wonder way they're labeled as anti-Americans.
Ask yourself one question. When was the last time you saw a major U.S. publication conduct a full review of the thousands or good things we've built in Iraq. The opposition gets full reporting on every bomb they manage to ignite. Fair and balanced?
Now go and listen to Tony Blair. Man, I wish Bush was as eloquent. Unfortunately he is not. This is what makes Bush and Blair such great partners. Tony for all his gifts simply does not have the resolve that our President has - few people do. Can there be any doubt that fate has brought these two men together as partners to begin the historic transition to peace in the middle east.
Go and listen to Tony Blair. Then you will understand why our President had to take us down this path. You will also understand why our victory is certain.
This Is Wicked
As in wicked funny.
Most of you know my thoughts on Senator McCain, but this Hagel is twice as bad. I'm well aware that these men served their country in uniform, but how much leeway do they get as a result? Its very clear that they're grandstanding on the Rumsfeld question for their own gain. Sure, its politics and politicians can be expected to do such things, but they are carrying on in a time of war.
Iraqis are everyday fighting to bring freedom and democracy to their country, and our job is to stand with them and see that they have the chance they deserve. With McCain and Hagel, I'm forced to ask, what side are they on. There will be plenty of time to review Rumsfeld's performance later. There is an election in Iraq on January 30, and controversy on our side, at this time just gives the enemy further strength, and the Iraqi public further questions about our resolve.
Anyway, Annika gets it right on this one.
Most of you know my thoughts on Senator McCain, but this Hagel is twice as bad. I'm well aware that these men served their country in uniform, but how much leeway do they get as a result? Its very clear that they're grandstanding on the Rumsfeld question for their own gain. Sure, its politics and politicians can be expected to do such things, but they are carrying on in a time of war.
Iraqis are everyday fighting to bring freedom and democracy to their country, and our job is to stand with them and see that they have the chance they deserve. With McCain and Hagel, I'm forced to ask, what side are they on. There will be plenty of time to review Rumsfeld's performance later. There is an election in Iraq on January 30, and controversy on our side, at this time just gives the enemy further strength, and the Iraqi public further questions about our resolve.
Anyway, Annika gets it right on this one.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Wonkette: Now Twice As Shallow and Pointless!!
Check out this "Fast Chat" (as if you could have anything else with Wonkette) in a Newsweek interview:
What did you think of the bloggers' role in the Dan Rather affair?
I think they did a disservice to the debate because they made the debate about the documents and not about the president of the United States. There was another half to that story that had to do with verifiable events of what Bush may have been up to.
So, lets see if I have that correct. Uncle Dan gets caught putting out false documents about a sitting President in the later weeks of a campaign, which clearly looks like an attempt to swing the election, and the real problem is that we didn't focus on something else that may or may not have happened 35 years ago? OOOOOkay then.
Memo to Wonkette: You lost dear.
What did you think of the bloggers' role in the Dan Rather affair?
I think they did a disservice to the debate because they made the debate about the documents and not about the president of the United States. There was another half to that story that had to do with verifiable events of what Bush may have been up to.
So, lets see if I have that correct. Uncle Dan gets caught putting out false documents about a sitting President in the later weeks of a campaign, which clearly looks like an attempt to swing the election, and the real problem is that we didn't focus on something else that may or may not have happened 35 years ago? OOOOOkay then.
Memo to Wonkette: You lost dear.
The True Culture Debate
Being a midwestern guy, when I went to school years ago I was shocked to hear people offer me a "soda" to drink. I thought to myself, "why would I want soda, isn't that something you put in wiskey?" I then found out that these easterners were actually talking about "pop". You know, coke, 7Up, sprite - pop.
Well, it turns out this is a very regional thing. And by the looks of the map, almost as divisive as red vs. blue politics!
Well, it turns out this is a very regional thing. And by the looks of the map, almost as divisive as red vs. blue politics!
Welcome Exploding Bloggers
Noticed that I'm getting more hits since signing up with BlogExplosion. Welcome, everyone! After you've had a look around leave me a comment or two.
Thanks
Thanks
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Futbol, You Bet!
Well 2 out of 3 yesterday against the spread! A wise man would stop now, but what fun is that?
Picks to click folks:
Bears + 1 Texans: Da Bearsssssss
Jets +6.5 Seahawks: Go Seahawks!
Eagles +12.5 Cowboys: Rule says you never give 12 in intradivision play - Screw the rules, Go Eagles!
Vikings +3 Lions: Hate the vikes, but take them here
Chargers +10 Browns: Take the points, close your eyes and get outta town baby!
Bills +1.5 Bengals: Easy pick, take the Bills
Cheeseheads +3.5 Jaguars: Jax can't win in the cold behind the Cheddar Curtain. Take the Pack
Bucs + 7.5 Saints: The Saints, are you kiddin me, take the Bucs
Rams + 3 Cards: Call me crazy, but I'm goin with the Cards here
Broncos +1 Chiefs: Always take the dog in this game, even if its only one point
Raiders +2.5 Titans: Raiders will luck out and win here
Colts +8 Ravens: When is Baltimore going to get a real coach? Take the colts.
Pats +9.5 Dolphins: Too many points on intra division. Go Dolphins!
Picks to click folks:
Bears + 1 Texans: Da Bearsssssss
Jets +6.5 Seahawks: Go Seahawks!
Eagles +12.5 Cowboys: Rule says you never give 12 in intradivision play - Screw the rules, Go Eagles!
Vikings +3 Lions: Hate the vikes, but take them here
Chargers +10 Browns: Take the points, close your eyes and get outta town baby!
Bills +1.5 Bengals: Easy pick, take the Bills
Cheeseheads +3.5 Jaguars: Jax can't win in the cold behind the Cheddar Curtain. Take the Pack
Bucs + 7.5 Saints: The Saints, are you kiddin me, take the Bucs
Rams + 3 Cards: Call me crazy, but I'm goin with the Cards here
Broncos +1 Chiefs: Always take the dog in this game, even if its only one point
Raiders +2.5 Titans: Raiders will luck out and win here
Colts +8 Ravens: When is Baltimore going to get a real coach? Take the colts.
Pats +9.5 Dolphins: Too many points on intra division. Go Dolphins!
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Merry Christmas - Those Forbidden Words
Lilleks was talking about how clerks seem to be stunned when you wish them a Merry Christmas in his collumn the other day:
Maybe it's just me. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive. But when I wish a store clerk "Merry Christmas!" they often appear stunned and flummoxed for a moment, as if I've just blabbed the plans for the underground's sabotage of the train tracks in front of the secret police. I've said something highly inappropriate for the public square, and I almost expect a security guard to take me aside on the way out. He'll lead me to a small room. He has no enthusiasm for this; it's the end of his shift, and he's done this a dozen times already today. But policy is policy.
I've noticed this phenomina too. As I was listening to Michael Medved on the radio he was discussing how he as a non-Christian had no problem with people wishing him a Merry Christmas. To Michael, it wasn't so much a religous greeting as it was a wish of good tidings around an event that has become part of the American culture.
While this is all well and good I suppose, the fact is we are celebrating the birth of Christ and I strongly believe that there is nothing wrong with recognizing this wonderful event. If you are a non-Christian, what is the problem of someone wishing you a merry Christmas? Can you not accept the greeting in the good faith in which it was intended?
I had no idea how far this had gone until I went out to buy cards the other day. - yes I'm a bit late, but I'd fatally shock friends and family if we got cards out before the 23rd or so. Anyway, when Mrs. Pursuit got home, she saw the cards and said, "oh you got the Christmas kind".
The Christmas kind? It is the Christmas season isn't it? At this point Mrs. Pursuit explained to me that others had thanked her in the past for sending out Seasons Greetings cards, and applauded her cultural sensitivity.
Frankly, I was stunned. I ask you, what is culturally sensitive; thanking someone for denying their own religous holiday so that you aren't put in an uncomfortable situation, or accepting the greeting of "Merry Christmas" with the grace and dignity of a trully multi-cultural person.
We'll be sending the Christmas cards this year.
Maybe it's just me. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive. But when I wish a store clerk "Merry Christmas!" they often appear stunned and flummoxed for a moment, as if I've just blabbed the plans for the underground's sabotage of the train tracks in front of the secret police. I've said something highly inappropriate for the public square, and I almost expect a security guard to take me aside on the way out. He'll lead me to a small room. He has no enthusiasm for this; it's the end of his shift, and he's done this a dozen times already today. But policy is policy.
I've noticed this phenomina too. As I was listening to Michael Medved on the radio he was discussing how he as a non-Christian had no problem with people wishing him a Merry Christmas. To Michael, it wasn't so much a religous greeting as it was a wish of good tidings around an event that has become part of the American culture.
While this is all well and good I suppose, the fact is we are celebrating the birth of Christ and I strongly believe that there is nothing wrong with recognizing this wonderful event. If you are a non-Christian, what is the problem of someone wishing you a merry Christmas? Can you not accept the greeting in the good faith in which it was intended?
I had no idea how far this had gone until I went out to buy cards the other day. - yes I'm a bit late, but I'd fatally shock friends and family if we got cards out before the 23rd or so. Anyway, when Mrs. Pursuit got home, she saw the cards and said, "oh you got the Christmas kind".
The Christmas kind? It is the Christmas season isn't it? At this point Mrs. Pursuit explained to me that others had thanked her in the past for sending out Seasons Greetings cards, and applauded her cultural sensitivity.
Frankly, I was stunned. I ask you, what is culturally sensitive; thanking someone for denying their own religous holiday so that you aren't put in an uncomfortable situation, or accepting the greeting of "Merry Christmas" with the grace and dignity of a trully multi-cultural person.
We'll be sending the Christmas cards this year.
Futbol, You Bet
Well are you ready for some football? Oh Yeah, here are my picks to click in the NFL today
Steelers +10 Giants: Steelers seem to have lost some steam lately, 10 points is a lot even against the Giants. Lets go with baby Manning on this one and take the points.
Redskins +5 49ers: I'm not sure Joe Gibbs has the ole magic anymore. Lets take the points, and get out of town!
Falcons +3 Panthers: Just to be consistent, I'm taking the dog in this one too.
Of course the professional scolds here at Pursuit would never suggest you ever use our picks to wager any money on these games. Frankly, if you do, you get what you deserve!
Steelers +10 Giants: Steelers seem to have lost some steam lately, 10 points is a lot even against the Giants. Lets go with baby Manning on this one and take the points.
Redskins +5 49ers: I'm not sure Joe Gibbs has the ole magic anymore. Lets take the points, and get out of town!
Falcons +3 Panthers: Just to be consistent, I'm taking the dog in this one too.
Of course the professional scolds here at Pursuit would never suggest you ever use our picks to wager any money on these games. Frankly, if you do, you get what you deserve!
Friday, December 17, 2004
Those Impotence Commercials
I'm the first person to admit that I can be a bit of a misanthropic guy. I'm not a fan of big gatherings, I obsessively carry a small bottle of Purell with me to ward off the germs of others, and I'm not real keen on the little personal details of others lives that some folks seem compelled to share.
There is one thing though, that I REALLY can't deal with:
Old people and sex. Now don't get me wrong, I like old people. I know many of 'em, and find their company delightful. I'm also not unaware of the fact that at 43, I'm careening closer to official old guy status with every single breath.
Similarly, I like sex. Don't worry, I'm not going to violate my own rule and pour out the personal details of my life. Lets face it though, most of us enjoy the activity and many of us enjoy watching attractive couples doing it as well. So the problem isn't sex, its not others having sex, its not watching others have sex.
Its old people. Sorry, but its true.
Listen, I'm glad old people have sex. They must be doing it in dark rooms, blindfolded with their eyes closed, but hey, more power to them baby! I just don't want to know about it.
Which brings us to those impotence commercials. Frankly, I knew we were in trouble when the first viagra commercial appeared with good ole, Bob Dole. Somehow though, these commercials just didn't produce the cringe factor I would have suspected, and I think I know why. Nobody in their right mind is ever going to believe that Bob and Elizabeth are still doing it. No how, No way. Anyone ever see that "60 Minutes" interview with Bob Dole where he was walking around his place in Florida. It was right out of Del Boca Vista on Seinfeld. The man was wearing shorts, black socks and wingtips.
Let me repeat that so you can get the visual: shorts.... black socks......wingtips. Now I don't care if Viagra gives the man the staying power of industrial strength rebar. There is no way anyone is ever going to get laid in that get up.
So we were safe from the awful, awful imagery of Bob and Elizabeth creating the Beast of Two Backs.
Then the Levitra woman hit the market. This was a little worse as it introduced the concept of four hour erections requiring medical help. As disturbing as this concept is, and make no mistake, it is a troubling concept that may require therapy for all of the involuntary shudders to stop, the Levitra woman had two happy benefits.
1. She is a babe, and she is a babe that wants to do it. This is a good thing.
2. She seems to have replaced Mike Ditka as the Levitra spokesperson. While I am a big Chicago fan (Da, Bearsss), frankly the idea of Mike Ditka having sex was a chilling thought to any woman that didn't fancy the concept of doing it with a heaving, sweaty, pneumatic beast! And we can't have women getting chilled, so men everywhere love the Levitra babe.
Now though, the business has gone to far. Cialis is out there and their commercial pictures the two worst things that should forever be kept apart in the public mind. Sex and old people. Its like a frickin plague of sex and old people too. These folks are walking around with Soma like grins on their faces just looking for somewhere to hump.
In the kitchen - there goes Thanksgiving dinner for me.
On a rainy beach - the baby seals will have coronaries, no need to club them anymore
Dry humping on the front steps, THE FRONT STEPS PEOPLE - I can envision the paper boy beating them with a rolled up Daily Shopper like two dogs in heat
Worst of all though is the final scene. In what can only be described as some bizarre attempt at trailer park chic gone terribly, terribly wrong, we are treated to a vision of two naked old people sitting in separate claw foot tubs in the middle of nowhere. Then just as suddenly as they appear, the tubs are shown again, only this time they're empty!
This can only mean one thing: the oldsters are humping in the woods. Oh, the humanity! The grinding the bumping......... the coronary stress! Worse still, some innocent hiker, perhaps a 43 year old guy with the kids whose only previous concern was, I don't know, maybe startling a bear, could be subjected to the throbbing gray prune in the bushes.
Frankly, enough is enough. Why can't old people be happy like they are in the cholesterol commercials. Oh, those are fine, happy productions. The old folks plant flowers, ride bikes, play bridge and then go to dinner at 3:30 for the early bird. This is perfectly acceptable old people behavior. Has been for years. Why, I'll even promise, that if they limit their public activity to these fine pass times, I won't honk when I encounter them in the fast lane doing 45.
I'll just slow down, smile, pass on the right, and say "Thanks for not doing it!" as I drive by.
There is one thing though, that I REALLY can't deal with:
Old people and sex. Now don't get me wrong, I like old people. I know many of 'em, and find their company delightful. I'm also not unaware of the fact that at 43, I'm careening closer to official old guy status with every single breath.
Similarly, I like sex. Don't worry, I'm not going to violate my own rule and pour out the personal details of my life. Lets face it though, most of us enjoy the activity and many of us enjoy watching attractive couples doing it as well. So the problem isn't sex, its not others having sex, its not watching others have sex.
Its old people. Sorry, but its true.
Listen, I'm glad old people have sex. They must be doing it in dark rooms, blindfolded with their eyes closed, but hey, more power to them baby! I just don't want to know about it.
Which brings us to those impotence commercials. Frankly, I knew we were in trouble when the first viagra commercial appeared with good ole, Bob Dole. Somehow though, these commercials just didn't produce the cringe factor I would have suspected, and I think I know why. Nobody in their right mind is ever going to believe that Bob and Elizabeth are still doing it. No how, No way. Anyone ever see that "60 Minutes" interview with Bob Dole where he was walking around his place in Florida. It was right out of Del Boca Vista on Seinfeld. The man was wearing shorts, black socks and wingtips.
Let me repeat that so you can get the visual: shorts.... black socks......wingtips. Now I don't care if Viagra gives the man the staying power of industrial strength rebar. There is no way anyone is ever going to get laid in that get up.
So we were safe from the awful, awful imagery of Bob and Elizabeth creating the Beast of Two Backs.
Then the Levitra woman hit the market. This was a little worse as it introduced the concept of four hour erections requiring medical help. As disturbing as this concept is, and make no mistake, it is a troubling concept that may require therapy for all of the involuntary shudders to stop, the Levitra woman had two happy benefits.
1. She is a babe, and she is a babe that wants to do it. This is a good thing.
2. She seems to have replaced Mike Ditka as the Levitra spokesperson. While I am a big Chicago fan (Da, Bearsss), frankly the idea of Mike Ditka having sex was a chilling thought to any woman that didn't fancy the concept of doing it with a heaving, sweaty, pneumatic beast! And we can't have women getting chilled, so men everywhere love the Levitra babe.
Now though, the business has gone to far. Cialis is out there and their commercial pictures the two worst things that should forever be kept apart in the public mind. Sex and old people. Its like a frickin plague of sex and old people too. These folks are walking around with Soma like grins on their faces just looking for somewhere to hump.
In the kitchen - there goes Thanksgiving dinner for me.
On a rainy beach - the baby seals will have coronaries, no need to club them anymore
Dry humping on the front steps, THE FRONT STEPS PEOPLE - I can envision the paper boy beating them with a rolled up Daily Shopper like two dogs in heat
Worst of all though is the final scene. In what can only be described as some bizarre attempt at trailer park chic gone terribly, terribly wrong, we are treated to a vision of two naked old people sitting in separate claw foot tubs in the middle of nowhere. Then just as suddenly as they appear, the tubs are shown again, only this time they're empty!
This can only mean one thing: the oldsters are humping in the woods. Oh, the humanity! The grinding the bumping......... the coronary stress! Worse still, some innocent hiker, perhaps a 43 year old guy with the kids whose only previous concern was, I don't know, maybe startling a bear, could be subjected to the throbbing gray prune in the bushes.
Frankly, enough is enough. Why can't old people be happy like they are in the cholesterol commercials. Oh, those are fine, happy productions. The old folks plant flowers, ride bikes, play bridge and then go to dinner at 3:30 for the early bird. This is perfectly acceptable old people behavior. Has been for years. Why, I'll even promise, that if they limit their public activity to these fine pass times, I won't honk when I encounter them in the fast lane doing 45.
I'll just slow down, smile, pass on the right, and say "Thanks for not doing it!" as I drive by.
I'm A Muscular Viking Prince Who Loves To Fatten Hot Bitches
Ok, you go there and try to click just once. And yes, I'm deeply ashamed.
What did you get?
What did you get?
Thursday, December 16, 2004
OBL: Self Proclaimed Mass Murderer
Fox News man, whatever you think about their politics, bias, and anything else, sometimes they just get it right. Just now, watching Shephard Smith's show, the guy filling in, introduced the story on the new Osama tape with the words, "self proclaimed mass murderer". Why do the other networks have such a hard time calling an evil killer exactly what he is?
Haven't Seen This in the MSM
The boys over at Powerline have some interesting poll numbers in Iraq that I haven't seen or heard anywhere else. Now these are pretty controversial, so prepare yourself. Ready?
It turns out the Iraqis want to vote. Go figure!
So, while fair weather war supporters like Andrew Sullivan, and more full time Bush bashers (see my "Answers for Kevin Drum" below) complain about the "disaster" in Iraq, it sure looks like we're beginning to win hearts and minds over there. Yup, its a slow process but you know so was reconstruction after WWII.
So, let Andrew write about Tommy Franks' alleged incompetence from his easy chair in P-town, the folks on the ground continue to get the work done. You've gotta love this country.
It turns out the Iraqis want to vote. Go figure!
So, while fair weather war supporters like Andrew Sullivan, and more full time Bush bashers (see my "Answers for Kevin Drum" below) complain about the "disaster" in Iraq, it sure looks like we're beginning to win hearts and minds over there. Yup, its a slow process but you know so was reconstruction after WWII.
So, let Andrew write about Tommy Franks' alleged incompetence from his easy chair in P-town, the folks on the ground continue to get the work done. You've gotta love this country.
Mmmmmm......That's Good Eat'in
I said this blog was going to be about all the things that make us happy. So far, it seems that has been limited exclusively to complaining about lib'ruls and faux Republican senators! Well, what do you expect, thats some good fun!
Alas, I know there are those of you out there that may not fully see the wisdom of conservatism yet, and my goodness I want you folks along for the ride too. So step one in my evil plan - all us conservatives are evil you know - is to tempt you with food.
Now this is gonna require some work on your part, but I made this dish the other night and every single dinner guest was vibrating with glee afterwards. Try it, you'll like it!
Smoke Chicken Ravioli, With Lovely Sage, Pecan Cream Sauce
Ingredients:
Filling:
5 strips smoky flavored bacon
4 Chicken Breasts, cut into medallions
4 Shallots, chopped
1/2 C dry white wine
2 C Ricotta - use the fat free and I come to your house and beat you silly
1/4C Parmagiano Reggiano - more if you like
Pepper to taste
Nutmeg to taste, but go easy here
1/2 lb. of thinly sliced prociutto
Sauce:
1/2C pecans
3T butter
2 Shallots
1/2c white wine
1 1/2C heavy cream
Pasta:
1 1/2C flour
2 eggs
10 oz frozen chopped spinach cooked, minced super dried of water
Step one: Make the filling
Fry bacon in pan until rendered. Remove bacon, but save grease. Chop shallots and saute in grease until translucent. Add chicken medallions and saute on medium heat for 6-8 minutes. Add wine, and cook until wine evaporates. Put chicken, and shallots in food processor and process until well ground, like sausage meat. Approximately 1 minute.
Put ricotta, parmagiano in bowl and mix. Add ingredients from food processor and combine completely. Season to taste with pepper and nutmeg. Consider salt, but cheese may do this for you already.
Make Pasta:
In Kitchen Aide or Food processor, add flour and then eggs one at a time and pulse until combined. Add Spinach and pulse. At this point a ball should form. If not, and a drop our two of water until you get a ball of dough - but be very careful, its easy to over do it at this point. Once you've got it, remove to floured surface, knead for one minute and then put through a pasta machine to form long pasta strips.
On each strip, take a ball of filling approximately one tsp. in size, wrap a small piece of prosciutto around it place on pasta and repeat until strip is filled with evenly spaced dots of filling on one half of strip. Now fold the unfilled half of the strip over the filling and press down forming little connected squares - these will be your ravioli. Cut with a knife and ensure that all sides are sealed. Remove to wax paper on a cookie sheet and finish with rest of pasta and filling.
Get the water boiling in a large pot to cook the ravioli
Now you make'a the sauce
Melt butter in the pan and add pecans. Saute for one minute or until nicely brown, remove from pan. Add shallots and saute until translucent. Add wine, cream and bring to gentle simmer. Simmer uncovered until reduced by one half.
As sauce is reducing, boil your ravioli in batches. As each batch cooks remove from the pot with a slotted spoon to a bowl and sprinkle a little oil on to prevent sticking.
Once sauce is done, return nuts to the sauce, serve ravioli in bowls and cover with sauce to taste.
Accept compliments graciously!
Alas, I know there are those of you out there that may not fully see the wisdom of conservatism yet, and my goodness I want you folks along for the ride too. So step one in my evil plan - all us conservatives are evil you know - is to tempt you with food.
Now this is gonna require some work on your part, but I made this dish the other night and every single dinner guest was vibrating with glee afterwards. Try it, you'll like it!
Smoke Chicken Ravioli, With Lovely Sage, Pecan Cream Sauce
Ingredients:
Filling:
5 strips smoky flavored bacon
4 Chicken Breasts, cut into medallions
4 Shallots, chopped
1/2 C dry white wine
2 C Ricotta - use the fat free and I come to your house and beat you silly
1/4C Parmagiano Reggiano - more if you like
Pepper to taste
Nutmeg to taste, but go easy here
1/2 lb. of thinly sliced prociutto
Sauce:
1/2C pecans
3T butter
2 Shallots
1/2c white wine
1 1/2C heavy cream
Pasta:
1 1/2C flour
2 eggs
10 oz frozen chopped spinach cooked, minced super dried of water
Step one: Make the filling
Fry bacon in pan until rendered. Remove bacon, but save grease. Chop shallots and saute in grease until translucent. Add chicken medallions and saute on medium heat for 6-8 minutes. Add wine, and cook until wine evaporates. Put chicken, and shallots in food processor and process until well ground, like sausage meat. Approximately 1 minute.
Put ricotta, parmagiano in bowl and mix. Add ingredients from food processor and combine completely. Season to taste with pepper and nutmeg. Consider salt, but cheese may do this for you already.
Make Pasta:
In Kitchen Aide or Food processor, add flour and then eggs one at a time and pulse until combined. Add Spinach and pulse. At this point a ball should form. If not, and a drop our two of water until you get a ball of dough - but be very careful, its easy to over do it at this point. Once you've got it, remove to floured surface, knead for one minute and then put through a pasta machine to form long pasta strips.
On each strip, take a ball of filling approximately one tsp. in size, wrap a small piece of prosciutto around it place on pasta and repeat until strip is filled with evenly spaced dots of filling on one half of strip. Now fold the unfilled half of the strip over the filling and press down forming little connected squares - these will be your ravioli. Cut with a knife and ensure that all sides are sealed. Remove to wax paper on a cookie sheet and finish with rest of pasta and filling.
Get the water boiling in a large pot to cook the ravioli
Now you make'a the sauce
Melt butter in the pan and add pecans. Saute for one minute or until nicely brown, remove from pan. Add shallots and saute until translucent. Add wine, cream and bring to gentle simmer. Simmer uncovered until reduced by one half.
As sauce is reducing, boil your ravioli in batches. As each batch cooks remove from the pot with a slotted spoon to a bowl and sprinkle a little oil on to prevent sticking.
Once sauce is done, return nuts to the sauce, serve ravioli in bowls and cover with sauce to taste.
Accept compliments graciously!
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Answers For Kevin Drum
I'm a bit late to the game, but Kevin Drum posts some "Questions for Conservatives" that he believes will be of service in promoting a "brutally honest conversation" among those of us who must be in his mind terribly misguided. The questions themselves ooze with condescension, and the existence of the list itself, seems to imply that the level of intellectual rigour on the conservative side is a bit lacking. This, when the liberal side of thought spans from the Daily Kos to MoveOn.org. Sigh.
My take for what its worth:
Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?
I'm not sure that any conservative has ever suggested that American military power is exclusively the way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East. I am sure, however, that 40 years of diplomacy, negotiations, and sumits have failed to do the trick. The sad fact is, that the cultures of the Middle East have one way or another led to government by tyrants and kleptocrats, sprawling poverty, growing ignorance, and the horrendous treatment of women as property.
Conservatives have rightly recognized that American foreign policy in the Middle East must be backed by American resolve, and yes, American power. As one arm of our strategic thrust, the removal of Saddam and corresponding establishment of an American Military presence in the middle of the region has completely changed the calculus of power. The next step of free elections in Iraq will now begin to change the thinking of those that have previously had to live under the repressive regimes of the middle east. Have you noted that the notorious Arab street remains relatively silent towards our "occupation". Having seen the changes, read the reports from all sides, and witnessed the steady progress towards freedom I am now more than ever certain that this is the right approach. I'm equally more certain that this will be a costly, and lengthy enterprise. Well worth it though.
Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?
Why would I worry about this. While I don't agree with my liberal counterparts on many if not most issues, I would assume that they're sufficiently sophisticated to know that Republicans represent a multitude of backgrounds, and come to our party for a variety of reasons. In many cases there are those such as myself who tend to vote Republican because the Democrats simply do not offer a viable alternative. It's sad, but largely true, that the intellectual rigour on the left departed long ago, beginning with the conversion of the neocons whom you guys so love to hate.
I assume by "their followers" you mean conservative Christians. Why would President Bush want to distance himself from these people. They try to live morally, believe in God, and want the best for their country. You may not agree with all they support and want to accomplish, and neither do I, but I support their right to promote their views, welcome their contribution to the political discourse and I would hope that you do too.
Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush's policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.
On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region?
This is really kind of a mess of a question, since it seems to imply that if President Bush's policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan is different than that towards Pakistan and Saudi Arabia then its very inconsistency reveals it to be corrupt. Sorry, can't play that game Kev. You should be sufficiently sophisticated to understand how each situation requires its own tactical response. You should also understand that all these individual tactical responses are related at the strategic level.
I will however point out, that if President Bush only wanted a stable oil supply he would have followed the advice of the French and many liberals in the U.S. and simply removed sanctions in return for sweetheart deals from Saddam.
Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.
Thanks for the implication that I'm not inclined to be honest. Sorry, I have little or no interest in these records though.
A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?
Wow, you must have access to the theories of those I've never met. I would have thought that any Christian would assume that if the Second Coming were going to begin, worldly issues such as those you describe would have little or no impact on it's occurence. I'm a pretty religious guy, and I must tell you I've never heard this theory. I have heard though, that there shouldn't be any compromises with Palestinians until they stop blowing people up. Can't say I disagree.
Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?
At this point I don't believe that an invasion of Iran is the clear first choice in the event that they build nuclear weapons. I would be more inclined to begin with tactical air strikes against the appropriate facilities, prior to actual weapon production. This would also not require a military draft.
If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.
Here is that implication of dishonesty again. What's the problem Kev? My answer doesn't change with the situation or the audience. You must be confusing me with John Kerry.
At any rate, I will support the draw down of our troops only when we can be reasonably certain that the country can be secured with Iraqi forces and police. I would like to see us move towards this moment as quickly as possible.
Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie's crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?
You mean the Laurie Mylroie who served as Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign? Sorry, I couldn't help one dig.
None-the-less, if so, I must say that I'm not very familiar with her theories, but I don't write off Saddam's association with terror quite as easily as it seems you do. For example, Saddam supported the families of suicide bombers with $50,000 payments. Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas had found sanctuary in pre-war Iraq. Of course Zarqawi, went to Iraq for treatment of wounds suffered in Afghanistan prior to the US invasion. As they say, "where there's smoke......"
Have at it folks!
My take for what its worth:
Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?
I'm not sure that any conservative has ever suggested that American military power is exclusively the way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East. I am sure, however, that 40 years of diplomacy, negotiations, and sumits have failed to do the trick. The sad fact is, that the cultures of the Middle East have one way or another led to government by tyrants and kleptocrats, sprawling poverty, growing ignorance, and the horrendous treatment of women as property.
Conservatives have rightly recognized that American foreign policy in the Middle East must be backed by American resolve, and yes, American power. As one arm of our strategic thrust, the removal of Saddam and corresponding establishment of an American Military presence in the middle of the region has completely changed the calculus of power. The next step of free elections in Iraq will now begin to change the thinking of those that have previously had to live under the repressive regimes of the middle east. Have you noted that the notorious Arab street remains relatively silent towards our "occupation". Having seen the changes, read the reports from all sides, and witnessed the steady progress towards freedom I am now more than ever certain that this is the right approach. I'm equally more certain that this will be a costly, and lengthy enterprise. Well worth it though.
Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?
Why would I worry about this. While I don't agree with my liberal counterparts on many if not most issues, I would assume that they're sufficiently sophisticated to know that Republicans represent a multitude of backgrounds, and come to our party for a variety of reasons. In many cases there are those such as myself who tend to vote Republican because the Democrats simply do not offer a viable alternative. It's sad, but largely true, that the intellectual rigour on the left departed long ago, beginning with the conversion of the neocons whom you guys so love to hate.
I assume by "their followers" you mean conservative Christians. Why would President Bush want to distance himself from these people. They try to live morally, believe in God, and want the best for their country. You may not agree with all they support and want to accomplish, and neither do I, but I support their right to promote their views, welcome their contribution to the political discourse and I would hope that you do too.
Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush's policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.
On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region?
This is really kind of a mess of a question, since it seems to imply that if President Bush's policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan is different than that towards Pakistan and Saudi Arabia then its very inconsistency reveals it to be corrupt. Sorry, can't play that game Kev. You should be sufficiently sophisticated to understand how each situation requires its own tactical response. You should also understand that all these individual tactical responses are related at the strategic level.
I will however point out, that if President Bush only wanted a stable oil supply he would have followed the advice of the French and many liberals in the U.S. and simply removed sanctions in return for sweetheart deals from Saddam.
Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.
Thanks for the implication that I'm not inclined to be honest. Sorry, I have little or no interest in these records though.
A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?
Wow, you must have access to the theories of those I've never met. I would have thought that any Christian would assume that if the Second Coming were going to begin, worldly issues such as those you describe would have little or no impact on it's occurence. I'm a pretty religious guy, and I must tell you I've never heard this theory. I have heard though, that there shouldn't be any compromises with Palestinians until they stop blowing people up. Can't say I disagree.
Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?
At this point I don't believe that an invasion of Iran is the clear first choice in the event that they build nuclear weapons. I would be more inclined to begin with tactical air strikes against the appropriate facilities, prior to actual weapon production. This would also not require a military draft.
If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.
Here is that implication of dishonesty again. What's the problem Kev? My answer doesn't change with the situation or the audience. You must be confusing me with John Kerry.
At any rate, I will support the draw down of our troops only when we can be reasonably certain that the country can be secured with Iraqi forces and police. I would like to see us move towards this moment as quickly as possible.
Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie's crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?
You mean the Laurie Mylroie who served as Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign? Sorry, I couldn't help one dig.
None-the-less, if so, I must say that I'm not very familiar with her theories, but I don't write off Saddam's association with terror quite as easily as it seems you do. For example, Saddam supported the families of suicide bombers with $50,000 payments. Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas had found sanctuary in pre-war Iraq. Of course Zarqawi, went to Iraq for treatment of wounds suffered in Afghanistan prior to the US invasion. As they say, "where there's smoke......"
Have at it folks!
John McCain: American Statesman
I've kept reasonably quiet over time about faux Republican John McCain for a variety of reasons. First of all, the man is a genuine American hero for his service in Vietnam, and the incomprehensibly brutal imprisoning he endured at the hands of our communist enemies. Secondly, I'm not all that enamored with Republicans and I think that a disturbingly high percentage of the Party of Lincoln are principleless hacks. Since the party took power in Washington in 1994 spending, deficits, and regulation have spiraled out of control. Reagan would not recognize what his party has become.
But we're talking about the Senator from Arizona here.
It was a while ago, but John McCain first came to my attention as a member of the Keating Five. While Senator McCain was found to have acted questionably, no serious charges were ever filed. None-the-less, I've always wondered just what motivates this "maverick" Senator.
The answer, it seems to me, is an inordinate focus on the goodwill of ole Johnny, as opposed to the people of the United States. Is there ever an opinion that McCain takes that isn't motivated by his desire to cultivate positive press? Lets face it, sticking it publicly to the President has served McCain well over the years. It comes as no surprise then that the minute some Republicans express doubt about Rumsfeld, McCain runs for the cameras to assert his vote of no confidence? My guess is that McCain's greatest concern was not with Rumsfeld ability, but rather that fellow faux Republican Chuck Hagle had beat him out on the stump. Some Leadership.
Yet a biased press, and misguided Republicans such as William Kristol, whose track record of backing winning candidates is among the worst on record, continue to promote this guy as presidential timber. Right. A man who in the middle of the most significant international conflict since the cold war, is preoccupied with steroids in baseball, and now a national boxing commission.
The point is, it's easy to be a senator like John McCain. Just make sure that you're never responsible for anything, and reliably express opinions that media can count on to reinforce their current version of the truth. Wa la! You're the next media darling, just don't screw up, cuz the fall is brutal.
But we're talking about the Senator from Arizona here.
It was a while ago, but John McCain first came to my attention as a member of the Keating Five. While Senator McCain was found to have acted questionably, no serious charges were ever filed. None-the-less, I've always wondered just what motivates this "maverick" Senator.
The answer, it seems to me, is an inordinate focus on the goodwill of ole Johnny, as opposed to the people of the United States. Is there ever an opinion that McCain takes that isn't motivated by his desire to cultivate positive press? Lets face it, sticking it publicly to the President has served McCain well over the years. It comes as no surprise then that the minute some Republicans express doubt about Rumsfeld, McCain runs for the cameras to assert his vote of no confidence? My guess is that McCain's greatest concern was not with Rumsfeld ability, but rather that fellow faux Republican Chuck Hagle had beat him out on the stump. Some Leadership.
Yet a biased press, and misguided Republicans such as William Kristol, whose track record of backing winning candidates is among the worst on record, continue to promote this guy as presidential timber. Right. A man who in the middle of the most significant international conflict since the cold war, is preoccupied with steroids in baseball, and now a national boxing commission.
The point is, it's easy to be a senator like John McCain. Just make sure that you're never responsible for anything, and reliably express opinions that media can count on to reinforce their current version of the truth. Wa la! You're the next media darling, just don't screw up, cuz the fall is brutal.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Pursuit of Happiness - Red State / Blue State Versions
The NYT editorialized that Hardee's new Monster Thick Burger was lethal. The Chicago Tribune rightfully calls it a Monument to Decadance. Thank goodness that the Trib hasn't been completely lost liberal orthodoxy. Phil Vettel, food critic - and lets face would be more correctly named, Phil Vittles - has the review. 1420 glorious calories!
Friday, December 10, 2004
Not Very Smart
So what's dumber than writing your passwords down on a PostIt and affixing them to your monitor? How about telling the world about it in the Wall Street Journal!
Good news though, she doesn't do anything important like, I don't know, monitoring drug trials!
Good news though, she doesn't do anything important like, I don't know, monitoring drug trials!
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
Defending Kofi. Badly
Can't add much to this, the Times is in full cka (cover Kofi's ass) mode. After all these years is anyone still buying it from the aging whore?
Funny... I thought it was the country's war, not President Bush's. Man he must be really strong!
Funny... I thought it was the country's war, not President Bush's. Man he must be really strong!
Only in Florida
Well it probably has happened elsewhere, but lets face it. Florida is an embarrassment for the rest of the nation - pick-ups parked on front lawns to save room for the couch on the driveway, gators running free everywhere, sun fried yokels indiscriminately shootin at critters and now this......
Why not just admit you're an idiot and get it over with?
Why not just admit you're an idiot and get it over with?
National Review Online Vs. Powerline!!!
Well its come to this. Two of my favorite blogs, turn against each other in pursuit of some ill conceived (at best) blog award. My how we go from alternative media to mainstream lucre hounds at warp speed these days. Ok, I know that no money is involved, but I have heard that the awards are really sparkly. Well I guess then that I'm playing the role of the playground kids standing on the periphery shouting "fight, fight, fight" but so be it. Maybe this will turn into a caged grudge match between jonah and Hindrocket lathered up and fighting to the death. Sorry for the bad mental image.
Happy Hanukkah!
Not going to be wishing "Happy Holidays" this year, we're celebrating events of wonder and joy. The events that give our life meaning and purpose. So here's a Happy Hanukkah to all. Annika posted George Bush's Hanukkah message which I link to here because I like her blog, the message is great and frankly I need to figure out if I know how to do this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)