Newt's Big Run

I'm a fan of Newt Gingrich.

This, to paraphrase Homer Simpson, is I suppose my secret shame. It's not that I fully agree with Newt on all things, nor is it the sort of fawning love that liberals all over like to suppose conservatives feel for leaders of their movement. No, the truth is I like Newt and I accept him with all his warts. I keenly remember the genius of his "Contract with America" which successfully nationalized what previously had been local elections of members of Congress. It was a strategic and tactical masterstroke from which Democrats are still trying to recover. I also remember his failure at implementation following victory. To this day I can still taste the bittersweet result that was not unlike getting your date in the back seat of the car and then not being able to deftly unclip her bra.

Disappointment, accusations, crying and ultimately a long silent ride back home

Still, like so many conservatives, Newt is a thinker. Unlike the liberals in the west who's last great idea was the WPA (notably a tactic, not a strategy....liberals aren't great on the strategy), conservatives are blessed with a lot of great ideas. True, our implementation isn't always the best, but the one key reason we keep whipping the libbys like an old worn out horse is because we have ideas and they have......well....they have John Kerry.

And Ted.

And Hillary.

And Barbara,

And White Flag.

You get the point.

Oh we've got our embarassments too. Tom Delay, that Cunningham feller, and many more. The difference is that we also have ideas.

In the attached interview Newt comes forth with an idea that to conservatives will not be all that surprising; we're in WW III. I found this link at my pal Tom's site. Tom, echoing the liberal zeitgeist refers to Newt's idea as one more attempt to scare America and this time vote Newt into office. I was going to comment over at Tom's, but the discussion became so involved that I didn't have time to do that and post here so my spot won out.

The fact is, that no matter how you look at it, Newt is right. We are in WW III and this is no attempt to scare us, rather, it is a very clear attempt to wake us up. Liberals have pointed out in many places, and Tom is no exception, that we can't be in WW III if the entire world isn't fighting which is both myopic and self deluding. It, in fact misses entirely, Newt's point. As per Newt, the reason the whole world isn't fighting is because western liberals refuse to acknowledge that we're at war!

For those old enough to remember the cold war, this scenario is not so unfamiliar. Despite what the left says now, we experienced a similar dynamic back then as well. Even at the height of the cold war, the left insisted that the Soviet Union was not bent on world domination, and meant us no harm; they just wanted to co-exist and to be left alone. The truth has since come out.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union we've documented this liberal fairy tale for what it is. A dream, and a dangerous one at that. At the time conservatives rightly referred to this type of thinking as a policy of appeasement. Thank God that we fought it tooth and nail.

Today's left follows a similar script. In their words, we've forced Islam to this point, and really, all they want is to be left alone. This ignores the facts that are as plain as any signal the Soviet Union sent during the cold war. Islam is bent on world domination, it is intolerant of non-believers, and it is the source of every major act of terrorism in the world today, and has been for years. States sponsor this terror, Wahabism is teaches death, and Palestinian TV teaches martyrdom, to name just a few examples.

What the left refuses to acknowledge is this; just because one side refuses to fight, doesn't mean we're not at war.

So Newt is trying to wake the left up by forcing them to confront a basic fact; we are at war. It is not pretty, it is not comfortable, and everything that we have done to fight the war may not have been correct. Hell, Newt's words acknowledge this and could (most likely will) be interpreted as an attack against our President. Still, the fact remains, we are at war and we need members of the left to quit their cackling, stop trying to score cheap political points, and get in the game. If you don't like Newt's ideas fine. If you don't like Bush's policies that is fine too.

But for the sake of our country and western civilization, get in the game.

Yes, But We Support The Troops

Well, I am now officially speechless; slackjawed with absolutely nothing to say. The New York Times, who's editorial board and reporters, who all support the troops don't cha ya know, has listed the attached link in a "memorable pictures" slideshow. From the site:

"A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.

Michele McNally: “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”

Umm, well not exactly deary. Your honorable sniper who is loyal to the Shite cleric is actually a scumbag terrorist shooting at American soldiers and trying to kill our sons and daughters. As Jeff Goldstein points out, this is not incredible courage, this is what it looks like to be used as a tool for the enemy. And make no mistake about it, the NYT these days seems to have an over abundance of tools on their staff.

But go ahead dear Michele. Sit there in your comfortable little air conditioned cube and stare at pictures of the Sadr "freedom fighters" as you get all moist thinking about their heroic resistance to the Bushitler occupying forces. They're so strong! So sweaty and full of the musky scent of true rebels! Such animal passion! So authentic! Not anything like a silly college grad who, you know, wanted to do something important with her life but instead took a comfy job in New York so she could feel the vibe of the city and now wonders if maybe, maybe, she might have sold out.

Just try not to ruin your lusty visions with any inconvenient thoughts about how your Mr. Sadr, the Shite cleric, would separate your head from your body and mail it to your parents for the crime of, you know, not being covered and stuff.

Idiot.

Rockin' Tune of the Weekend: The Hives

PD1 and I have an ongoing debate about which of today's bands can be considered punk. I won't rehash that argument here, but I will say that two bands occupy the opposite ends of our agreement spectrum. First, we have the band on which we disagree most vehemently; Greenday.

PD1 will argue until the cows come home (and on a recent trip to Indianapolis she actually did just that) that Billy Joe and the boys are punk defined. While the structure and power of her opinion is impressive for a 14 year old, any true music fan immediately recognizes this opinion for what it is.

Total bunk.

Greenday, may have been "punkish" when they first hit in the early '90's, but they never were punk despite the best efforts of their publicists to convince us otherwise. In fact, the band from that era that was most punk was a wonderful little group from LA of all places called Offspring.

But I digress. Today's selection represents the band that we both can agree on: The Hives. Man these guys just rock. While it is hard to find a true punk band these days, PD1 and I find common ground in our opinions on The Hives. It's true, their tunes are fantastic, and they're full of attitude.

The best thing about these guys though, is that they're from Sweden.

Can you believe it? Sweden, land of snow, cold and the originators of the concept of "bland"! I mean I'm sure Sweden is a wonderful place, and I hear the women are very attractive, but culturally, if we're going to be totally honest, our friends the Swedes haven't really been pulling their own weight.

First we all remember that instead of putting a stop to the nonsense before it gained momentum, the Swedes unleashed ABBA on the world. A horrifying sonic assault of cloyingly sweet diddies about nothing in particular, ABBA at one time was so successful as to have represented something like 90% of the country's GNP. Interestingly, I heard that as a result most of the money in Sweden during that time was stained with peach lip gloss and bubblegum residue. Which would be just desserts, but my guess is the Swedes may have actually liked that.

Then we have Lutefisk. For those of you lucky enough to have escaped any contact with this loathsome dish allow me to educate you. Lutefisk is fish that has been preserved in lye and buried in the ground. Can you imagine the deranged mind that came up with this contribution to the culinary arts? Even more bizarre is the fact that the lye thing is wholly unnecessary! I mean come on! The whole friggin' country is frozen solid 11 months of the year, so just bury the fish in the ground Sven!

No, Sweden really hasn't been good for much to be completely honest. Now, though, we have something the Carlssons, Peterssons and Nielssons can be proud of. We have The Hives. If there is any justice in this world gone mad, the King (they have a King don't they?) will give them some sort of award.

So there you go. Today's lesson: Greenday = wussie boys, The Swedes = bizarrely depressive fish preservers and The Hives = punk.

Anybody who disagrees is itchin' for a fight.

Fasting: It's Not Just For Cindy Anymore!

This shocking video reveals that fasting, long the proprietary tactic of the left, can now be embraced by us righties too!

You know, because we support the troops and all.

Gay Games?

Well we're very excited, all a twitter you might say, here in Chicago! This weekend kicks off the week long Gay Games extravaganza!

I personally don't have any problems with our gay friends running and jumping all over town, in fact, compared to the Pride Parade I think it's great. The problem for me is that the whole thing seems a bit contrived don't you think? I mean gay games? Why on earth would we need that?

I understand the Special Olympics (which if you're lucky I'll write about the day I umped a softball game for some mentally disabled kids - deeply moving), but a special set aside for gay athletics seems bizarre to me. I mean why this distinction? Are Gay atheletes not able to compete elsewhere? Do they have some novel approach that would cause people to think, "Sure, I've seen Figure Skating, but what I really want to watch is Gay Figure Skating".

Ok, maybe that isn't the best example.

Still, what is the point? It's as if I hosted a series of games for guys who had people who dreamt that they looked like David Ogden Stiers! Sure, it's a valid distinction, and indeed a very scary one in, but given all that, it is not the type of thing that necessarily makes for great competition.

Or great viewing for that matter!

Still, the games will go on and we here at the POH wish our intrepid competitors nothing but the best. I have just one question.

Is there some test to make sure the gay competitors are truly gay?

Selection Bias Illustrated

Well this is about the dumbest use of scientific research that I have seen come down the pike in a long time. As the linked article describes, researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine gave 36 volunteers the active drug in "magic mushrooms", psilocybin, and then had the test subjects describe their experience. Unsurprisingly, the subjects were somewhat overwhelmed and described profoundly mood altering trips that crossed the border of normal consciousness into the mystical.

Umm, why do you think they call them "hallucinogens"? Are we sure these guys are doctors?

After collecting the data, researchers found that these subjects often described their trips as some of the more profound experiences that they've ever had, bordering on the religious. In some cases people suggested that their behavior was changed for weeks after the experiments. The conclusion that our researchers seemed to draw was that psilocybin held promise for helping people learn to love and care more for their fellow man.

My conclusion, as you can imagine, was somewhat different; Selection bias. Our researchers unwittingly picked an experimental group that needed to get a life:

"The study volunteers had an average age of 46, had never used hallucinogens, and participated to some degree in religious or spiritual activities like prayer, meditation, discussion groups or religious services. Each tried psilocybin during one visit to the lab and the stimulant methylphenidate (better known as Ritalin) on one or two other visits. Only six of the volunteers knew when they were getting psilocybin."

Hmmmmm, lets see.....our subjects averaged 46 years of age. That would mean they went to high school in the late seventies and to college in the early 80's and yet they never, ever managed to use any hallucinogenic substances? What in God's name were they doing then when they put on Dark Side of the Moon?! The obvious answer is that they were doing nothing, that couldn't be accomplished in the AV lounge, or the library - not that there is anything wrong with that - it's just that these folks aren't likely to have had a whole lot of exciting experiences from which they could credibly compare sitting in a lab with a blindfold on tripping their brains out.

I'm not 'fessing up to anything here folks, other than having had a good time in my youth at certain moments, but as any veteran of the '70's will tell you, drugs are not the way to finding spiritual fulfillment, or any sort of inner peace. They're nothing more than a way to check out for a while.

That, and be incredibly entertained by flicking the room lights on and off in time to the beat of the music.

Holy Smokes!

Scene: Pursuit stepping out on the back patio, inhales deeply

Pursuit: "Ahhhhhhhhhhh...do you smell that?"

Mrs. P rolling eyes: "Yes, dear I do"

Pursuit: "I love the smell of cherry wood in the morning."

Mrs. P: "Yes, I'm sure the neighbors do as well dear"

Pursuit taking another deep breath and exhaling: "It smells like.......it smells like victory!"

End of scene.

Well, I woke up this morning and as we discussed what today's culinary adventure might be, Mrs. P suggested I whip some more of those fine pork ribs that I prepared last Sunday. While I thought this might be an excellent idea, I've been hankerin' for some beef brisket and so a plan was born.

Typically I like to do beef with apple wood, but tragically I seem to be out so I'm going to try a little something different today. I'm starting with Cherry wood, which should carry me through most of the day. I am doing a 6 pound brisket and I think I'm going to go for around 11 hours, low and slow which means I'll have to shift to hickory at some point. In my opinion hickory doesn't work as well with beef, but I'm told by many folks that I'm just plain wrong on this issue so we'll see what happens.

Above, are starting pics of the raw brisket, and then the rubbed brisket as it was entering the smoking chamber.

More later.

UPDATE: Monday morning. Sorry, things got a little busy yesterday. End result: Mixed I'd say. I smoked at around 160 degrees, which was too low to break down the fibers. I did the full 11 hours, and while taste was good, and the moisture level was excellent, the meat was still a bit tough. I might go ahead and put it in the oven, covered for 2 hours tonight at 220 to see if I can't break it down a bit.