I realize that it has been a while since my last bloviation. I guess between election fatigue and finals fatigue, and the low turnout to this site, I just haven't paid it much mind. I don't have much to add right now, except to simply hope that all of you enjoy the beautiful spirit of this wonderful, miraculous holy-day season and feel of God's love for you.
P.S. Here's a fun tongue-twister to keep you busy this week:
Gay activists are protesting several churches, most pronounced being the LDS Church, because they are angry about losing the ability to wed each other in California. Members of the LDS Church contributed nearly half of the fund to support Prop 8 in California. It is fair enough that gay activists should be angry about losing an election. It is also fair enough for them to believe that they have the right to marry each other. Although I disagree with them, I can concede that they believe it is their right.
I believe that it is not a fundamental right for a man to marry a man. A person's homosexual tendencies are certainly something they have a right to act upon in the privacy of their own home. I do not believe those tendencies make that person any different from me in the eyes of the law. Therefore, I do not believe the law should extend to a person with homosexual tendencies any more protection than it extends to me. I do not have the right to marry a man, two women, or a goat. I do agree that, by law, those rights could be extended to me. But I do not believe that they have to be extended to me. That is because they are not fundamental rights, such as the right to speak freely without censorship from the government.
But even that right, as fundamental as it is, can be restricted where it interferes with substantial and critical societal norms, such as safety, and in some instances, decency. For example, one is not free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater because to extend that right would harm those in the theater and cause the government to exert resources that it otherwise shouldn't have to. This is just one example of a societal concern that trumps certain fundamental rights, and is not exclusive. There are numerous other societal concerns that would trump other fundamental rights.
Marriage is one of those rights that is beneficial to society, but which society can define. If society determines that certain types of marriage are harmful to society, then society has every right and responsibility to curb the exercise of the right to marry. In order for society to make that determination, certain elements in that society must be free to exert influence and pressure, in other words, to exercise its right to speek freely on matters of societal concern. This is what happened here.
Now, gay activists have the same right to try to exert influence and pressure on society to see things its way. They certainly exercised that right, and are continuing to do so. What I find rather humorous on one hand and hypocritical on the other, is that they feel that they should attempt to exert that influence on churches. I find this humorous because I consider it to be a great waste of their time and energy. See, the Church believes that God's will is that we should attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage. There are a number of reasons for this, and you are certainly welcome to speak with a member of the LDS Church to find out why. But if the Church believes this is God's will, and the Church believes that it is led by a prophet of God, then all the protesting in the world will not change the Church's stance.
There are two things I find hypocritical. First, this ridiculous allegation that the Church and its members are bigoted. This coming from a group who is protesting because it thinks religion has no place in this debate. People who espouse homosexuality as OK have adopted a religious stance, whether they want to call it by some other term. They believe that it is OK, and we believe that it is not. But, in the rhetoric, the bigotry comes only from those who claim that it is not OK?
Second, gay activists are calling for the IRS to strip the Church of its tax exempt status. Yet, how many of their organizations are paying taxes on the funds they raised in opposition to the proposition? A church is a social institution, established to promote social values. When those social values are threatened in the political arena, must the Church be expected to simply stand aside, while those values which it promotes and holds dear are threatened? Look at the flip side. Gay organizations are established to promote societal values. When those values are threatened in the political arena, must those organizations be expected to simply stand aside?
All I ask is for some intellectual honesty. If you decide to embrace a lifestyle that you know is offensive to certain religions, don't go demanding that those religions change their doctrines to accept your lifestyle. Live what you believe, try for political change, and try to convince society to accept you. But don't demand acceptance where you, at the same time, refuse to offer it.
Just a quick note.
(Disclaimer: I am not a fan of the bailout... I have 2 shares of AIG stock.)
AIG is in the sales business. That means it has to provide incentive to its sales people. Having sold insurance, I can tell you that a luxury trip to Puerto Rico one year was incentive to get my butt in gear for the next luxury trip.
I know that we gave money to this company, and we expect it to act responsibly... now. But acting responsibly means that it has to improve or maintain its sales force. It also has to continue training and education. If we put too much scrutiny on every activity this company does in the course of its business, without looking at whether that activity is beneficial to the growth and stability of the company, then we will run it down and lose our huge investment.
We should still be able to put certain concessions on the companies we give our tax dollars to, and, of course, we should expect them to act responsibly. For example, if we wind up bailing out Detroit, we can certainly require that the unions make huge concessions (like disbanding?). But the autoworkers wages and benefits add to the price of production. Sales people add to the profits. The better they sell, the better the company's bottom line.
So let them sell. Sell, baby, sell!
Be careful what you wish for...
1. Change. Change is nice... if you save enough of it up, you can divide it up between the kids for a good time at Silver Dollar City. Change is not so fun, however, when you have to scrape it together to pay for gas for the next few days. Change is in the air, and unfortunately, it's giving off a rather foul odor. A radio commentator accidentally stated that "Obama is rewriting history!" How's that for a flub of the day.
2. Hope. Hope is nice... if there is a chance of it being realized. Hope is not so nice when it's all you've got. I had once hoped that I might make a few bucks, and could give back to others, in appreciation for their assistance in getting me here. I now hope I can make enough bucks to make up for the bigger chunk of change I'll be losing by making those few bucks.
3. A New America. That would be nice... if it means protecting my liberty and letting me enrich others with my own ambitious attempts to better my situation. It would not be so nice if means standing in line behind everyone else who is waiting for the next bread crust to be tossed his way.
Looking for the positives...
1. This is a corner-turning election. Obama inspired many people who have otherwise felt invisible in a political sense to become politically active. Blacks and minorities will hopefully see that we are not a latently racist people. Now, when a person is elected president despite his/her minority status, then we will have arrived somewhere great.
2. Kudos to California, Arizona, Arkansas, and (I think?) Florida for recognizing the importance of protecting the sanctity of families and the rights of children to be raised in a loving home with a father and a mother committed to each other.
3. Republicans can now soul-search for why they have strayed so far from those core principles that made us so strong and attractive. The other side doesn't have them. But because they cannot be found here, people will go to whomever promises them the moon. Get back to smaller government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, and constitutional directive. Realize that your biases are what killed you. Who could have beat Obama on the economy? How about the guy that deals with economic issues for a living? Sounds great, except that he's a Mormon! He may be a Mormon, but it took morons to give him the boot.
The Great Tent Approach is fine, so long as those under the tent can agree to the core principles. Trying to redefine your party is fine, too. Just don't do it merely for the sake of prolonging the life of the party. I always get nervous when Republicans start talking about what we can do to attract more people. That usually means "what can we compromise in order to win?". If you are going to redefine the party, get back to those principles stated above. If they are true principles of good government, then people will see them, see that they work, and then want to associate. If you just look for what's going to attract the most people, you will be redefining continually ad nauseum, because people are fickle and lazy, and fickle and lazy people tend to drift with the wind of the day.
1. McCain has experience: served in the Senate since the early 80's, served in the armed forces, as a commander, for years before that, served in Vietnam.
Remember when the Reid and Pelosi wanted be the de facto president? Remember that? They thought that if they legislated an end to the war, the real President shouldn't be able to call them on it. Remember that? (Check this old post.) Fortunately, they quickly discovered a small thing we call the Constitution which provided a little check on the legislature. The dynamic duo were muffled and the war continued unhindered.
With a vote for Obama, there will be very little need for that pesky little Constitution. There will no longer be a check on the majority. And those now in power who have been chomping at the bit to get busy spreading the wealth (other's wealth) will have nothing to stop them. Oh sure, there's that pesky little thing we call the Supreme Court, but because it is conservative, it is pretty bound by that little constitution thing to deciding only constitutional things. It can't veto stupid legislation, or legislation that merely destroys that pesky little thing we call capitalism.
If the pollsters have their way, we will soon have a socialist lawyer running the "free" world. He and his ilk have long longed to be more like Europe, to place equality above liberty. He uses words such as "middle class" and "wealthy" to avoid pesky little words such as "proletariat" and "bourgoise" to avoid letting his redness slip.
McCain concerned conservatives because of his willingness to sell out, er, reach out, across the aisle. However, his history has demonstrated that he supports the traditional American dream. That is that we can pursue whatever legitimate course of employment or venture we think will get us where we want to be. This requires an adherence to the basic concept that, except for government's inept interference, the markets will adjust themselves, the wealthy, and those growing wealthy, will employ others, in their quest to acquire more wealth. Based on McCain's history, we can feel somewhat comfortable that when he reaches across the aisle, it will be to those Democrats who also adhere to these ideals.
On the other hand, Obama's history leaves us with little hope that we can attain what he and the current elite already have. The best we can do is hope for a few crumbs of bread. As a member of the extreme upper-lower/lower-middle class, I want to hope for better. I want to hope that I can eventually see success in business, such that I am making good money. While I am not looking to become rich, I would sure like to become so should good fortune fall my way. I don't see that under Obama. His history of associations and comments seems to speak otherwise.
I know a man who told his prospective employer that he didn't want to be paid more than $xx,000. Why? Our already existing socialist programs have been very good to him and his family. Should he make more than that, he stands to lose it all, which would require that he make much more in order to make up for those benefits. See, socialism creates large gaps between just getting by and getting ahead. As the government gives, we can get by on $xx,000, but if we make more than that, we actually do worse, unless we can get to $xxx,000. Since that is a very difficult gap to overcome, why try? Even if we do, we are then rewarded with a much higher tax burden "to help those who are following". So we then have to hit $x,000,000 before we can really breathe. The more we socialize, the more difficult that gap becomes.
That's about all my scary thoughts for now.
This wig hurts.
My wife and I have discovered one of the most fantastic television shows to come along in a long time. "Pushing Daisies" is about a pie maker with an extraordinary gift: he can bring the dead to life just by touching them. I know this sounds morbid, but the artistry and chemistry of this show makes it fun and enjoyable. It is very well written, and stars an unusual and bizarre cast of characters. It is a love story of childhood sweethearts who can't ever touch.
See, while Ned the Piemaker (black tie) can bring the dead back to life, he can also send them back to their eternal rest by touching them once again. In fact, if the person, or thing, remains alive for longer than one minute, something else of similar stature will die. He saved his beloved dog, Digby (the hairy one), as a child, and is resigned to petting him with a backscratcher for the rest of his life.
A private investigator (purple shirt) discovered Ned's secret and recruited him for an unfair advantage in solving murder mysteries. I mean, how many crimes wouldn't be easier to solve if you could just ask the dead guy who killed him? As fortune would have it, one of these dead guys was Ned's long-lost childhood sweetheart, Chuck (the girl in yellow). Now how could he be expected to put her back to sleep?
Chuck has two "aunts" (standing together in the back) who don't know she is alive. To make for some fun (and extremely hilarious) romantic (and otherwise) comedy, cue that really hot blonde chick. She is a real hoot who really carries the show.
The narration sounds much like the old Winnie the Pooh, and the writing is very whimsical. The show is a real jewel. The last show that I felt this passionate about was "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.", a fun western that lasted only one short season in the early '90's.
I bring this show to your attention because I need your support. I just discovered that the show is threatened with cancellation. Just watch one episode (Wednesday nights) and I guarantee you will be hooked. Then get someone else to watch just one episode (so they, too, will get hooked). Eventually, someone who has been recruited by Nelson ratings will watch, and love it, too. And then, voila! We won't have to worry about it going extinct.
Just one episode. Please?
Edited: The show airs on Wednesdays, not Thursdays!
Barack Obama, the Democrat 34 37 40 40 42
John McCain, the Republican 35 35 36 41 39
Bob Barr, the Libertarian - - 1 1 2
Ralph Nader, the independent 3 2 2 2 1
Someone else (specify) 5 3 3 2 1
Don’t know 22 22 17 14 15
Refused / Not Answered 0 0 0 0 0
Barack Obama, the Democrat 14 16 12 14
John McCain, the Republican 18 17 21 18
Bob Barr, the Libertarian - 1 1 1
Ralph Nader, the independent 3 3 0 1
No, don’t lean toward any of
these candidates 26 28 20 20
Don’t know 39 34 45 45
Refused / Not Answered 1 1 1 2
Suppose I attended a church for 20 years, a significant time during which the preacher taught that the adult-child relationship should be very intimate, that children should be taught the ways of adults at a very early age, and other such incendiary notions. But after 20 years of attendance, I said, "I don't remember hearing such things, and even if those things were taught, I only believed in the other things that were being taught, or I only attended because my family had been going there for years."
And suppose that during that time, I helped channel money into organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association.
And suppose that during that time, I associated with a man who was an unrepentant mass child molester and purveyor of kiddie porn, twenty years ago, and only seven years ago stated that he didn't think he had molested enough kids, but was now actively involved in building fun day care centers.
Would you let me baby sit your kids?
The dangers of auto-fill.
As I was walking out the door today, Mrs. The Practicalist sweetly reminded me that she really loved me... no matter what I saw today... on the internet... on my blogsite.
Now, if that didn't raise my eyebrows... and suspicions.
So, I naturally had to waste company time to peruse the internet to see what kind of trouble she got me in.
Just look below, at that last post. That is obviously not my writing. I love my wife (as my old momma used to say, God Bless Her), but anyone who knows me knows...
Wednesdays are set aside for the Sound of Music!
Good thing nobody ever reads this thing.
(ikinya2babe! Now get off my blog site!)
I Like Tulips
and the fuzzy part of the Q-tip
I like shopping cart wheels
and the sound of paint thinner
I like to stand on books
and hop over ants
I like that T comes after S
and think B should have came first
I watch the Sound of Music on Tuesdays
and I drink out of the Milk carton on Thursdays
That is what I like
and I KIN YOU:D
Heavens! Biden is mildly upset that a sheriff introducing Sarah Palin referred to the Democratic candidate as... get this... Barak
Hussein
Obama
Oh, Goodness. Not only can "we" not say "we" to refer to ourselves, now, "we" cannot even reference the candidate's. own. name. as to do so is epithetic... or mean politicking by racist Republicans. (I think its just pathetic... meaning stupid. Biden thinks it is epitaphic... meaning a statement on Barak's political gravestone?)
Talk about ugly. Talk about desparate.
The AP has clearly shown its bias. Take a look at this story.
And this story.
Let's break it down. Palin finally 'goes public' with Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, an issue which has only been explored by Fox and conservative talk hosts, except when briefly mentioned with scoffing dismissal by the Main Stream Media. Because Palin, the Veep candidate, actually said it, three times, in fact, the AP has no choice but to report it. So, it reports it. Here's how:
During her stop in California, Palin was asked about an Associated Press analysis that said her charge about Ayers was unsubstantiated, a point made by other news organizations, and the criticism carried a "racially tinged subtext that McCain may come to regret."
"The Associated Press is wrong," Palin said, before arguing that the issue had not been adequately discussed.
In fact, Obama was questioned about Ayers during a prime-time Democratic debate against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton prior to April's Pennsylvania primary.
Oh, it was adequately discussed? Because it came out as a question in a primary debate? How come I don't recall seeing any mention of that in the media at that time?
Unsubstantiated? The AP seems a little contradictory here...
Her reference was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.
Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers' radical views and actions.
Just like he denounced that preacher dude?
And what was this "racially tinged" stuff?
Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?
In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.
Republicans, when will you learn? You have got to avoid using the following racially charged words:
1. we
2. us
3. they
4. them
5. our
6. their
7. Constitution
8. God
9. bless
10. America
The AP, in the spirit of bipartisanship, did at least acknowledge that:
Obama isn't above attacking McCain's character with loaded words, releasing an ad on Sunday that calls the Arizona Republican "erratic" — a hard-to miss suggestion that McCain's age, 72, might be an issue.
"Our financial system in turmoil," an announcer says in Obama's new ad. "And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy."
Only to point out that:
A harsh and plainly partisan judgment, certainly, but not on the level of suggesting that a fellow senator is un-American and even a friend of terrorists.
The AP then just went on to point out how wrong this 'unsubstantiated' 'Swift-boat' 'character' attack is.
Yes, this is actually being considered a 'character attack', rather than an attack on the man's political viewpoints. A character attack is generally dismissed by the public. Political viewpoints, however, really ought to be aired in the public laundromat.
Quote of the day:
"It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."
A long time ago, I enrolled in my company's stock purchase plan and wound up with a few shares of American General stock at a pretty good price. After I sold a few to pay for Christmas, AG sold out to AIG. I get a check every few months for about $0.52. As you know, AIG has been making headlines lately. I am, like most Americans, very concerned about my underfunded, and now underperforming, retirement plan. That is why I support this $700- excuse me $815 BILLION bailout plan. Because, see, 52 cents every few months is just inexcusable. I remember the good old days when I saw 54 cent paychecks. If these things get any lower, I am afraid it will start costing me more in food to replenish the energy exhausted in walking across the street to deposit these in the bank than the check is even worth. So, I say to my congressmen and woman, if funding the effect of 1/2 degree climate change on the reproduction habits of dust mites is what it takes to get this thing thru the House, then let's do it. For the good of the country, er, economy, er, Wall Street, er... aw heck, just save my fledgling little nest egg!
Palin has arguably little real foreign experience, other than being the governor of a state that borders Russia and Canada. She has a reasonable explanation for why she never got a passport until a few years ago. Maybe she just really liked Alaska. I mean, how could you not? Maybe there is something to the concern that someone with limited foreign experience could inherit the white house. (Although, really, is it so important that one leave the U.S. in order to have a clue as to how the world works? I wonder how many U.S. senators actually visited with foreign leaders before running for the senate? Is it not just as important for them, who have such influence in everything from who to ally with to whether to sign a treaty concerning the protection of migrating birds?)
But, see, Palin is not running for president. Nope, folks, she is seeking to be vice president. This means that, should her ticket win, a U.S. senator with a vast number of years of foreign experience, military training, and dedication to the best interests of his country will be the president.
It is conceivable that one day he will die. Perhaps that day will occur during his term as president. And it is, therefore, conceivable that Gov. Sarah will become our next president.
That makes some people feel a little uneasy. Understandably so. The concern is that we might have a president with only, by that time, a few years of foreign policy experience. What is not so understandable, however, is, if this is a concern of yours, why you would vote to guarantee that the next president will have very limited foreign experience. After all, how much possible foreign policy experience can a man get organizing a Chicago community?
I guess people just really don't like uncertainty.
What a weekend!
Northwest Arkansas has always been home of the Hogs. This weekend, it is also home of the Hawgs. Bikes Blues & Barbecue (BBB) is an annual event for Fayetteville. 
There are an estimated 200,000 motorcyclists here. They look like an ant colony. Dixon Street is nuttin' but noise, noise, noise, noise. The ground shakes a mile away in any direction. The smells of leather and exhaust are outdone only by the smell of...
Q!
Oh yeah! As in BBQ.
There is a BBQ cookoff going on just south of Dixon. I drove thru the smokin' camp late last night (about 3 in the a.m.), when all the crowds were gone and all that was left was pure smokin' enthusiasts, busily changing out meats, checking on temps, adding a splash here and there, downing a splash here and there, and grinning the whole time. These are the true Q-ficionadoes. There were teams with big banners and giant stainless steel commercial smokers and single folks with nothing but a small bullet or horizontal or two with a firebox attached. And there was smoke. Lots of it. Glorious, delicious smoke. Some piping out thick, others perfectly thin and blue. They were great folks to talk to.
Unfortunately, I had missed the public handout portion of the event. These guys were cooking for real. This was competition time. And it was on.
Well, naturally, you can't be exposed to smoke like that and get a hankering for Q. Mrs. dePracticalist told me about this restaurant up in Bentonville that had a big smokehouse. It had smelled so good, she had been wanting to try it for about a month or so. So we loaded up the truck and moved to Smokin' Joe's. Ribhouse, that is.
I was in hawg heaven!
First thing, of course, is to test the sauce. "Don't get your spit all over it!" (That was Mrs. the Practicalist.) The house sauce was pretty good. Had little bits of onion in it. A little sweetness. Nice REDNESS. The country style, my fave, was a little sweeter, but a little lighter. KC style... if you have to add smoke flavor to the sauce... uh, oh. And finally, the Spicy... not really all that spicy, which is fine, as it shouldn't take focus off of or try to cover up the meat.
The kid's plates came out first. We had ordered them each a rib plate with corn on the cob. They got two GIANT spare ribs each and a full-sized ear of corn! What would ours look like? Mrs. the P and I shared a plate of ribs, brisket, pulled pork, and sausage, along with beans and onion rings. Huge! Although we only got one rib each, the whole platter was so big, we couldn't have eaten a second rib if we wanted to (which I did... want to... and I could have... eaten another one). The ribs tasted terribly - familiar! They tasted like mine! Only not quite as sweet. They were perfect! Great smoke flavor, perfect tenderness, not too mushy. In a word - AWESOME!
The kids couldn't stop talking about them, or eating them. They didn't want to share with their old man. Dang kids. Staying home next time. They can have MY leftovers.
Next, we moved on to the brisket. Nice color. Warm gray. Good bark. Small smoke ring. Good texture. Melting in the mouth. Tender. Ohhh, so tender. Ahhhhh... flavor, flavor, flavor! Perfect. Absolutely perfect!
The sausage was good. Nice sweetness.
Pulled pork? Well, it was alright. Tasted like brown sugar. Not enough smoke flavor. But not bad. Made me feel good about my own.
Onion rings. Another hit. Sweet batter, bitter onion (not vidalia, which was actually kind of a nice surprise).
I'll pass on the beans. It was obvious the focus was on the meat.
This is my new favorite restaurant. Service was awesome. We even caught the waitress helping the kids cut up their food!
The price was surprisingly affordable. Especially considering the amount of food. We'll be back.
Follow that up with a 51-10 beating on Texas, and it was a heavenly hawg weekend!
(OK, so it was actually a beating by Texas, but whose really paying attention?)
The Book of Barak
Chapter 1
1. And on the Two million two hundred eighty one thousandth and first day, was Barak created.
2. And thus was he seen as alright.
3. And thus was it said that Barak has been created.
4. And thus was it said that in this Barak is given all wisdom, knowledge, and celebrity status
5. Yea, he shall lead his people, and shall show them the error of my ways
6. And the mantle of the world shall be upon his shoulders, and his fuzzy little head
7. And he shall be called negotiator and community organizer
8. Yea, verily, and even shall he be called presidential nominee
9. For many shall celebrate him, and shall faint at his presence
10. He shall proclaim, behold!
11. And as they behold, they shall hear his chants of change
12. Yea, the children of the world shall hear such chants, and shall give wonder at the meaning of these chants
13. Nevertheless, notwithstanding such wonderings, they shall say what meaneth these changing chants of change, which chants I like, albeit I know not why
14. Verily, let us go down from the mountains, and from the hills and the valleys, and the organized communities
15. Yea, let us go down to this community organizer who chants for change
16. Verily, let us chant with him for change, even to the chanting of change
17. Let us touch the very television screen from which his chants of change emanate, that perchance we might feel of this change of which he chants
18. Behold and yea, let us lift him even unto the seat of the president, and proclaim his diety to those unbelieving of the elephant persuasion; yeah even before the houses of government
19. Yea, let us paint the lips of swine
20. Yeah, let us sit with those who seek to destroy us, that we might console our souls with such sittings
21. Yea, let us raise taxes unto he who chants change, that we might bring low those who do actually create change.
22. And on the next day, well...
OK. So I find this video report about the protests planned for the GOP convention, and the first line says, "If you think actions toward protesors against Democrats were big, wait until you see what's planned for the RNC convention next week."
So I says to myself, "Self," I says, "do you recall any news coverage of protests in Denver?"
"Well, not really," I answer. "Maybe I was just watching the wrong channel."
So, I google "protesters at DNC", and here, I discover why I didn't see any news coverage. There were no protestors!
That's right folks, none... save a few here and there. And they weren't even protesting against the convention, really.
How can this be? Well, uh, it's because the cost of gasoline has prevented people from making it. Yeah. I mean, it's in Denver. You'd have to drive, or fly, and and and they just can't afford to do that.
Young people - who have no families to care for, drive cheap cars, and usually buddy up to share rent - can't afford to drive to Denver?
I think they were a little closer to the reality of the situation when they mentioned that these young people don't think protesting is very effective. They just see people standing outside doing nothing and getting arrested, and then nothing changes.
I thought Obama was the inspiration to millions that change can happen.
Maybe young kids are just realizing how stupid it is to stand outside chanting stupid chants and holding cardboard signs. Or, maybe no one's volunteering to bring the beer.
Or maybe, just maybe, its just not that important to them.
I found a copy of Biden's notes for the speech writer. Though you might find this interesting:
"1. Let's see if we can't beef up this Obama plan a little. Like: You want
something? He'll give it to you. Free health care? It's yours. Cheap college?
You got it. Tax breaks? Yours. Barbecue'd ribs on every table and a hybrid
midget car in every garage? Yeah, baby! (Note: Scratch that last one... and get
me some of those ribs)
2. Let's see: a. The Bush administration has been
an abysmal failure. 2. Barak's positions are right because Bush is doing what
Barak said should be done. Hmmmm.
(I know the logical conclusion is either
that Barak's positions are abysmally felacious or that Bush's administration is
doing the right thing. But, just see if you can't hide them both in there.)
3. I know that I compared McCain's position on Afghanistan three years ago (when the oppressive Taliban
had been run out of town and a democratically elected government was looking
promising) with Obama's position less than two years ago (when things started looking a little sour), but, you know, I
mean, what else am I supposed to do when my guy just doesn't have a whole lot of
positive foreign policy statements?
4. Put something in there about how
much I love and respect McCain, so I can at least get the "bless his heart" in
there before I talk about how just sucks.
Oh, and, uh, change, uh...
something something token change, and uh, let's make change! Or something like
that.
Don't worry about making it coherent. Just get a few "Bush sucks!"
in there."
The Great One hath spoken - and the name he spake is 'Biden'. I am afraid I was asleep as the heavens parted. I am sure when the grand concourses of angels descend upon Mile High for the coronation of His Exhalted One, I shall be in the midst of school, or work, or eating dinner, or watching a movie with the kids, or maybe just sitting in the loo, reading.
There is really no need to watch it. I can tell you how this whole thing will play out:
The entire Mountain West will black out for exactly 45 minutes. This will be the direct result of the simultaneous plugging-in of 42,000 greenmobiles at the exact same time, a moment which will forever be remembered fondly by now-short-haired-hippies and wannabe hipsters, and beard-brandishing-back-to-nature-from-whence-I'm-sure-I-would've-come-had-my-conservative-parents-not-been-multimillionaires-AlGorians as the Great Power Outage of '08. Once power returns, Hillary will announce the official motto of the Demoncratic Party as "Bush Sucks". As the applause dies and the brown smoke begins to clear, Pelosi will then enter the Mile High to announce the official platform of the Demoncratic Party to be as follows:
'1. Change
2. Something about Change
3. Change...something something... Change
4. Let's make some changes
5. Change: Good
6. Department of Change
7. Spare change tax
8. Obama is now God
9. Bush sucks
10. No, change that last one to "Bush Sucks!"
At that point, Ing-Deng-Wang, the UN Secretary General, will rise to declare his support for Obama's campaign for World King.
The Right Reverend Wright will then rise to call upon all within the sound of his voice to take to one knee in humble reverence for Obama Almighty (oh, and to throw off the white yoke of oppression, while we're at it).
Biden will stand and speak for exactly 3 days, 2 hours, and 17 minutes, and still come across as an a$*ho^@.
Then the lights will dim, trumpets will blare, and a chorus of angels will sing His Name, as He Whose Name is Too Worthy for Mere Mortals to Speak enters the great chambers. All will hush and cry as His hand passes over their heads.
He will then address the world, giving them hope that the hour cometh when they shall be delivered from the evils now plagued upon them by this country he unfortunately must call home. He will express appreciation to the freedom fighters who have sacrificed so much for his cause. He will remind Americans of our duty to negotiate with those who strive for our extermination because our mere existence offends their god. Finally, he will remind us all that changety change change change.
And the crowd goes wild!
So saith I.
I thought today I would share a little about myself... you know, kind of a "This is Your Life" sort of a thing. So sit back and enjoy.
He was a typical teenager of the 50's... clean cut, sharp mustachio, smart, and of course, very handsome.
Hi, Dad.
I, of course, came about through some miracle yet to be explained to me, in
Mom and Dad were so excited to have me!
Mom jokes that it was like pooping an elephant...
Isn't that sweet?
The 70's were a time of experimenting. I did my share.
If you want to have a little fun, try this site.
Obama makes the off-hand prediction that if all Americans would inflate their tires and maintain their vehicles regularly, we could offset all the oil we are losing by not drilling off our own shores. McCain calls him on it. Most of us realize how preposterous this is. But wait... suddenly there is all kinds of evidence that doing this would save more than quadruple the amount of oil anticipated from off-shore drilling.
Now, I know Time and CNN are media gods, and if they say it, it is true... but would it be so difficult for them to give us one (1) little bitty source? Maybe just a little insight into their calculations of how I can personally save one whole barrel of oil this year?
Let's see... inflating my tires... tried that... I pick up about one half mile per gallon. Using Time Magazine's method of computation, I am saving 400 gallons per year. (Prove me wrong.)
Maintaining my vehicle regularly. Change my oil every three months or 3,000 miles. At 5 quarts per change... per vehicle... I am using some 50 quarts of OIL per year. But I am gaining another half mile per gallon of gas. So, using the same scientific computation as above, I can not only cancel out all that oil, but decrease my gas consumption by... oh, let's see...(carry the 1)... 200 gallons per year. Let's make it sound really good, and say that each barrel of oil produces some 10 gallons of gasoline, an
d voila! Obama is not only on the right track, but has underestimated his own energy policy, as I am saving 60 barrels of oil this year!
Isn't number crunching fun? Using this method, I can save $30,000 this year by simply eating 1 egg and 1/2 piece of white toast for breakfast.
Seriously, do these number crunchers take into consideration the impracticability of rebuilding one's home to make it more energy efficient. From what I've seen, it would cost some $20,000 of remodeling to save $2,000 of energy per year. Over the course of 10 years, you'd wind up having to upgrade, at a cost of another $5,000 to $10,000. Not to mention the amount of interest your paying for your remodeling. The new appliances are all made with plastics... which come from... OIL.
And even if we could save some 200 million barrels of oil each year by inflating our tires, does that diminish the advantage of expanding our domestic drilling and building new refineries? Is it enough to simply decrease usage? Is it not plausible to decrease usage and increase production? If we do decide to save on oil, would it be so wrong if the oil we were saving on came from our own shores?
Come on, mass media people, do you really think we are so stupid that we don't know that inflating our tires increases fuel efficiency (and saves on tires)? But do you really believe that this is the key to breaking our addiction to foreign oil? Really?
I am living in a war zone!! As I look out my front door, I see neighbors at the top of the street shooting their neighbors across the street, who are shooting back. Behind them are the shadows of old cars, silhouetted by bright, smoke-producing, flashing sparks. Shots are heard all around me. The sky is filled with exploding, colorful cannon flash. This has been going on now for about 2 hours. Suddenly, directly overhead, a long-lasting barrage of flashing color booms, shattering flack all around the house. Not to be outdone, the neighbor two blocks over responds with even bigger booms and more color, and more flack. Then, the entire sky seems to ignite with rocket fire, flack, cannon fire, musket balls, roman candles and magnificent sparkling fountains. Someone sets off a package of 500 Black Cats, and another shoots about 20 screamers. Then all is quiet, except for the occasional screamer and various sundry m-60's. But this is only a momentary lull. The whole process starts all over again... and for the next two hours, the neighborhood is aglow in brilliant flashes and booms and cracks of varying intensity.
What is remarkable about all of this is that I live in a neighborhood dominated by hispanics and marshallese immigrants. Never have I seen such intense celebration on the 4th of July.
A little over a year ago, I was privileged to witness a citizenship ceremony. It was a beautiful experience, as one after another immigrant pledged their allegiance to the United States of America. These people worked hard to get to this point. Many cried tears of joy, expressing gratitude to the presiding judge and all those present.
This Fourth of July, as on most, the president of the United States addressed just such a ceremony. I imagine this group of candidates have worked just as hard as those I witnessed, and were just as excited. Only this group is privileged to be addressed by the leader of this new country of theirs.
Unfortunately, just as the President begins to address them, some boneheads in the back begin yelling. "Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush!" they yell. The President pauses while these folks are asked to be a little more respectful. They calm down... until the President begins speaking again. "Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush!" they yell again.
How selfish! How insensitively selfish is this! It's one thing to oppose the President, and I certainly have no problem with some bonehead proving his stupidity vocally, but have some !$%@* respect! Interrupt a fancy dinner, or campaign stump... but let these folks have their day. This is like interrupting an adoption hearing to stump for the judge's opponent. Or protesting at the burial of a fallen soldier. It is selfish, insensitive, moronic and idiotic. It does nothing to promote a cause, and only hurts those individuals who are trying to appreciate the solemnity of the occasion. Have some class!
It sounds like the war is winding down now. There is the occasional boom from the left, responded by a louder boom from the right. Now the left pauses for a second or two, then sets off another m-60. The army on the right lights off a couple of bottle rockets. From somewhere in the back comes a lone muffled shot. The guy on the left doesn't seem to want to let it end. He gets off a few more shots. After a few minutes, the team on the right replies with a single shot. Lefty quickly shoots back... I guess he made his point.
Now maybe I can get some sleep...
If gender stereotyping offends you, you have a new champion in Tyson Slocum, the Director of Public Citizen's Energy Program (why "Public" was even used in the name is beyond me... seems kind of unnecessary, doesn't it?). Anyway, he was on the O'Reilly Factor (Yes, we now have Fox News Channel...We discovered that we had been paying for Starz channels forever and didn't know it. Mrs. The Practicalist found that we could drop the Starz channel and upgrade to whatever package gives us the Fox News Channel, and actually save money!) where he was talking about how sucking 20 BILLION barrels of oil out of Alaska would do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, during which discussion he said, and I quote (sort of): "blah blah why can't everyone just take the subway blah blah not going to knock us back into the cave-(slight careful pause)-'person' days blah blah blah".
Cave-PERSON?!! Are you kidding me?! Like, who is going to be offended by the term "CaveMAN"? That's like telling "stupid people" jokes. Who is going to come and ask you to please refrain? I'll give you that not only men deliver the mail, so some sensitive fe-uh-person (?), er, wo--person, girl might appreciate being called a mail person... but is she going to raise a fuss because you just made a generalization that only men were backward cave dwellers? What was so funny was that Mr. Tyler didn't even use the term naturally. He actually caught himself preparing to say "Man" and conscientiously selected the term "person".
Person, oh, person! (Note: After writing this post, I searched online and found that, perhaps, this guy might have something. For evidence, click here.)
What kind of a person thinks it is appropriate to leave a child tied to a tree for two nights and half a day?
I was just cruisin' thru the wwweb when I spotted this (highlighted for your convenience):
Out of the millions of searches being done... Smurfs?!!
Well, OK...
I must admit, its been a while, but I really enjoyed them, even though they were subliminal pawns of Communism infiltrating Saturday morning cartoons to indoctrinate young minds to overthrow the establishment in violent revolution and become all equals in the glorious new Order of the All Things Red. I figured I was safe since the Smurfs were blue, and they were all in love with Smurfette (who was pretty sexy, even for a Smurf). I didn't think Communists were allowed to love.
I think the real story turned out to be that the Smurfs were the subliminal pawns of commune hippies, man, like infiltrating "Saturday. Morning. Cartoons." (wink, wink), man, so, like young minds can be, like, be free, y'know, and all individual, like, so they can, like, all grow their hair long and moppy and wear round sunglasses and play folk music on guitars and citars, thus frustrating the whole "establishment", man, thereby stickin' it to "The Man", man, and fight the whole oncoming ice age thing by then getting "jobs" and "careers" and buying SUV's so they can, like, warm the planet and save us all from total extinction and annihilation, man.
Whichever story was true, I guess it worked.
Actual Lyrics (I couldn't make this up... I wouldn't dare):
(Spoken, in a very deep, baritone voice)
Hello, Darlin'
Happy Birthday
I've decided not to give you a present this year
In fact I think it's about time I took some things away
(Smack! My cheeks would be seriously red already, but it's Conway Twitty, so let's see what he means by this...)
I'd like to take away this suspicion that I know clouds your world at times
By giving you some faith to hold on to, Honey, whenever your hand is not in mine
(Oh... that's what he means... here comes that open hand again)
(Sing this part to a beautiful, heartfelt refrain)
Happy birthday, Darlin'
I've no presents; no fancy cake
But I hope I'll make you happy with everything I take
(For real?!)
(Spoken, again, in a serious baritone...)
I'd like to take away some of your lonely moments by spendin' more of mine with you
And I'd like to take away some of those so-so kisses ("so-so kisses"?! Did he just say "so-so kisses?!)
And replace them with ones that really say I love you
And I wanna take away the doubt you sometimes have about my love
(yer kiddin'... doubt? you?)
By showin' more, much more, than I've shown lately
(Ok, here's where it really gets good. After telling her that not only did you forget her birthday, but to make up for it...just read on...)
And then if someone should ask you what I've got you for your birthday
Well, you can say, (and I quote) "Why, he didn't give me anything,
But he sure took a lotta things away."
(And there's the gift... You might as well just drive her to the attorney's office yerself, you stoopid little man!)
(Sing it out loud now for the whole world to hear...)
Happy birthday, Darlin'
I've no presents; no fancy cake
But I hope I'll make you happy with everything I take
(Repeat this again, just in case she's still trying to figure out what you're telling her)
(Now, hold those arms out, cock your head down, and give her that sh**-eating grin, and say, as innocently as you possibly can...)
Happy Birthday, Darlin'
(If she gives you a hug at this point, you've got free rein to do whatever you want, buddy. She ain't going anywhere.)
Wanna listen? Click here. Sit back, and just start shaking your head.
Mrs. The Practicalist has a birthday coming up at the end of this month... hmmmmmmm...
Let me know if you've found anything more stupid than this one.
My Initial Expectations: Boring chick flick.
Reality: I found myself intrigued from the beginning. Although the story became somewhat predictable as it progressed, the "just how is it gonna happen" kept my attention. That, and the music. Oh, the music. I have always had this fascination for the many genres of music for the same song. This one takes the cake. There is this interesting blend between a rock band and a cellist that can best be explained only by watching the movie. All throughout the flick, the music is captivating, beautiful, and uplifting. I seldom consider soundtracks, but would love to have this one.
Surprisingly, Robin Williams was not overly obnoxious in this one. Keri Russell was perfect for the part, with her somewhat distant, mysterious, oblivious gazes. Freddie Highmore played incredibly convincingly, and Jonathan Rhys Meyers is much more believable than his doppelganger Toby Maguire (Spider Man).
This is definitely a chick flick, but one worth watching. If you're in the mood for action or comedy, this will not do. For an interesting take on the "reunion of lost souls" storyline, or just to appreciate the excellent music, this is certainly one I would recommend you don't miss. Just keep the Kleenex close by.
Practicalist Rating: 4.5 Stripes (out of 5)
Awesome Ribs!!!
After much (tasty) research, I believe I have nearly perfected the art of the rib. At least on the taste side.
I have nearly perfected the rub, adding the perfect combination of sweetness and spice, without distracting from the natural flavor of the meat. For a long time, there has been this very slight bitter after-taste that I thought might have been from the creosote from excessive smoke. While I think that may have been part of it, I also attribute it to a little too much paprika and other spices. This forced me to change up the formula, which I think turned out to be a good thing. I also don't coat the meat quite as heavily.
To fight that bitterness, I also try to use larger pieces of wood. I have decided I don't like wood chips, and only use chunks when I can't secure logs. My theory is that the initial combustion of the wood is where the unwanted creosote comes in. When the smoke is thick and white, it coats the meat, rather than penetrates. The chips are all about the initial combustion. Once the white smoke clears, the wood is pretty much used up. The larger the chunks, the more good flavor I'll get out of it. Once the wood is heated up, the oils and moisture have been extracted, and real flavor just slowly seeps out. The ideal smoke is thin and blue, which comes from the coals, and not the flames. The best batch, so far, was smoked with some old pecan wood (thanks, Glen!).
I have also concocted a liquid to add to the braising process. I am still working on the best combination of ingredients, but it still comes out really good. Once the braising is done, I drain the juices into a sauce pan and condense it down to a glaze, which I then brush onto the meat for the last 30 minutes. This not only adds a delicious sweetness, but it helps with the presentation, as well. It kind of takes away from the blackness, giving the ribs that beautiful red glazed look.
I want to get ready for competition. I think I am nearly there, but want to show some consistency first.
Of course, the best way to become consistent is to just keep right on SAMokin'...
(Anyone wishing to donate hickory or pecan may certainly do so, in one-foot pieces.)
There is a long-standing social rule that permits speaking ill of another so long as you, at some point during the conversation, bless that person's heart.
Ted Kennedy, bless his heart, is nothing more than the fortunate son of a wealthy businessman who knew how to buy his way into politics. While my heart goes out to him as a person for having to deal with such tragic news, there will be no love lost at his departure from the political arena. The stations all played his eulogy while he is still breathing. But there are many things they 'forgot' to include in all Ted's accomplishments, not the least of which was his beating the wrap for driving drunk and leaving a woman to die in a river. There was also his overcoming the problems most people face when caught cheating on their bar exams. More subtle among his accomplishments was his keen ability to avoid the controversy most senators would be subjected to were they to publicly call judicial nominees 'neanderthals' at a press conference. From what I could gather from the many eulogies was that he is most notable for outliving his brothers.
John McCain, bless his heart, is now coming under fire for being supported by a Christian minister who doesn't believe in Islam. Maybe this minister, bless his heart, could have been less controversial if, instead of using his pulpit to call for Christians to be Christians and not Islams, he had called for blacks to rise up against the white man. You know, though, if these ministers would just stick to teaching Christians how to be Christian, and not how not to be something else, or what political stand they should take, it seems they could do more good and avoid all this controversy. Like one wise leader once said, when asked why his church doesn't take political sides, "We teach the people good principles, and they govern themselves."
The California Supreme Court, bless their hearts, overturned the overwhelming will of the people to give the making of a lifestyle choice special constitutional protection. I think the Washington supreme court got it right when they held that a gay man has as much of a right to marry a gay woman as does a straight man or a straight woman. The law doesn't allow a straight man to marry another man, so there is no equal protection problem. The courts have to be very careful when they start subjecting marriage and family laws to strict constitutional scrutiny, as most courts have admitted that most such laws would fail. Those laws have traditionally been reserved to the states, and have been largely exempt from strict constitutional scrutiny for very good reasons. They serve society well by establishing a foundation for its perpetuity and moral guidance.
Our editorial page editor in Fayetteville, bless his heart, thinks that those Conservatives who want to make the California supreme court's (bless their hearts) decision a central issue in the campaign are interfering with the political process because Hussein Obama, bless his heart, thinks, we should instead be focusing on the major... social... ills... of our time. (?!) Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking, too. If gay marriage is not a major social ill...?
Let me know who else's heart needs a blessing.
Finally, some excitement has entered the Campaign. Voters in Idaho now have a real choice... Hillary, Osama... or Judd. (Thanks for the heads up, Norm!)
This blog has decided to donate some space as the official "Judd's Yer Budd" website.
So... here's the space:
Disclaimer: I am a Mormon. I do not support the practice of polygamy as a religious proscription. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the real Mormons) have not condoned the practice for over a hundred years. In fact, the Church has very diligently cleansed itself of polygamous sympathizers. I do not sympathize with the FLDS group (a breakaway from the Church at about the time the Church stopped the practice) in that I do not think that they are doctrinally correct by practicing polygamy.
Having said all that, what is occurring in Texas is religious persecution. The phone call was all that was needed for authorities to sweep in with all the firepower and grand standing of Waco and kidnap children and women, virtually putting an end to an unpopular religious sect. If they were really worried about the sexual abuse, they would have carefully sought out the men and mothers who were actively participatory in such abuse, and left the rest alone. But no. In all their religious zeal, social workers, law enforcement officers, and Baptist bus drivers "rescued" these poor, misguided, 19th Century homemakers and children from a life of protection against the outside evils of the world, throwing them instead into our "enlightened" society with its permissive promiscuity, wink-wink religiosioty, and "our young'uns' well-being is so important to us we leave them with a stranger 10 hours a day so we can afford our brick-and-granite mansions with no yard just to keep up with the Joneses" mentality.
It is interesting that we forbid gay marriage, but we permit homosexual and adulterous activities, fraught with dangerous diseases, broken families and bastardized children, and child sexual abuse; 
yet we outlaw polygamy, the emphasis of which is about strengthening and supporting the family and caring for children. Yes, it carries with it the potential for child abuse as is alleged in this case, but so does any relationship where children are involved. Child abuse happens. It should be pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, because we do not like child abusers. Children are special and sacred.
I am not advocating that we should sanction polygamy, just as I do not advocate that we should sanction homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. But we do not outlaw homosexual activity, nor even adulterous activity. Why do we outlaw polygamy? Because we are a religiously intolerant people. We have our First Amendment, and sometimes it means something. But majority religions have always felt threatened by minority religions. So as long we keep such statutes on the books, we can summon the power of the State to swoop in to put an end to these unpopular sects and organizations that challenge any beliefs with we have become so comfortable.
When the Church fought the anti-bigamy laws in the courts, they argued First Amendment issues. Today, there is a stronger case for Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection arguments. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. I can see Supreme Court arguments on the matter. Although I do not know whether they would prevail, I think they could be very compelling.
