Light on the Sacred, Heavy on the Profane
Saturday, January 03, 2004
Last Call

Sitting at the bar in an unnamed Lower East Side dive, ordering another beer while watching the rest of humanity filing out the door, Allie came up with this trenchant observation:
Why do motherfuckers drink in a joint where last call applies to them, anyway?

I Want to Have Andrew Stuttaford's Baby

Of course I'd need ovaries...or something. Check this out:
Marxism has, of course, nothing to do with “cooperativism” or the “protection of the poor and the weak.” Crazy Karl’s crazy doctrines, a mish-mash of lousy economics, worse history and a profound contempt for humanity, are nothing more than the ravings of a millennial cultist, impressive only in the intellectual atmosphere of a lunatic asylum or, more charitably, the debating society of a third-rate high school.
How does one just toss of sentences that good so effortlessly?
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
There's More Than One Way to Surrender

This article, via Free Republic, where anything worth reading on the Net gets posted eventually, I have mixed feelings about.

On the one hand, I've been known to cast a right wing protest vote for the Right to Life Party, as one can see if they read the comments on this post. Quoted here:
D- Gotta tell you, I don't always vote Republican. During the last governor's race, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Pataki, because he had done something very similar to this- buy off political support with a huge spending package.

Woulda voted for the Conservative Party candidate, except that the Conservative Party ran Pataki on their ballot line. (Pataki employs Mike Long's daughters and pays them a 6 figure salary. Mike Long, the head of the Conservative Party, runs Pataki on the ballot in return. If Long was at least an expensive whore I might have some respect for him.) I ended up voting for the Right-to-Life Party's candidate- Whoever the hell he was.

Ultimately I vote Republican for the same reason I do everything else. It is a choice between the lesser of two evils. One can pay their taxes or they can go to jail. One can slap his numbskull boss or one can get fired. Everything in life comes down to this type of choice.

Though Dubya said he was going to do this in his 2000 campaign, there were more important issues at stake with that vote. My biggest concern was the degradation of our national security. There was a ton of circumstantial evidence that the Clinton administration traded nuclear secrets to China in return for campaign contributions. There were arms dealers and drug dealers visiting the White House. With shit like that going down, there was no way I was going to do a right wing protest vote. Similarly, unless a Democrat runs to the right of Dubya on the War on Terror, there are issues that trump my anger at this new entitlement. And again, the stakes are too high. Not to mention the Democratic candidates have spent so much effort distancing themselves from the War on Terror, it would be very hard for them to provide a credible challenge on this issue from the right.
On the other hand, When the security of the nation that best embodies individual freedom is at stake, I can't protest vote. I certainly can't stay home on Election Day, and will never be able to. If you do, your choice is recorded as apathy. There's no way in hell I'm voting for anyone but Bush, and no way in hell I'm staying home in Nov. 2004. I've been plenty tough on Dubya. I think he's about as conservative as Nixon, which means not very, but during the Cold War, I would have preferred Nixon to Kennedy and during the War on Terror, anyone who chooses Dean over Bush chooses surrender.

What good is having principles if sharia is imposed on the United States and Christians are forced to live in dhimmitude? The Jews of America, on their way to the ovens, will no doubt laud the hard right for their principled stand against ex-President Bush.
Monday, December 29, 2003
The Great Debate

Well, The Puppy Blender has weighed in, and the Alcoholic has weighed in, so I guess it's time for me to unzip my trousers and slam down on the kitchen cookware preference.

I'm not a lawyer, though I'm perfectly capable of playing one on TV. Lacking the financial wherewithal of the above bloggers, when the time came for me to buy cookware, I went with the cheapest: Cuisinart. You know what? It was an exponentially better cooking experience. All my life, I'd cut my teeth on my family's pots and pans, which were bought in the 50's. I had to relearn all my signature dishes, but it was worth it. The new stuff heated up faster, got hotter without damage, distributed the heat better, and got me drunk, too. Well, maybe that was the booze and not the cookware.

I can honestly say that my omelettes became more fluffy, my ground beef for meat sauce became better browned, and my sauteed chicken breasts became practically orgasmic. The Puppy Blender is right:
But as I said in an earlier post, it all makes sense once you realize that cookware is just another kind of tool.
What I'm trying to say is this: If you cook, invest in even the cheapest modern cookware. You just can't get the same results from 50 year old stuff and stuff from the 99 cent store. And you don't need to be a lawyer to afford decent cookware- though I'm sure Calphalon and All-Clad get better results than Cuisinart.

P.S. A comment on the Great Cookware Debate shows an exception to this rule: Cast Iron Skillets. Generally speaking, the older a cast iron skillet is, the better seasoned it is- seasoning being the natural layer of grease that's absorbed into the pores of the iron. The better seasoned it is, the better tool it is. 50 years of metallurgy hasn't made a modern cast iron skillet any different from a 50 year old one. But 50 years of seasoning....Damn, just thinking of it makes me wanna fry up some Irish bacon in my Aunt's skillet.


Peter dropped KaShei and I off at the Free Republic Holiday Party yesterday and a good time was had by all. It's such a comfort to meet fellow conservatives in the primordial muck that is the NYC political scene. It was also nice seeing old friends I haven't seen since we counter protested the antiwar surrender crowd almost a year ago. Been too long. I won a door prize- Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism- From Inside the Bush White House by Bill Sammon of the Washington Times. As soon as I read it, I'll review it. I'd tell you more, but I was very, very drunk and am having a hard time recollecting much else.

If anyone (who I haven't met) can figure out who I am from the pics, I'll teach you the secret handshake of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Tell you which Carribean island Paul Wellstone's hiding out on since he faked his death so we could win his seat. I'll even tell you how much money we're paying Dick Cheney's double to act like he's the real Slim Shady Dick Cheney since the fatal heart attack.

Mark Fuckin' Steyn:
But I could as easily have cited Sir Malcolm Rifkind or Sir Max Hastings, both broadly conservative types driven bonkers by their cowboyphobia.

"It is hard not to hate George Bush," wrote Hastings the other day. "His ignorance and conceit, his professed special relationship with God, invite revulsion. A few weeks ago, I heard a British diplomat observe sagely: `We must not demonise Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.' Why not? The US defence secretary and his assistant have implemented coalition policy in Iraq in a fashion that makes Soviet behaviour in Afghanistan in the 1970s appear dextrous."

Does that sound like a Daily Telegraph editor? Former editor, I hasten to add, thank God. Wolfowitz is a demonic figure to the anti-war types for little reason other than that his name begins with a big scary animal and ends Jewishly. But, if you want to know what he's really like, ask Ann Clwyd: "He was a very charming man, an intellectual," the Welsh firebrand told the Observer.
Via Free Republic