That is a question that has been bugging me for several years now. Clearly the Republican party cannot survive without conservatives, yet the GOP routinely ignores and betrays its conservative members and their philosophy.
The GOP has become the slightly less socialistic and generally more pro-business wing of the Democrat party. Why do conservatives routinely support the GOP then?
Well, where else are we going to go?
The GOP during the heyday of the Reagan years stood for smaller and less expensive government. The Cold War and defeating the Soviet Union got in the way of that plan, but overall the philosophy was popular. Now the GOP stands for ... well, I'm not sure. Strong national defense surely, but that's about it. The GOP today can't find a spending bill it opposes.
So why are conservatives still supporting the GOP?
Well, where else are we going to go?
To me it's obvious that conservatives need to rescue the GOP from its current problems and get it back on track.
I read an opinion piece on American Thinker that sums up my thinking very well and includes steps that can be taken to reclaim leadership of the GOP from the current batch of milksops that are assisting in the destruction of the country.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Monday, July 21, 2008
Cooking & Cooking Shows
I love to cook. I don't do it often enough though. Why?
Mainly because I really hate my kitchen. It's small, it's not laid out very well, counter space is limited, and it's ugly.
This makes cooking a chore and not a pleasure, and as a result I don't cook nearly as much as I would like to.
Oh, and I have a job, 2 kids, and a wife who all want a piece of my day. I would much rather eat out or do delivery.
I do like watching cooking shows however. My hands down favorite is Good Eats by Alton Brown. I own all of the series DVDs and books. I even ordered some of the measuring cups and the salt cellar that Alton sells on his personal web site. As a male and an engineer there's simply no better cooking show on TV than this one. Would I like to sit down with Alton at a bar and have a few beers and chat about life, the universe, and everything? Not really, no. On the DVD's there's a section called "Ask Alton" where Alton answers questions, ostensibly from viewers, about the recipes he cooked on the previous episode. It's pretty obvious to me from these unscripted sessions that Alton really is one of those people in which everything in life is "serious business." I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, however. Alton lives in the next town over from me, and if he reads this and wants to go grab a beer and chat about "stuff" I'm willing.
Anyway...
Rachel Ray really used to bother me. I hated her accent and the funny, slanted way she smiles. Then at some point, after watching who-knows-how-many episodes of 30 Minute Meals I realized that she didn't bother me anymore. I don't know if I just got used to her or if I actually started to appreciate her talents and sense of humor. Maybe it's a bit of both. And to be honest, I really appreciate the whole "30 minute meal" concept. I don't have a lot of time to cook during the few times I actually get around to it, and most of the things she cooks look appetizing enough.
Ace of Cakes; seriously Duff and crew, put down the peace pipe. Enough is enough. It's affecting the quality of your show.
Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives; Guy Fieri is who I would be if I could get away with it. I'm not too wild about his cooking show, but this series is absolutely perfect for him. It matches his personality to a "T", and within this vessel he absolutely shines.
Dinner: Impossible; I like it. Too bad the original chef turned out to be a flake.
Everyday Italian; this is as close to food-porn as it gets. I don't care what Giada's cooking or what she's saying. Good heavens she's hot.
Throwdown with Bobby Flay; I love to see the arrogant Flay get beaten. It makes my day and is usually a good show as well.
So what are some of the shows and chefs I don't particularly care for?
Well, Emeril drives me nuts. His humor is terrible. And let's be honest; everyone loves to eat Emeril's food but who on earth wants to cook it? Certainly not me.
Anthony Bourdain; just what the world needs - a pompous, arrogant New Yorker with an opinion about anything and everything. Please, just go away.
UPDATE: I just may have a new favorite cooking show.
Mainly because I really hate my kitchen. It's small, it's not laid out very well, counter space is limited, and it's ugly.
This makes cooking a chore and not a pleasure, and as a result I don't cook nearly as much as I would like to.
Oh, and I have a job, 2 kids, and a wife who all want a piece of my day. I would much rather eat out or do delivery.
I do like watching cooking shows however. My hands down favorite is Good Eats by Alton Brown. I own all of the series DVDs and books. I even ordered some of the measuring cups and the salt cellar that Alton sells on his personal web site. As a male and an engineer there's simply no better cooking show on TV than this one. Would I like to sit down with Alton at a bar and have a few beers and chat about life, the universe, and everything? Not really, no. On the DVD's there's a section called "Ask Alton" where Alton answers questions, ostensibly from viewers, about the recipes he cooked on the previous episode. It's pretty obvious to me from these unscripted sessions that Alton really is one of those people in which everything in life is "serious business." I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, however. Alton lives in the next town over from me, and if he reads this and wants to go grab a beer and chat about "stuff" I'm willing.
Anyway...
Rachel Ray really used to bother me. I hated her accent and the funny, slanted way she smiles. Then at some point, after watching who-knows-how-many episodes of 30 Minute Meals I realized that she didn't bother me anymore. I don't know if I just got used to her or if I actually started to appreciate her talents and sense of humor. Maybe it's a bit of both. And to be honest, I really appreciate the whole "30 minute meal" concept. I don't have a lot of time to cook during the few times I actually get around to it, and most of the things she cooks look appetizing enough.
Ace of Cakes; seriously Duff and crew, put down the peace pipe. Enough is enough. It's affecting the quality of your show.
Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives; Guy Fieri is who I would be if I could get away with it. I'm not too wild about his cooking show, but this series is absolutely perfect for him. It matches his personality to a "T", and within this vessel he absolutely shines.
Dinner: Impossible; I like it. Too bad the original chef turned out to be a flake.
Everyday Italian; this is as close to food-porn as it gets. I don't care what Giada's cooking or what she's saying. Good heavens she's hot.
Throwdown with Bobby Flay; I love to see the arrogant Flay get beaten. It makes my day and is usually a good show as well.
So what are some of the shows and chefs I don't particularly care for?
Well, Emeril drives me nuts. His humor is terrible. And let's be honest; everyone loves to eat Emeril's food but who on earth wants to cook it? Certainly not me.
Anthony Bourdain; just what the world needs - a pompous, arrogant New Yorker with an opinion about anything and everything. Please, just go away.
UPDATE: I just may have a new favorite cooking show.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Global Warming, Nuclear Energy, and Geothermal Energy
I'll just go right ahead and say it: man-made Global Warming is a scam.
Al Gore et al., can bluster until they're red in the face about the so-called consensus on man-made global warming, but two point immediately come to mind:
1) Consensus is irrelevant when it comes to facts. Something is either factually correct or it isn't, and no amount of consensus will change that.
2) Claiming consensus on an issue when their clearly isn't is simply an attempt to shut down discussion.
I casually pay attention to this issue, being a somewhat scientific/technical person. There isn't a week that goes by that there isn't a seemingly credible article attempting to explain how CO2 and temperature increases are unrelated or how solar activity is a much, much more likely culprit than my SUV. People that write these articles or agree with their points are called "deniers", with all the anti-Holocaust baggage that comes with that word. It's a dirty game, and unfortunately the scammers are winning at the moment. I guess the fact that global temperatures haven't statistically increased in the last decade is being ignored as an "inconvenient truth."
I'll continue to follow this debate, but in my mind it's clear that man-made global warming is a scam being foisted upon the world. By who and why are very interesting questions.
There are a million articles on the internet dealing with global warming so I won't bother to list any of them here. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
So where does nuclear and geothermal energy fit into this?
I seems clear to me that eventually the planet will move from an oil-based economy to an electricity-based economy. So what are the "best" sources for this energy? In my opinion nuclear is the best option, possibly followed by geothermal energy.
The nuclear reactors of today are much, much safer than the reactors of 30 years ago. The US gets something like 25% of it's electricity from nuclear sources while France gets something like 75%. For once in my life I'll admit that the French are right about something. Moving to nuclear energy and an electric-based economy would also have the benefit of de-funding the governments and the terrorists they support who are attempting to destroy us and greatly alter our way of life.
Geothermal energy has enormous potential. One article I read claims that the availability of geothermal energy is "130,000 times America's current yearly consumption of energy."
That's a lot of energy just sitting in the ground as heat. Of course it's still an emerging technology and could take decades to develop and deploy, but it sure beats paying money to people who want to kill you.
Al Gore et al., can bluster until they're red in the face about the so-called consensus on man-made global warming, but two point immediately come to mind:
1) Consensus is irrelevant when it comes to facts. Something is either factually correct or it isn't, and no amount of consensus will change that.
2) Claiming consensus on an issue when their clearly isn't is simply an attempt to shut down discussion.
I casually pay attention to this issue, being a somewhat scientific/technical person. There isn't a week that goes by that there isn't a seemingly credible article attempting to explain how CO2 and temperature increases are unrelated or how solar activity is a much, much more likely culprit than my SUV. People that write these articles or agree with their points are called "deniers", with all the anti-Holocaust baggage that comes with that word. It's a dirty game, and unfortunately the scammers are winning at the moment. I guess the fact that global temperatures haven't statistically increased in the last decade is being ignored as an "inconvenient truth."
I'll continue to follow this debate, but in my mind it's clear that man-made global warming is a scam being foisted upon the world. By who and why are very interesting questions.
There are a million articles on the internet dealing with global warming so I won't bother to list any of them here. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
So where does nuclear and geothermal energy fit into this?
I seems clear to me that eventually the planet will move from an oil-based economy to an electricity-based economy. So what are the "best" sources for this energy? In my opinion nuclear is the best option, possibly followed by geothermal energy.
The nuclear reactors of today are much, much safer than the reactors of 30 years ago. The US gets something like 25% of it's electricity from nuclear sources while France gets something like 75%. For once in my life I'll admit that the French are right about something. Moving to nuclear energy and an electric-based economy would also have the benefit of de-funding the governments and the terrorists they support who are attempting to destroy us and greatly alter our way of life.
Geothermal energy has enormous potential. One article I read claims that the availability of geothermal energy is "130,000 times America's current yearly consumption of energy."
That's a lot of energy just sitting in the ground as heat. Of course it's still an emerging technology and could take decades to develop and deploy, but it sure beats paying money to people who want to kill you.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Future Topics
Just a quick brain-dump of things I want to talk about in the future:
x - Global Warming, Nuclear Energy, and Geothermal Energy
x - Cooking and Cooking Shows
Personal Finances & Dave Ramsey
Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition and D&D Miniatures
2008 Presidential Election
Swimming Lessons
The Fair Tax
Hate in America
US Police and Prosecutors
Hmmm, that's probably enough for now.
x - Global Warming, Nuclear Energy, and Geothermal Energy
x - Cooking and Cooking Shows
Personal Finances & Dave Ramsey
Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition and D&D Miniatures
2008 Presidential Election
Swimming Lessons
The Fair Tax
Hate in America
US Police and Prosecutors
Hmmm, that's probably enough for now.
"Good" Civil Rights vs. "Bad" Civil Rights
Yes, I know I'm late to the party with this one. The Supreme Court of the United States is currently considering whether to uphold or overturn Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns.
The Justices appear prepared to admit that the 2nd Amendment does indeed grant an individual right as opposed to a collective, State's right. What's not so clear is what they'll do about the handgun ban.
It just boggles my mind that it has taken this long for a case like this to reach the Supreme Court.
Of course the 2nd Amendment details a private, individual right. I don't understand the gun-grabbers who try and claim otherwise. One common argument is that the 2nd is a collective right, that merely grants each State the ability to form a National Guard. If this was indeed the case then the 2nd would be the only one of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to the government as opposed to granting it to the people. This argument is completely retarded in my own humble opinion.
Of course the NRA, et al, are being vilified by all the usual suspects.
So why is the ACLU "good" when it defends a certain part of the Constitution and yet the NRA is "bad" when it defends a different part of the Constitution?
The Justices appear prepared to admit that the 2nd Amendment does indeed grant an individual right as opposed to a collective, State's right. What's not so clear is what they'll do about the handgun ban.
It just boggles my mind that it has taken this long for a case like this to reach the Supreme Court.
Of course the 2nd Amendment details a private, individual right. I don't understand the gun-grabbers who try and claim otherwise. One common argument is that the 2nd is a collective right, that merely grants each State the ability to form a National Guard. If this was indeed the case then the 2nd would be the only one of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to the government as opposed to granting it to the people. This argument is completely retarded in my own humble opinion.
Of course the NRA, et al, are being vilified by all the usual suspects.
So why is the ACLU "good" when it defends a certain part of the Constitution and yet the NRA is "bad" when it defends a different part of the Constitution?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Internet is Awesome
Free speech is an amazing thing, is it not? In large sections of the world you can be fined or even go to jail if you say or write something that the government does not like. I'm not just talking Cuba or North Korea here, I'm also talking about Europe and even Canada. But I digress.
The Internet is a fantastic enabler of free speech. From Neal Boortz to Amy Goodman, and everywhere in between, Americans are free to express their opinions without fear of government reprisal. Social, community, employment, and spousal reprisal is a different story, but that's a topic for another blog.
The dark side of all this great free speech is that the hockey-helmet wearing, short-bus riding kids get to express their opinions also.
Take this special child here for example. I Stumbled upon this gem today, and the magnitude of the moronity is mind boggling. Let me point out some of the larger WTF statements made by our special friend Timmy here:
"Global Warming (ie, the Ozone Layer depleting)"
"That's because it's fucking cold in space."
"what's not up for debate is that the temperatures lowering is a result of the Ozone Layer going away"
There's some others, but I think you get my point. The problem with every one of these statements is that they are wrong.
Let me briefly address each one of these statements:
1) Global Warming is most commonly associated with rising CO2 levels, not ozone layer depletion.
2) Space is not cold. Space is a near perfect vacuum, and as such is an excellent insulator.
3) The recent temperature decrease was very likely caused by decreased solar activity, not ozone layer depletion.
The saddest part of this fellows diatribe is that he thinks he's pretty smart and anyone that disagrees with him is an idiot. Regardless, his post is an example of the level of discourse too prevalent on the Internet today.
Or maybe his post is meant to be sarcasm and I just don't realize it.
The Internet is a fantastic enabler of free speech. From Neal Boortz to Amy Goodman, and everywhere in between, Americans are free to express their opinions without fear of government reprisal. Social, community, employment, and spousal reprisal is a different story, but that's a topic for another blog.
The dark side of all this great free speech is that the hockey-helmet wearing, short-bus riding kids get to express their opinions also.
Take this special child here for example. I Stumbled upon this gem today, and the magnitude of the moronity is mind boggling. Let me point out some of the larger WTF statements made by our special friend Timmy here:
"Global Warming (ie, the Ozone Layer depleting)"
"That's because it's fucking cold in space."
"what's not up for debate is that the temperatures lowering is a result of the Ozone Layer going away"
There's some others, but I think you get my point. The problem with every one of these statements is that they are wrong.
Let me briefly address each one of these statements:
1) Global Warming is most commonly associated with rising CO2 levels, not ozone layer depletion.
2) Space is not cold. Space is a near perfect vacuum, and as such is an excellent insulator.
3) The recent temperature decrease was very likely caused by decreased solar activity, not ozone layer depletion.
The saddest part of this fellows diatribe is that he thinks he's pretty smart and anyone that disagrees with him is an idiot. Regardless, his post is an example of the level of discourse too prevalent on the Internet today.
Or maybe his post is meant to be sarcasm and I just don't realize it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)