BLATHER REVIEW

Do This:

Mix:
1 cup of whipping cream
2 tablespoons of sugar
1/2 teaspoon of vanilla
1/4 teaspoon of cinnamon

Whip with a blender/electric whisk until it's whipped cream.

Mix with a drained can of sliced peaches.

Eat.

"Non-dairy whipped topping" is for slackers. Trust me!

:)

Oh, Crappy Day

Good friend and co-worker Lawruh has quit.

Crud!

I woke up to the sound of the drizzling rain on the window above my bed. What a crappy day this is gonna be.

I knew that Lawruh was in "negotiations" with the Boss over her wages. She recently found out what she was worth as a graphic artist and decided to either get a raise from the Boss, or take a job under the guy who insisted that she out-classed any graphic artist in the three nearest counties.

Boss is in the process of selling the business and headed for retirement. Lawrah's education, thus, comes at an interesting time.

As I was walking up to the shop I looked for her truck. Nope.

I walked in and heard Boss, talking on the phone, saying "And then on Friday she..." Uh-oh.

I was pleased to discover her salsas and veggies still in the fridge. And the unopened box of Saltines was still there. Yay!

Then I decided that I'd better check the inner office. The photos of her kids were gone. Dang.

It was raining all morning. Then all afternoon. I felt just like this weather.

Boss came up to me and said "Looks like it's you and me against the world. Lawruh quit her job this morning."

I worked through the day but it felt all wrong. It felt like a saturday. Y'know, when you're doing extra emergency work, but not regular work. It's not regular time, it's different.

No Lawruh. This was all wrong.

It rained all frickin' day.

I was standing outside, under my umbrella, smoking a cigarette. How did I feel? Work is busy but tedious and Lawruh isn't here. Lawruh's not here anymore. Maybe nevermore. All day I felt like my sister had died.

I called her at home tonight and she gave the lowdown. I refuse to believe that Boss is as sneaky and manipulative as Lawruh has come to feel he is.

New Boss is ready to take the reigns of the shop and, hopefully, he'll deal with Lawruh more openly and reward her loyalty appropriately. She's open to it. This sucks as much for her as it does for any of us involved.

And I want my sistah back!

Lost & Found

Hey, did y'all realize that Mean Mr. Mustard is back? Check it out at Mean Mr. Mustard version 2.0.

this post

I know I promised no more Terri Schiavo posts until her demise, but Andrew Sullivan wrote:

A MUST-READ: From one of my favorite conservative-libertarians, Neal Boortz . His is the Christian position I hold. There are worse things for a Christian than death. Let Terri go. She has suffered and been used enough.

Andrew's link takes you HERE. I absolutely must post my thoughts on Neal's column and will simply die if I don't.

As Rush opens the hour he has a question; a question for “you liberals.” He wants to know “Why do you want Terri Schiavo to die?”

I’m on the opposite side of this issue from Rush, Hannity, Liddy and most of my not-liberal talk radio colleagues. So the question intrigued me. Why, indeed, do I want Terri Schiavo to die?

Rush’s question deserved an answer. Not some glib response, but an honest, heartfelt answer. So, … here’s mine.

I want Terri Schiavo to die because I believe she’s earned it.

Let me be presumptuous and say that I don't believe that either Andrew Sullivan or Neal Boortz believe in God. I think they're like me; athiests or agnostics, depending on their state of wonder at the time. I think that Boortz is presenting a theological argument that supports his inclination to "let Terri go" because he desires to engage Believers on their own turf, not because he, himself, is a Believer.

But, like I said, I'm being presumptuous and I have no idea what Andrew or Neal really think in their quiet moments, only what they choose to write. Anywho, with my skepticism now outed, Neal writes:

I don’t view death as the end of the journey of a human soul. I view it as a transition. The God I believe in would not waste the total life experiences of a man or woman made in his image on a total and complete death; a dead end, if you will, with nothing to follow. I cannot believe that it is God’s plan that the life experiences of a man; wisdom gained, lessons learned and love experienced, should, upon death, disappear as if they never were. I believe that there’s something to follow the life we know on this earth; and I believe that most of the people fighting to keep the body of Terri Schiavo alive feel the same way.

Here Neal is invoking the existence of a Hereafter as a salve to our disgust at Terri's pointless death. But, if he is a God-fearing man, I would remind him that Jesus asked Peter "'Who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'" Throughout the gospels there are references to something called "the God of the living".

I was sitting on a bar stool in my sister's kitchen when my ex- said to my sister, "Bob believes in God, but he doesn't believe in an afterlife." I almost corrected her on the first part. But, I realized that that might explain exactly the way I see it. What I call "God", others would call the Laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry, biochemistry. It's what I think of when I hear the term "Natural Law".

When I release a hammer it'll fall to the ground because God told it to. When I pull the nob on my television set it'll turn the set ON because God told it to. When I betray someone close to me she will suffer immensely because God tells her to. Nicheren Buddhists call it "myoho"; the mystical law of cause and effect. But there's not too much mystery about it. We're geared to work within it because God told us to.

Our bodies know how to live. They can grow from one cell to two. From two to sixteen. Our bodies know how to grow in the womb and how to push ourselves out into the world. Our bodies know how to suckle, how to see and listen, how to accomplish puberty, how to fight an infection and heal a wound, how to grow old and, at our end, how to die.

It's when our bodies are fighting infections and healing wounds that God is most obviously present. Absent modern medical care, we can't do those things for ourselves. Our bodies are instructed, by God, to do them for us.
What the God of the living wants, then, is for us to have eternal Life. But that same God knows that that's impractical. If we all lived forever then the planet would be shoulder-to-shoulder with animal creatures. No one would die except by accident or deliberate killin'. So, instead, we have youth, adulthood, old-age and a death process. Call it "planned obsolescence".

And, yes, there is a "death process". Our bodies know when we're going and our brains instruct it on how to do it right. Certain synapses will be deprived of oxygen and they will then disconnect. The healing mechanisms go from treating a wound to preparing a body and it's consciousness for their end. Whatever consciousness Terri Schiavo has, it is now being told that it's ending has come... and it is comforting her at the same time.

I believe that Terri Schiavo's brain stem sent her signals, in the first few days, that she was starving and dehydrating. Eat! Drink! I am causing you pain because we are suffering! And I believe that she suffered then.

But I also believe that her near-reptilian consciousness knew that it's warnings and directives were going unheeded. Somewhere along the line her "Carteasean theater" showed her that all was lost and that it was time to say good-bye. Our bodies know how to die.

She is breathing and, so, her extant synapses remain intact. She may be dreaming. If so, we can only hope that what's left of her brain knows how to make all of her dreams pleasant ones.

Recent reports say that her eyes and tounge are dried and bleeding. Her skin is dried and flaking. Her body, hopefully, knows that the battle is lost and is delivering every comfort to her awareness that God allows it to give to her. She is at peace. I believe that. God, at this point, wouldn't have it any other way.

Neal correctly asks two different questions. They each address a more fundamental question: Does the soul leave a body when the consciousness leaves or only when Life leaves? (Of course, I believe that it's when Life leaves; it's the end of the sweet tangle of matter and ghost.) Neal makes an argument addressed to both, each conclusion favoring death for Terri. Then Boortz asks:

Where do your concerns truly lie, with the eternal soul of Terri Schiavo, or with her earthly body?

They are one and the same. Her soul is lying in a bed. Hungry. Thirsty. To care for her soul is to feed it. The God of the living would do no less. What we are forgetting about here is that God instructs us on how to live. This is IT, folks. This is the Test. This is the time. This is who we are. Right frickin' NOW!

Neal continues....:

Most of us are aware of the stories related by people who have near-death experiences. The usual scenario is a surgical procedure or some other medical emergency. These people describe a sensation of leaving their body at the very time the heart stops beating and the brain ceases functioning. They tell of floating above their body while watching doctors below working hard to resuscitate, to bring them back to life. As the heart once again starts beating and as the brain resumes its functions, they tell of a sensation of falling back into their own bodies to resume life.

We don’t hear from the patients upon whom resuscitation efforts are not successful. We don’t hear from them because they’ve left us. They’re gone to experience whatever lies beyond. They died.

I don't believe in any of that. That's just '70's wacko mystical shite that belongs in a bin with the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot stories. If they saw themselves outside of their bodies then it's because their bodies let them imagine it. We can't see without eyes when we're dead anymore than we can when we're asleep. (Like I said, I'm being presumptuous today...)

Neal concludes:

Is it possible that the soul of Terri Schiavo has been floating – held in some prolonged and excruciating limbo – waiting for doctors to stop interfering with the process of her death? I believe that this is so, and that is why I have supported her husband’s desires to have her feeding tube removed. Terri Schiavo isn’t being murdered. She’s being allowed to die. Death will not be an end for Terri Schiavo, it will be a beginning. She will finally be allowed to claim the reward that ultimately we all seek, a reward she’s earned and deserves.

Wow. That's pretty wacky. "Allowed to die"?! Should a guy, with 3rd degree burns on his hands be "allowed to die" because he can't feed himself? I'm guessing not. What Neal is accepting/endorsing -- no matter how much he feigns to appeal to believers -- is the ending a God-given life that need not be ended. Et tu, Neal?

And in other news...

I've decided to save my last Schiavo post for the day she dies. Other than that, I got nothin' right now. (Did I mention I was busy at work lately?)

Nothin' except fer a quicky crossword! :)

So, here's what t' do:

1) Draw a grid 11x11.

2) Fill in the spaces as follows (o=open. b=black):

row 1: 5o, 3b, 3o
row 2: 5o, 3b, 3b
row 3: 6o, 1b, 4o
row 4: 3o, 1b, 2o, 1b, 4o
row 5: 3b, 3o, 1b, 3o, 1b
row 6: 2b, 7o, 2b
row 7: 1b, 3o, 1b, 3o, 3b
row 8: 4o, 1b, 2o, 1b, 3o
row 9: 4o, 1b, 6o
row 10: 3o, 3b, 5o
row 11: 3o, 3b, 5o

3) Number the squares appropriately.

4) Solve the puzzle using the following clues! (I didn't try very hard to stump ya.... this time.)

ACROSS

1. Caesar, for one
6. ____ tung!
9. Ms. Oyl
10. Article, definitely
11. Surprising losses
13. Contemporary clone?
14. What you might do to a question
15. '82 flick
16. "Friggin' forever!"
17. Kiss noisemaker
18. 2nd amendment advocate
19. Some dinners
21. Green goal
22. Business disclaimer adjunct
23. Nothin' t'see here, mheh!
24. "...to negotiate ___ Paris" (Nixon quote)
25. Grant, for one
28. Sicilian ready to blow
29. Ship plate fasteners\
31. That girl
32. Posts for sails
33. Floyd's Syd (I know, I know, that was in the last puzzle, too...)
34 One who lives to live another's life (Chrike, I'm cynical sometimes...)

DOWN

1. Tomato, for one
2. Rover's cuisine, maybe
3. Thith ith an example
4. Street crosser, at times
5. Discover, for one's self
6. Where I'm not
7. Bone, for one
8. Egg warmers
12. Starry
13. Still The One group
17. Main artery
19. Gave a thumbs down to
20. Nissan model
21. To the core
23. Hermann, for one
25. For fear that
26. Sarge's dog
27. A @#$% memory, for most
30. Shop ___ (just tryin' to keep it clean! :P )

Solve away! Solve it...! /Homer

(btw, theres an 18x18 coming as soon as I work out all the clues. This one, I hope, will be a genuine challenge..)

Link Of The Day

Didn't mean to become so Schiavo-centric lately, but, y'know.

So, a woman was arrested today for trying to give Terri water. Um. Wasn't the point that Terri alledgedly didn't want to live a "artificial" life support? The feeding tube was removed (though I'm hard pressed to consider that "artificial" life support). But, why the ban on attempting to feed her?

Seems to me that the courts have gone from saying "Terri must not live on 'artificial life supporty'" to saying "Terri must not be allowed to live under any circumstances". Her ex-nurses say she can swallow jello and liquids, but she is banned from any attempt at ingesting any nurishment on her own. Maybe she can, maybe she can't. But, can we at least let her die trying?
Terri Schiavo has been sentenced to death because she is mentally impaired. No. Other. Reason.

Oh, the link, right... From Sharp Knife, Noel writes IF:

If she were a corporation, we'd indict the Chief Financial Officer--her HINO (husband-in-name-only).

If she were a killer, she'd be protected under the supreme court's ban on executing the retarded.

If she were a terrorist, Teddy Kennedy would be making blistering speeches on the Senate floor condemning her torture-by-starvation.

Read 'em all.

Like Water For Doggies

If you ever follow just one link I've ever posted, follow THIS ONE! This is vintage Rachel Lucas Blue-Eyed Infidel. Loaded for bear, on target and On. Frickin'. Fire.

Saving Private Schiavo

"Private Schiavo"? Well, okay, it's an inept attempt at a bad pun. Privacy is long gone. Terri Schiavo's scheduled demise will be very public.

But, to paraphrase a line from Saving Private Ryan: In this media circus, in all this madness and this argumentation over her alledged wishes and this very public, private, judicial and congressional debate, perhaps saving Terri Schiavo's life might be the one the only good thing that can come of it.

Let's think ahead for a moment.

If nothing changes then over the next week or two Terri's condition will deteriorate. She will dehydrate. She will become more and more irritated. She will moan. She will wail. Her lips will crack. Her pangs will consume her making her writhe in extreme discomfort. The vigils will become more and more solemn as her death becomes near and her dying becomes nearly unwatchable.

All of this will happen in public. Even if her room is quarantined, with no access by a camera or her family allowed, her last days will be public. Her last waking moment will be announced. Her last breaths will be counted. Her time of death will be noted.

How will those who allowed this to happen, those who refused to obstruct this horror, those who claimed that this was what Terri wanted all along, defend their judgement?

If Terri Schiavo wants to die (which she doesn't), and the courts can't find any reason to keep Michael Schiavo from killing her (which they can), then, for chrisakes, call Doctor Kevorkian and let him set up his little chemical apparatus. He knows how to put someone to sleep properly; the way a right-to-die excercizer would want it. Pulling out her feeding and tube letting die like this is absolutely monsterous.

Yes, she'd still end up dead. But, at least it wont be the horrifying and agonizingly public death-by-torture that we appear to be about to witness. We wouldn't do this to a fucking mouse (pardon my freedom).

Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer are using the Law to accomplish what the Law designed to prevent.

[/2¢]

"GOOD FRIENDS ARE LIKE ANGELS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE THEM TO KNOW THEY ARE THERE"

There are so many blogs on my blogroll that I never bother to visit.
(And there so many blogs that I visit that aren't on my blogroll!)

Strolling through Munuvia I clicked on a blog that I don't believe I've ever visited before: S.A.P.S.A. (San Antonio Polio Survivors' Association).

I don't know what else is there, but I'm sure you wont be sorry if you read this recent post.

:)

UPDATE: Read this, too!

And here's a word of advise (from a different SAPSA post): When you write a check to pay down the balance of a credit account, do NOT write the entire credit card # in the memo line. Only write the last 4 digits. The credit card company will know the rest but no one else will.

Granted, it's not likely that your mail will wind up in someone else hands. But, just in case. It's a wise precaution.

Pretty Words and Polite Polemics

Ned: Y'know, I can help you get rid of that crab grass.
Homer: What crab grass?!
Ned: Well, that crab grass over there. And over there. And there's quite a big patch over there.
Homer: Oh, sure, let's all gang up on the crab grass! We only hate it because of the name. We'd all love it if it had a cute name, like "elf grass".

I wonder if part of the reason why Terri Schaivo's feeding tube was removed is because we've given that act a pretty name: euthenasia. Would this idea have gotten anywhere if we just called it what it was: killin' sick people?

By changing the words we use to describe things -- or even simply the sound of those words -- we can change the way we think of those things. A garbage man magically becomes a sanitation specialist; a tax becomes a contribution; desertion becomes un-volunteering and murder becomes an assisted suicide.

It can lead to some very bizarre argumentation. Here's some of what came out of George Felos' mouth on Friday.

"To have her feeding tube inserted by a subsequent act of Congress before she dies would be a horrific act upon her body."

"It is cruel and inhuman to say to a patient who says I don't want to be artificially fed to remove her feeding tube, have her enter the death process and then start life support again."

The pro-euthansia attorney said it was "cruel and inhuman" not to starve Ms. Schiavo to death.

"Wear your shame for what you did and atone for it, because to trample on [Terri's] rights again would be abhorrent."

[Collected from Newsmax]

Yes, Terri has rights. And one of them is a right to sue for divorce. I mean, look;

• Her "loving and devoted" husband is living with another woman with whom he's had two children.
  
• The $800,000 he received in his malpractice suit was to fund her rehabilitation. Instead he used it to fund her execution.
  
• He's forbidden any and all usual therapy to assist her possible - if only partial - recovery.
  
• He's forbidden any and all actions that would help her including treating bed sores.
  
• He claims that Terri once mentioned to him that she wouldn't want to be kept alive "artificially". No one else heard her say it. Yet it's granted that she had said it based on the testimony of someone who wants her dead.
  

Seems to me that a "right-to-die" case ought to be based, at the very very least, on a direct, first-hand request, not the say-so of someone with an interest in his or her demise. Talk about a conflict. But I digress.

"I promise to love leave and to cherish abandon through richer or poorer ill-gotten gain, in sickness starvation and in health dehydration, until death do us you part die already."

At least euthenasia's a pretty word.

Super Silly Crossword Puzzle Contest!

I sometimes make up crossword puzzles during my commutes to and from work. I never send them to anyone, though, so I'm sending this to you!

First one to send me the complete solution WINS!!!

What's the prize? Uh... I dunno yet. Maybe one of my old driver's licenses. Maybe a sense of satisfaction. We'll see!

Directions:

1) Draw a 9 x 9 grid.
2) Fill in the squares as follows:

row 1: 3 open, 3 black, 3 open
row 2: 3 open, 2 black, 4 open
row 3: 4 open, 1 black, 4 open
row 4: 1 black, 6 open, 2 black
row 5: 3 black, 3 open, 3 black
tow 6: 2 black, 6 open, 1 black
row 7: 4 open. 1 black, 4 open
row 8: 4 open, 2 black, 3 open
row 9: 3 open, 3 black, 3 open

3) Number the open squares appropriately
4) Do the puzzle!

(UPDATE: Thanks to Stephen Macklin we now have a grid!)

These are all common words. Many are common to crossword puzzles but I've attempted to make it a challenge which, believe you me, was a challenge. Good luck!

Clues:

ACROSS
1. Physical comity
4. "The Vatican ____"
7. Latin early bird
8. Pie-like
9. Especially
11. Letter from Lagos, often
12. Land
14. One PBS patron
15. Revue bit, maybe
18. Await the green light
20. Jovial grace
22. Complimentary
23. Wrath
24. Floyd's Barrett
25. Reach 2nd base

DOWN
1. A mo.
2. Finished
3. Truth alternative
4. Rather ribald
5. Secretary Hutchison
6. Class where you dress down
8. Type of tax or sale
10. Met counterpart
13. Jack's killer
15. Rosebud
16. Film taste
17. Fabled loser
18. Buts and ands cohort
19. Finish the dishes
21. Fish, for one

Lots of these are gimme's, so get crackin'!

Never Say Good-bye

Wrote a song today. Yay! This is very Beach Boys-y, just like my last few. Tempo and beat-wise it's kinda like Surfer Girl, but the mood is more like Warmth of the Sun.

Right now it has some pretty predictable chord changes, but the melody has some nice phrasing. And I've got some interesting ideas for vocal arrangements on several of the lines.

So, this is a mid-tempo 3-part harmony ditty. Very "swoony". I don't usually write lyrics this, er, sappy, but this one just seemed to want to get written today. So, without further ado, I present Never Say Good-bye. (It's still a work in progress.)

Now it's so late and we're sle-e-e-epy
I really hate to be le-e-e-aving
but until when
we're together again
we'll have to say goodni-i-i-i-ght...

there's so much your touch is reve-e-e-aling
I can't describe what I'm fe-e-e-eling
but I'd never go
without letting you know
what this kiss does to me every ti-i-i-i-i-me...

it makes me believe
that you're always with me
so I'll never say "good-by-y-y-ye"

[full instrumental passage... or maybe I'll write some more words to go here.]

now comes some sweet so-o-o-rrow
wish I could watch you awaken tomo-o-o-rrow
letting go of the touch
it hurts us so much
it almost makes us cry-y-y-y-y-y...

but I have a wonderful fee-e-e-e-ling
two hearts, one love, no wa-a-a-iting!
what's coming 'tween us will pass
we're not broken in half
it's only space and ti-i-i-i-me...

so believe, as I do,
that I'm always with you
and never say "good-by-y-ye"
no, never say "good-by-y-ye"

goodni-i-i-i-i-ght, I'll never say good-bye
say goodni-i-i-i-i-ght, please never say good-bye
I'll say goodni-i-i-i-ght, but I'll never say good-bye
say goodni-i-i-i-i-ght, but please never say good-bye...

[repeat and fade]

BTW, that coda, as I hear it in my head now, sounds almost exactly like the coda to Surfer Girl. Just like sing to the tune of "Little one... my little surfer girl..." and you'll get an idea of how I hear this song.

I really gotta find my microphones....

Hey, y'know what'd be cool?!

If you ever meet Michael Jackson, walk up to him and do the ol' "got yer nose!" trick! And then don't give it back!

Rachel Corrie (1979-2003)

May I make an observation for the benefit of some of my friends? Of course, I may. It's my blog!

Today some of us think about how misguided we think she was. Or how unfounded her parents' lawsuits against the IDF and Caterpiller are. (And they are.)
But, at her ending, she was a young woman who died tragically while doing what she thought was right.

I've always refused to call her "Rachel Pancake" or any other sickening slur. She didn't go anywhere to die for a cause. She went there and sat there because she knew she would be safe. She was a "human shield". She could trust that she'd be safe because she had faith in humanity.

Unfortunately, the shield was useless as she was not noticed by the bulldozer's operator.

To me, today, it doesn't even matter why she was there or what she was thinking when she went there. I wonder more about what she was thinking when she realized that she was about to die unnoticed by the machinery that was pushing at her and heaping debri upon her. When did she know that she'd made a mistake and what in the world was that experience like?

In my opinion the only one responsible for Rachel's death is Rachel herself. She was careless. In a dangerous situation she failed to make her presence absolutely clear and for her early-morning foggy logic she died. I hope the weight of the concrete was so great that she never felt a thing.

Being only 24-years old, her life was a short story. She made a mistake, yes, but, please, her reasons for making that mistake that morning had nothing to do with her ideology. I think it's despicable to translate political opinion into ghoulishness if only because Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and their ilk were so good at it.

I may not agree with what, in life, were her politics. But, I consider her death a tragedy on many levels. Philosophical, methodical and, especially, physical. On no level do I consider her death a joke.

How To Know Where To Look

So, anyway, I was at work this afternoon. I was preparing to run a three-color, two-sided brochure on glossy stock for one of our regular customers.

I was at the light table making sure that I had the masking right on the negative. The three colors are red, blue and black. I'd be running the red and black together on the two-color press because it's a very tight registration. The lead line of every one of about fifteen paragraphs was red; the rest of the text was black. Gotta make sure all the little tabs are folded back so's they'll burn into the plate, y'know.

Then I realized that had an older version of the brochure. Hmm. I had two versions for the front side, but only one for the back side - and it was the wrong one.

I spent a few minutes searching the file folders and the job box and looking around at the plate maker and other areas. It was nowhere to be seen.

"I must have filed it in the wrong envelope after the last time I ran this thing," I thought. Crikey, if I gotta start searching through all the folders it could take quite a while to find it that negative.

Then it occurred to me: If I misfiled the negative, where would I have put it?

Let's see... red and black brochure on glossy stock... Independent Special Investigations!
Opened the ISI envelope and TADA! there it was.

I call it "retracing my missteps".

Ashley Smith: Friend or Freak?

Two of my favorite blogbabes seem to have a different impression of Ashley Smith. Michelle sees an angel, Rachel smells a rat.

Bush voters banned!

There's an interesting little item over at Newsmax about a place called Ocean Haven.

Their homepage gives a few clues about their location:

"Ocean Haven is located on the Central Oregon Coast just 8 miles south of the village of Yachats & 30 miles south of Newport with Oregon Coast Aquarium, Yaquina Lighthouse & Bird Refuge. 5 miles north, within the Siuslaw National Forest, are Cape Perpetua’s Old Growth Forest with Spotted Owls, Marble Murelets, Spouting Horn & Devil’s Churn. 7 miles south are the Sea Lion Caves & Heceta Head Lighthouse. 18 miles south are the Oregon Dunes & the town of Florence."

Sounds pretty idyllic, eh? A great get-away place where all the wonders of the sea and shore can be enjoyed in a pristine setting.

Now let's have a look at their Practices page. It begins with this pronouncement:

WE WELCOME DIVERSITY Respecting the interdependence & diversity of all nature loving species.

Yay, diversity! Everyone can enjoy the natural wonders that Ocean Haven has to offer!

Oh, wait a minute. What was that about "all nature loving species"? Hmm, now let's see what and who are banned:

NO SMOKERS

For health, safety and conservation concerns, Ocean Haven is unable to accommodate smokers. Cigarette buts represent the largest concentration of beach litter. Ocean fish & birds are endangered from the ingestion of the plastic filters.

Well, if they want to ban smoking on the premises I can certainly understand that. But, should the rule be "no smoking", not "no smokers"? I guess they'd rather just ban an entire "underclass" of people rather than give smokers a little area on a patio somewhere.

NO OPEN FIRES
NO BEACH FIRES * NO BBQ * NO CANDLES * NO INCENSE.

No campfires? Okay. But, ferkrisakes, what's a rustic retreat without incense?!

NO PETS

Ocean Haven offers pet allergen free rooms. The surrounding area is home to marine & coastal wildlife which is disturbed by the presence of dogs.

NO VISITORS

We charge for all persons on premises, regardless of age or length of visit.

RUGGED & RURAL

Be practical & wear sturdy shoes, bring wind & rain gear & non-perishable foods. We provide beach boots & hiking sticks.

I suppose all that is reasonable. But, what's up with this now?:

NATURE FRIENDLY

Nature-friendly cleaning & maintenance. Committed to limiting human impact on nature. No Hummers, No RVs, No Bush Voters (due to his environmental destructive policies e.g.; nonparticipation in Kyoto Treaty, The Clear Skies Act, continuation of naval sonar in marine mammal habitats...) For more information, see the Advocacy Page . [emphasis added--TS]

Well, they mention Hummers but no other SUVs. I guess a Ford F-250 is okay.

But, no Bush voters?! Over 60 million people are banned from visiting Ocean Haven because they voted for Bush?!

Of course, the ban is impossible to enforce and is there simply as a way for them to throw in some issue advocacy for flavor. (I mean, is anyone going to try to make reservations and, when asked if they voted for Bush, say "Oh, darn it, you got me! I was hoping you'd forget to ask..."?) But let's look at those reasons:

"Nonparticipation in Kyoto Treaty". While President Bush certainly opposes the Kyoto Treaty as an economically destructive policy, only the Congress can ratify a treaty, and Kyoto went down in the Senate by a vote of, I believe, 93-0. Shouldn't all voters of all the Senators who voted it down be banned, as well?

And, for that matter, didn't John Kerry vote against it? Did he support ratifying Kyoto during the campaign? I don't think so, so why aren't Kerry voters banned, too?

"continuation of naval sonar in marine mammal habitats." Did this issue come up the campaign? I don't recall Kerry clamoring for a ban on the use of sonar. So, why do they "ban" only Bush voters?

It's because they're like most wackos. They live in a two-dimentional world where they think we have in a two-party system and it's one party too many. Fooels!

Okay, one other item from the Practices page:

RELAX & RETREAT

No Room Phones * No Internet * No Television
Office phone & message service. Local calls free.
Quiet Hours: 9 PM to 9 AM

Now THAT I like!!!

Quote of the Day

“A serious journalist can’t run with a story without confirmation. Two sources at the absolute minimum.... This is how your narrator made it through Watergate. If I’d gone off half-cocked, if I’d gotten my facts scrambled, if I’d run with unconfirmed leads, I’d be selling insurance right now.” -- Dan Rather in his 1994 memoir, The Camera Never Blinks Twice, page 97.

Good luck in the insurance business, Dan!

Don't bother telling me about any great deal you can offer me, though. I wont be buying it.

(Found the quote here.)

Pet Sounds

shaka shaka shaka shaka shaka shaka pop! shaka shaka shaka pop! shaka pop! shaka shaka poppity pop! shaka poppity poppity pop! shaka poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity pippity pappity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity poppity pop! shaka poppity poppity pop! shaka shuppa shaka pop! shuppa poppity pop! shuppa shuppa shuppa pop! shuppa shuppa pop! shuppa shuppa shuppa shuppa pop! shuppa shuppa shuppa shuppa shuppa shuppa shuppa shuppa.

shushushushushushu.

shushushushushuh.

shushushushushushushushushushushuh.

shushushuh.

xxxaoum!

Mmmmmmmmmm.

----------------------------------------------

UPDATE: Hmm. Just in case anyone's wondering if yours truely has "gone off his medication", lemme explain.

While commuting home last evening I got the idea to have a "guest blogger" write a post and call it "Guest Blogger Blather" or something.

First I thought that it might be one of the cats, Stinky, and have the post read "meow m'm'meow m'meow" and so on. This would represent what Stinky has to say about an important issue of the day like, oh, feeding time.

But then I thought it'd be lot's more funner to have a sauce pan making popcorn "speak". I walked home laughing out loud as I "wrote" it. So when I got home I wrote the main paragraph which was to be posted by guest blogger: "Spork's Sauce Pan".

But I couldn't get the sauce pan in as an author. Maybe it's because of the IP, or because I used the same password as I use for myself. I dunno.

I didn't want to let what I'd written go to waste [don't ask me why] so I titled it "Pet Sounds", added the bits after the main paragraph and just posted it as Tuning Spork.

See? It all makes perfect sense! That's the story and I'm stickin' to it. :P

Link of the Day

Seems that even our enlightened and like-minded allies need, occassionally, to be reminded: Don't lose sight of the stairway by focusing on a single step.

I just lo-o-o-ve food shopping

Some people always know exactly what they want when they go into a supermarket. They gather what's on their list (or in their head) and head for the register. "Grab what you came for, do yer business and get out," is their motto.

Me? I like walking up and down the aisles; exploring the shelves for interesting items that might give me interesting ideas. Most of the time I like to leave the store with at least one thing I've never purchased before.

Today's never-before-purchased purchase: fresh papaya.

Now, I've had canned papaya several times. But, this was the first time I'd seen fresh papaya in the produce section at my local Stop&Shop.

The thing is huge. Cut in half lengthwise, it's even bigger that the largest eggplant I've come across. Watermelon-green on the outside, cantalopy-orange in the inside, with little black seeds around the hollow - like a squash.

So, I got home, unwrapped the papaya-half from the plastic wrap and grabbed a large knife. The thing is as soft as cool butter; rind an' all. Removing the seeds and inside skin of the hollow is almost like skimming cream. No effort required at all. Cutting away the rind is easier than cutting away the crust from a slice of bread.

Tasting a chunk, I was first struck at how moist it is. Very light; it practically melts in your mouth.

Secondly, the taste. A hint of honeydew, two hints of cantalope and eight hints of mango. Very moist and very sweet, and the actual flavor is a bit subtle.

In fact, it's kind of sickly sweet. Kinda like it was a normal fruit that was cultivated in sugarwater. Almost like a piece of water-bloated, air-pumped, mango/melon flavored maple candy.

One other thing. Unlike most fruit, the fresh papaya actually made me thirsty. It also made me want to eat more papaya.
Assuming it's a close relative of mango, it must be loaded with B vitamins. For some reason the combination of the vitamins and the sugars made me grab a glass of iced water. And it's frickin' cold around here.

Evaluation: mixed. It's a good plate if you're in the mood for a very sweet and light fruit. But, that's it, 'cause the actual papayaness (flavorly speaking), while tasty, seems to have been merely an afterthought when the nature gods came up with this one.

How does fresh compare to canned? The canned variety has more flavor and more of a firm texture. But, what I don't like about canned papaya is the intensity of the tastes. The mangoesque flavor and the sweetness are more pronounced after canning. Fresh is much easier on the taste buds, but, it also has a slighter emphasis on the sweetness.

I much prefer this fresh papaya to the canned papaya. But, I'd add, I prefer bananas and peaches to papaya.

What Is All This Jabbering All About Anyway...?

I was running an abortion-debate script through my head and came across to line:

"Are we trying to eliminate a way of life, or just to elimate the people who live that way of life?

More importantly: What the hell was I doing up at 4 o'clock in the morning?

Discuss, please....

And the rotting from within has hit a fevered pitch...

Oh, I'm loving this!

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut - one-time running mate of Al Gore and lifelong Democrat - isn't a Democratic ideologue, and that makes some on the left mighty upset.

The New York Times reports Lieberman has really irked Democrats by:

• His Bush-friendly commentary
  
• A prominent picture on his Web site featuring Lieberman and President Bush
  
• Distancing himself from his party on "security and social issues"

That's our Joe. Thinkin' straight and makin' a difference!

In his home state of Connecticut, some Democrats are getting fed up with Lieberman's perceived increasing disdain for left-wing ideology – so much so, there is an effort just now getting under way to replace him.
"I think he has betrayed his constituency and he is leaning way too far to the right," New Haven resident and Web designer Marjorie Clark told the Times. She and some 30 others who supported Democratic National Committee chief Howard Dean's failed 2004 presidential bid met earlier this week to plan a "Dump Joe" campaign.

Think all you want, Marjorie. Hasn't done you any harm yet, I hope. You and 30 others, eh? Sounds like a Lebanese pro-Syrian-occupation rally to me!

But will it happen? Not likely; Lieberman's popularity remains high among both Democrats and Republicans in his state - as in almost-70-percent-approval-rating high. And for now, party officials say he's still one of them.

Seems that a big thorn in their claw is over their refusal to address the problem of the future of Social Security. Some unknown political hack has this sound advise:

"I think that Joe understands that, at this point in time, unity is the most important card Democrats have to play," one Democratic senator told the Times on anonymity. "He is sympathetic enough to that need that he is not going to bolt the reservation."

Erm... Unity is important. But, what unifies you is even more important, no?
I know, I know. Politicians are lawyers and their client is their party, not you or me. I get it. But, jeeze, could they at least prefrickin'tend to care about the issues that they prefrickin'tend to talk about?
An outside observer says:

"If this becomes 'You cannot work with Bush to solve Social Security,' then it will be a death blow to the Democratic Party. You will have more Republicans up here than we can handle," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the Times.

Sound words, I say. And, guess what:

Lieberman agrees. He, like the president, wants to fix Social Security, not use it as a tool to let the president twist in the wind.
"There is a whole attitude out there, 'Just say No!,' " he told the Times. "In other words, 'Let the president sink with this proposal. We are winning.' But we are not winning because the victory here is to solve the Social Security problem."

Note to the Deanocrats:

Joe looks at policy and then decides which way to go based on principles. You look at politics and decide which way to go based on partisanship. Joe is a leader. You are pouty brats stomping your feet 'cause the adults wont let you have your way.

Lieberman avers he is a proud member of the Democratic Party and "I intend to stay that way."

Get with the times, Joe! There's only one big tent in this circus and yers ain't it anymore!

Neo-libs! That's what we need, folks. NEO-LIBS!!!!

I go sleep now...

Just An Aside On The Whole FEC Thang

I haven't written about this yet because, well, plenty of people were doing a fine job. But, I'd just like to get a word in edgewise because something needs to be noted that I haven't seen noted elsewhere.

Let's take this tidbit:

"Given the impact of the Internet," Ms. Weintraub said, "I think we have to take a look at whether there are aspects of that that ought to be subject to the regulations. But again, I don't want this issue to get overblown. Because I really don't think, at the end of the day, this commission is going to do anything that affects what somebody sitting at home, on their home computer, does."

No. They will not. Why?

A major reason why McCain-Feingold got by the Supreme Court is that the Court ruled that political contributions are a transfer of property, not protected free speech.

SCOTUS: Money does not equal speech.

What that wacky judge Colleen Whats'er-Face seems to be saying was that blogging and linking to materials found elsewhere on the 'net should be considered a contribution-in-kind to a campain.

Judge Whats'er-Face: Speech equals money.

What the huh?!

[And, yeah, I know, I should go find her real name. Let's just call this "punk blogging"!]

The very justifications for upholding McCain-Feingold are what make Judge Whats'er-Face's ingorant opining diametrically opposed to federal law.

If speech=money then money=speech, that speech is protected, and McCain-Feingold has no leg to stand on.
As it is: Judge Colleen Whats'er-Face's blather has no Constitution leg to stand on.

McCain-Feingold and the SCOTUS ruling that upholds it do not lend to her thesis; they contradict it.

(Or, at least, that part of it that inspired the Weintraub comments that I and others have been so worried about.)

The future is now, dag nab it!

The tide has turned and Bashir Assad is missing the boat. (How's that for a cruddy turn of phrase?!)

The future is now and some people don't get it. With regard to Lebanon some are insisting that Syria maybe shouldn't be demanded to pull their troops out quickly. Assad and the Syrian occupation is suddenly in a weak position and some on the appologist end of things want to strengthen it. "Ooo, let's take a 'go slow' approach before something dramatic happens."

Funk that!

To Mister Assad, and other tyrants, I just wanna say this:

You grew up in a world of priviledge. You've reached a place of power that was handed to you and that you've been long-prepared for. You know no way of life other than your own. As a monarch, being in power is not your job, it's your life. Perhaps you think of yourself as a steward of your country and protector of your contrymen. I hope so.

But, I ask you: When is a leader not a leader? When he's a tyrant. As George W. Bush mentioned in his inaugural address, if you seek to lead a people you must first learn to trust them. A "leader" who does not trust the People is, inevitably, not their leader but their oppressor.

You can be one of ten thousand other tyrants who lived and ruled and died and will be forgotten by history. Or, you can be a leader who leads his people into a new era of liberty and prosperity. By taking the reins of reform, not the yokes of further submission, you can help to usher in a new day. Follow the lead of a Mikail Gorbachov. Put your people ahead of your power, and you'll truely be a leader of the People.

Let's do some good in the world every day, folks.

Spork out.

"300 to 400 rounds"?

Here's the car that Giuliana Sgrena was riding in when the engine block was hit. CENTCOM says that the driver refused to stop after signals and warning shots were issued at a checkpoint near Baghdad International Airport. Sgrena claims that they received no warning to stop, just a sudden hail of 300-400 bullets.

Hmm. 300-400 rounds at a moving target and not a single one even hit the hood or windshield. Assuming Sgrena is telling the truth, that's some mighty fine shooting, boys.

Of course, assuming her boyfriend was telling the truth -- that the passengers were deliberately targetted -- that's some damn lousy shooting.

(Tip o' the tam to LGF)

UPDATE: Apparently this is not the car that Sgrena et al were travelling in at the time. The AP seemed to have, at first, used an image of the car she was in when she was "kidnapped". Now it's apparent (for the time being) that the AP used an image of a car that had nothing to do with Sgrena at all.

My appologies for passing on the MSM's sloppy reportage... reportery... reporting. Yeah, that'll do.

Free To Blog?

Apple Computers is making a case that bloggers are not protected by laws that protect journalists from being prosecuted for refusing to reveal their sources. Michelle Malkin has a post about it (with links to other blogs with commentary).

The skinny:

The Shield Law protects journalists from being held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose the source of any information that was gathered for news purposes. It applies to any "publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service."

The Shield "also likely applies to stringers, freelancers, and perhaps authors," according to The First Amendment Project. In one California case, People v. Von Villas, 10 Cal. App. 4th 201, 231-32 (1992), protections were extended to a freelance writer who had not yet signed a contract to publish his work. [emphasis added - TS]

That would seem to imply that bloggers -- "freelancing" for their audiences' benefit, not an employers -- would fall undre the protection of the Shield Law as well. That would only seem fair and logical in a society of free and open debate where information from within the bowels of government, from an un-named source, is seen as neccessary to the survival of a free state.

Some in the MSM have a different view:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution also confers protections to journalists seeking to shield their sources, but as The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press observes, these protections are restricted to "legitimate members of the press." They do not extend to "any person with a manuscript, a web page or a film...."

And councel for the plaintiff argues likewise:

Apple's lawyers argue that Jason O'Grady of PowerPage "does not perform an investigative reporting function in the manner of a legitimate news outlet" and thus is not entitled to journalistic privileges under either the Shield law or the First Amendment [still more emphasis added - TS]

What they are arguing is that a blog, such as PowerPage, is not reporting "legitimate news" because it is not part of a "legitimate news outlet" and, therefore, cannot claim to be protected by the Shield Law. The attorneys for Apple can be forgiven for arguing their client's case with all argumentation that they have at their disposal, I suppose. But, the "Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press" (whatever in the world THAT is) ought to be condemned for arguing against the added protection of free bloggers.

What is the purpose of freedom of the press if not to protect exactly what bloggers do? The problem here is that the loose conglomeration of MSM institutions is nervous about the growth of the blogosphere and the MSM - and the politics of incumbency - are trying to figure out what to do about us.

Michelle writes:

As in the FEC case, the effort to draw a bright line between blogs and traditional media outlets has some rather bizarre implications. For example, do I enjoy the privileges of a "journalist" when I am gathering information for my syndicated column but not when I am gathering information for my blog? Do bloggers at Slate, Salon, and MSNBC enjoy protections not afforded to Matt Drudge?

While the Shield Law, clearly, does not extend to Citizen Me when I have inside information that I wanna keep to myself, does it extend to me when I have that inside formation that I post on my blog? Is my source guaranteed anonymity when I am writing, not to one friend, but, to a general audience of strangers with a stake in this in formation?

I vote YES.

If a newspaper owner or editor is free to print and edit as he wishes -- and to protect his sources -- then I say that I, as a blog owner, have that right as well. My blog is my soapbox and, while it is not an incorporated "legitimate news outlet", it is, nonetheless, a news outlet. If a freelance writer, without a "legitimate" employer, is protected then so are bloggers. We are freelancers, we are our readers.

Bloggers are protected by the Shield Law precisely because we perform an investigative reporting function in the manner of a legitimate news outlet.

Scratch that.... We do it even better now and again. Somebody's running scared.

Let the Alliance of Free Blogs unite!!!

P.S.: This might be an apropos aside at this juncture:

incumbent (in-kum-bent) adj. 1. Lying, leaning or resting on something else. 2. Imposed as an obligation or duty; required. 3. Currently holding a specified office. --n. A person who holds an office.

I suppose that the original intent was to inspire an office-holder with a sense of responsiblity and obligation to the People. Nowadays, though, it seems that that imposition is resting more and more upon the People.

UPDATE: There's lots of talk out in the blogosphere about this. Check out Michelle Malkin for lots of links with different points of view.

Mike over at Blind Mind's Eye argues that the bloggers being sued by Apple are not entitled to Shield Law protection on the basis that leaking the information didn't in any way perform a public service.

"A regular reporter would not have gotten away with this either and the one thing that Apple is scared of is people with little to lose like Think Secret's Ciarelli spilling the beans at every turn."

That may be true (Captain's Quarters had a different take), but Apple's lawyers aren't just arguing that bloggers are not entitled to Shield Law protection in this case, but, rather, are to be denied Shield Law protection is ALL cases by virtue of not being "legitimate journalists".

The issue at the heart of this debate is not whether the identities of the specific Apple leakers can be protected, but whether a blogger can protect the identity of any source.

IOW, are you and I journalists if we publish the Pentagon Papers in the New York Times but not if we publish them on my own websites?

The California Shield Law seems to specifically exclude bloggers from it's prottection for not being part of a "legitimate news organization". The debate - as I see it - is about whether or not that is fair, and shoyld the law be rewritten to protect bloggers who use anonymous sources to expose the truth in important stories in the future.

Aah, Foggy Memories

15 years ago, or so, I was working in the in-house print shop at CALDOR, Inc (now defunct9 for reasons that don't matter).

Rick was one of our pressman; one of six. Rick had the annoying habit of making noise with his voice. The man would not shut the @#$% up.

"Gad, will he ever shut up?" Fi wondered.
"I can't think with him talking over the machines all day long," Hector moaned.
"Oh, you no have to work next to him!" Khamone wailed.

So, one day I became so exasperated with Rick's incessent verbiage that I offerred him a challenge. If he'd not say a single word for one hour I'd pay him $5. He accepted the challenge!

He nearly broke after ten minutes but then he put a strip of packing tape over his mouth. Holy crap, he's serious.

Various persons would come by to talk to him but he, mouth masked, would only communicate in writing. This was getting weird.

At about 45 minutes Fi walked up to me.

"So, if he makes it... are y'gonna pay him?" he asked
"Of course," I said to his surprise.
"Why?" he shrugged in something very near confusion.
"Because I said I would." (Now, mind you, I never thought for a split second that Rick could possibly make it to an hour without saying something. But if he did, I began to accept, I'd just have to pay up.)

Eventually it became the event of the day. By 55 minutes everyone was trying to trick Rick into talking. "The clock's wrong, you've already made it!" "Dude, he ain't gonna pay ya so stop embarrassing yourself!" Rick just shook his head at them defiantly and knowingly.

When it was clear that an hour had passed, and he'd clearly made it without uttering a word, he took off the tape. I pulled out my wallet and handed him a five-dollar bill.

"Rick," Jeff, the boss, said. "You did all that for five dollars?!" Rick laughed loudly and joyfully as only he can. Jeff, and everyone else, were silent. Aghast, I tells ya, at what had just happened.

"No," I told Jeff and the entire crew who'd gathered for this rediculous moment. "He didn't do it for five bucks."

I dug my BIC lighter out of my pants pocket and handed it to Rick. He winked, then smiled, then set the fiver ablaze and let it fall to the concrete floor.

"Hah! See?!" I shouted. "He did it because I challenged him to do it. I asked him to do something hard. Something no one's ever challenged him to do before. And he did it! Not for five bucks, but for having done a difficult thing. For beating my challenge!"

I turned to Rick with my hand up and we high-fived while some crumpled thing fizzled out on the floor. .

Conversation of the Day

Me: I just thought of something.
Lawruh: Uh-oh. Let me guess: Gravity can't exist!
Me: No-o-o-o-o. I don't know how an electron's radius is measured.
Lawruh: What?
Me: Well, an electron is a wave.
Lawruh: How can you measure the radius of a wave?
Me: Exactly. The thing is: It can't travel around a proton in one cycle otherwise it'd just be a circle. There'd be no crest or valley. So, if an electron's diameter can be measured, it's because it's spread out over two cycles!
Lawruh: Wow, I almost understood that!
Me: Me, too! And that's why atoms are never found alone, but only as molecules. They travel around in pairs.
Lawruh: Like women when they go to the bathroom!
Me: Yes! The electrons loop around one proton then the other; two cycles!
Lawruh: In a figure-8!
Me: Yes!
Lawruh: Y'know, I was eating Alpha-Bits one morning and was surprised because I saw that it read "oooooo." Then I remembered that I was eating CheeriOs.

Peace On Earth (pt 2)

I think we all know where pt. 2 was going, so maybe I'll forget the purple prose for a while and, instead, present this:

I stole borrowed it from Hold The Mayo.

It's all happening just as expected. Just let the people of the Middle East see an election in Iraq and, soon, everyone's gonna want one!

Are the moonbats barking yet?