http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/FBI-Bust-Plot-Foiled.html
The surmised motive for this plot is our continuing presence in Afghanistan, on which I have loudly criticized the Obama administration for wratcheting up our troop levels by 25K (with a lot more sure to come) and billions and billions of new spending WITHOUT any expressed, coherent plan for what the hell we are trying to accomplish there. Similarly, I had (and still have) no problem with our initial presence there because the stated goal was to take out Al Qaeda, but Bush screwed the pooch, as they say, by diverting most our resources to a BS infiltration of Iraq. So in other words, I have plenty to say about both these dudes that is not positive when it comes to their Afghani policies. But does that I mean that I blame either of them for some sicko, deranged freak plotting some terror plan against innocent Jewish people in NYC? Fuck no. (that's right, I didn't even bleep myself out this time as I usually do, because I feel so strongly about using that word in this instance). So whom do I blame? Get this -- because it's very novel thinking in this day and age -- I actually blame the sick fucks who hatched the plan and conspiracy in the first place! Whoahhhh! Stop the moon's revolution around the earth! What am I thinking? (well, actually, I'm just thinking like the 60-65% majority of this country thinks, even if the radical far left and far right are totally incapable of getting a clue about such a reality at any point in their pathetic lives).
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
On occasion, these politicans have to make tough decisions, and when they do, they don't deserve to be called war criminals and murderers.
I've never been much of fan of Jay Nixon. He's always struck me as a political fat cat, kind of like the new wave version of Kit Bond. Dude was Missouri AG for like 40 years (can you say term limits!), and dude has never impressed me with too much that's he's done (although sticking up for the preservation of the old Boonville railroad bridge over the Missouri river was a notable exception). But I digress. The point is he had a TOUGH decision tonight, and ultimately denied clemency for this Skillicorn character.
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1205083.html
I personally would have labored over that decision more than the natural resulting act of a hot dog eating contestant in a Georgia shithouse. I would have labored over the fact that I oppose the death penalty because it on rare occasions results in innocent convicts being killed, versus, on the other hand, that I've seen little (although haven't exactly followed the whole story and saga very closely, admittedly) to suggest that this Skillicorn isn't as guilty as sin and doesn't deserve to die for the innocent life that he took (as I've said before in this space, I have no problem with the basic tenet upon which the death penalty is based, i.e. that if you take someone's life in the first degree, you deserve to die for it). And I'll admit this -- I have no freakin' idea where I would have come out on such a decision if I had the power. So you won't hear my criticizing Nixon tonight on the extremely difficult decision he had to make.
Which leads me to something that REALLY riled my up recently, but which I have not previously addressed in this space. That would be Jon Stewart calling Harry Truman a "war criminal" for Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs in Japan. I mean, shit, can you cite me a more difficult decision than ANY POLITICIAN IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER HAD than that one? -- between killing tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians versus killing tens of thousands of American troops through prolonging the war with an invasion of the Japanese mainland? Disagree with Truman's decision --that's fine -- but don't you dare start spouting some of these bullshit 2000's political buzz phrases like "war criminal" upon a Missourian who faced a tougher decision than I can recall for any American president. I think Stewart purported to issue some kind of apology after the fact, and frankly I have not read it, although I suspect it was probably laiden with the same kind of non-apology apology crap that we saw from Anderson Cooper's so-called "teabagger" non-apology earlier today (see this space, just below).
In sum, you loony, radical, out-of-touch far left and far right: It's fine that you go around spewing your moronic hate and using your anti-intellectual little buzz words 24-7 -- that's your right in this great, wonderful country -- but you really might want to stick the muzzle on when it comes to spewing your same stupid venom when it comes to politicians who truly have to make the hard calls, such as Nixon tonight and Truman in 1945.
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1205083.html
I personally would have labored over that decision more than the natural resulting act of a hot dog eating contestant in a Georgia shithouse. I would have labored over the fact that I oppose the death penalty because it on rare occasions results in innocent convicts being killed, versus, on the other hand, that I've seen little (although haven't exactly followed the whole story and saga very closely, admittedly) to suggest that this Skillicorn isn't as guilty as sin and doesn't deserve to die for the innocent life that he took (as I've said before in this space, I have no problem with the basic tenet upon which the death penalty is based, i.e. that if you take someone's life in the first degree, you deserve to die for it). And I'll admit this -- I have no freakin' idea where I would have come out on such a decision if I had the power. So you won't hear my criticizing Nixon tonight on the extremely difficult decision he had to make.
Which leads me to something that REALLY riled my up recently, but which I have not previously addressed in this space. That would be Jon Stewart calling Harry Truman a "war criminal" for Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs in Japan. I mean, shit, can you cite me a more difficult decision than ANY POLITICIAN IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER HAD than that one? -- between killing tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians versus killing tens of thousands of American troops through prolonging the war with an invasion of the Japanese mainland? Disagree with Truman's decision --that's fine -- but don't you dare start spouting some of these bullshit 2000's political buzz phrases like "war criminal" upon a Missourian who faced a tougher decision than I can recall for any American president. I think Stewart purported to issue some kind of apology after the fact, and frankly I have not read it, although I suspect it was probably laiden with the same kind of non-apology apology crap that we saw from Anderson Cooper's so-called "teabagger" non-apology earlier today (see this space, just below).
In sum, you loony, radical, out-of-touch far left and far right: It's fine that you go around spewing your moronic hate and using your anti-intellectual little buzz words 24-7 -- that's your right in this great, wonderful country -- but you really might want to stick the muzzle on when it comes to spewing your same stupid venom when it comes to politicians who truly have to make the hard calls, such as Nixon tonight and Truman in 1945.
Was about to credit Anderson Cooper for apparently taking back his 3rd grade style "teabagger" remark, BUT...
then I actually read the story.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/anderson_cooper_says_teabagging_comment_was_stupid_silly_116894.asp
Talk about your typical non-apology apology. "It's incorrect to say that I was trying to disparage legitimate protests." That's precisely what you were trying to do, Cooper, wearing your biases on your sleeve at the same time -- behavior that is intolerable in my view from any person holding themselves out to the public as a journalist. THEN, just for loony good measure, you actually have the gall today to throw in the additional comment that "I don't think it's my job to disparage, or encourage, which oddly other networks seemed to be doing." The complete intellectual dishonesty of that statement is self-explanatory. So in conclusion, Cooper, why don't you take your non-apology and go **** yourself (again, just a catch-phrase, not necessarily to be taken literally). You're not a real journalist in any sense of that term.
Post-script: If you go back and read my posts about the tea parties when they occurred, you'll see my viewpoints on those events, which have not changed: I did not like the tenacles that the republican party had into those events, but to describe those events as being exclusively attended by conservatives, republicans and "racists" -- as the far left politicans, blogosphere and mainstream media tried to do -- when a huge swath of the attendees were Independents and/or non-conservatives (with even a fair amount of democrats mixed in), was pure falsehood.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/anderson_cooper_says_teabagging_comment_was_stupid_silly_116894.asp
Talk about your typical non-apology apology. "It's incorrect to say that I was trying to disparage legitimate protests." That's precisely what you were trying to do, Cooper, wearing your biases on your sleeve at the same time -- behavior that is intolerable in my view from any person holding themselves out to the public as a journalist. THEN, just for loony good measure, you actually have the gall today to throw in the additional comment that "I don't think it's my job to disparage, or encourage, which oddly other networks seemed to be doing." The complete intellectual dishonesty of that statement is self-explanatory. So in conclusion, Cooper, why don't you take your non-apology and go **** yourself (again, just a catch-phrase, not necessarily to be taken literally). You're not a real journalist in any sense of that term.
Post-script: If you go back and read my posts about the tea parties when they occurred, you'll see my viewpoints on those events, which have not changed: I did not like the tenacles that the republican party had into those events, but to describe those events as being exclusively attended by conservatives, republicans and "racists" -- as the far left politicans, blogosphere and mainstream media tried to do -- when a huge swath of the attendees were Independents and/or non-conservatives (with even a fair amount of democrats mixed in), was pure falsehood.
Monday, May 18, 2009
It was sad to listen to a formerly true Independent, Jesse The Body Ventura, on the "Hannity" show tonight.
Dude seems very all-consumed with Bush hatred. Jesse -- he's gone finally -- move on to some new material. Not to mention that you sounded little different from the far left radical blather that I have no place for in my life. Very boring stuff. And cut the mullet dude (for crying out loud)!
Post-script: Hannity sickens me just as much as any of the loony leftsters who control the democratic party. Because everything with him is all about whether your viewpoints align on this neat little vertical pole that he subscribes to. One thing that Ventura had it right about tonight was pointing out that same fact. Of course, Ventura is talking out of both sides of his mouth, because he struck me tonight as just another boring Garrison Keillor & Walter Mondale-like Minnesota leftist with the funny accent. I liked him a lot better when he was Independent.
Post-script: Hannity sickens me just as much as any of the loony leftsters who control the democratic party. Because everything with him is all about whether your viewpoints align on this neat little vertical pole that he subscribes to. One thing that Ventura had it right about tonight was pointing out that same fact. Of course, Ventura is talking out of both sides of his mouth, because he struck me tonight as just another boring Garrison Keillor & Walter Mondale-like Minnesota leftist with the funny accent. I liked him a lot better when he was Independent.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Heard Gore Vidal tonight likening "W!" to Richard M. Nixon. Shame on you Gore.
This came on VH1 Classic's "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" (an OUTSTANDING documentary that all of you should watch). With all due respect, Mr. Vidal, you are trying to compare apples to oranges, and that's the nicest way I can put it. I've yet to see any evidence of the W! people (as slimey as they were) creating FBI open files on anyone who had the audacity to disagree with them publicly, although I have very much felt some strong winds from your hero's current administration that this same sort of egregious practice might just be coming back into vogue from the Janet Napolitanos, etc., of this country. Yes, W! is one of the worst presidents in this great country's history, and his most absolutely unpardonable sin was lying to us about the pretense to invade Iraq, but was he an absolute enemy of America threatening to deprive us citizens of some of the most basic freedoms we've enjoyed for over 200 years (i.e., the right to freely dissent against our political leaders), as Nixon was trying to do? Not even in the same league. No credible comparison. Shame on you, Gore. Shame on you.
On 4/18/09, I criticized Obama for yucking it up with the likes of Hugo Chavez while tensions were running high between Israel & Iran.
http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2009/04/israel-stands-to-bomb-iran-this-is-bad.html
Today I will credit Obama for focusing on that issue, because it is a hugely important one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6307431.ece
Me crediting His Majesty twice in the same day! That's gotta be some kind of record. But as the old cliche goes, I just call it like I see it, and I'll credit The President when I feel he deserves it. But hey, Obama, I'll still waiting over here for you to coherently articulate (sorry for the split infinitive) the plan for Afghanistan. It's long overdue, man.
Today I will credit Obama for focusing on that issue, because it is a hugely important one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6307431.ece
Me crediting His Majesty twice in the same day! That's gotta be some kind of record. But as the old cliche goes, I just call it like I see it, and I'll credit The President when I feel he deserves it. But hey, Obama, I'll still waiting over here for you to coherently articulate (sorry for the split infinitive) the plan for Afghanistan. It's long overdue, man.
Notre Dame protesters need to get a life.
As hard as I've been on Obama and his administration on several occasions recently, I'm glad he followed through and appeared at Notre Dame today. The absolute uproar over this from the Catholic Church and from students and other protesters, etc., seems to me to be very misplaced. When you get right down to the core of the issue, you have a group of people basically saying that since you happen to disagree with me on a particular issue, you have no business visiting our campus or ever speaking to us. It's my view that we need A LOT LESS of that kind of sentiment in this country. Our political system and discourse has become so intolerant of and hateful towards people with whom we disagree. Hey, I engage in a lot of that kind of anger myself towards the left and right -- I always use the excuse that it's what they do, so right back at them -- but sometimes I think that I really need to take a chill pill myself. Will I then? Not likely, but sometimes I at least consider it!
White House jokes that new "first dog" perhaps should be called "Miss California." The pathetic hypocrisy.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/axelrod-ruminates-on-rove-and-miss-california/
The completely disingenuous nature of such a statement, from a White House that has previously very clearly taken the position (never retracted) that it (like Miss California) opposes gay marriage, is frankly sickening. It's real simple with me: Take a position and, for better or for worse, stick to it and defend it. Or hell, even flip flop. Even that's better that trying to walk both sides of the fence. Hey, gay marriage is very much an issue I care little about, because it has nothing to do with me or the lives of the people that I care about and support. What riles me up is this effort to walk both sides of the fence. This White House seems to often talk out of both sides of its mouth, just like any other group of dem or repub politicians. They are no different. Hardly "Change We Can Believe In". Like I said before, just more of the boring old same.
The completely disingenuous nature of such a statement, from a White House that has previously very clearly taken the position (never retracted) that it (like Miss California) opposes gay marriage, is frankly sickening. It's real simple with me: Take a position and, for better or for worse, stick to it and defend it. Or hell, even flip flop. Even that's better that trying to walk both sides of the fence. Hey, gay marriage is very much an issue I care little about, because it has nothing to do with me or the lives of the people that I care about and support. What riles me up is this effort to walk both sides of the fence. This White House seems to often talk out of both sides of its mouth, just like any other group of dem or repub politicians. They are no different. Hardly "Change We Can Believe In". Like I said before, just more of the boring old same.
Why is everyone running so scared?
I've posted a link to this blog on prominent message boards for nary 8 weeks now, but people seem very reluctant to get it on with me. What gives? Where is the radical far left and far right? Warriors.....clink, clink, clink, come out and play-eeee. Warriors...clink, clink, clink, come out and play-eeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeee!
DAMN! (We havin' fun yet?) All this BS political talk has AGAIN swept my Slimeball Sandwich Recipe to Page 2. So here it is again!...
http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2009/05/gingrich-blasts-pelosi-talk-about.html
I'm going to get this sandwich started in America if we have to hair-lip the governor. Damn right.
I'm going to get this sandwich started in America if we have to hair-lip the governor. Damn right.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Just struck me tonight: People who call themselves "moderate" or "centrist" are basically no better than or different from liberals or conservatives.
I'm not a moderate, nor a centrist. I'm an average American who tends to have views on the right, left and everywhere in between. The majority of the people in this country are the same way. And no one is representing us. We just get two BS parties who are controlled by their loony left and right extremes (since that's where they get all of their money). A free-minded human being does not have viewpoints that align on some vertical pole -- whether that pole be on the far right, far left, or in the center. If some dude told me he's a centrist and that most all of his views align in the center, I'd say to that dude that he's no different from a liberal or a conservative, because he's viewing the world with blinders on. That's where I'm coming from. Fight the Power!!!
Garrison Keillor asks, "Does being an old crank make me a Republican?"
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1200053.html
No, Keillor, it just makes you a curmudgeony old crank liberal from Minnesota, out of touch with the overwelming majority of this country (the NERVE of someone like you having the audacity to call the repubs a "statistical subgroup."). Republicans hold a monopoly on crankiness? Your far left ilk, just like the far right, lives that characteristic 24-7, with a whole lotta hate and looniness thrown in just for good measure. The majority is "confused" and you are the "free" one? No confusion here. No mealy-mouthing. No equivocating. No pragmatism. Just a whole lot of belief and anger directed at two out-of-touch, B.S. parties controlled by their extremes. Further, as a crusty old liberal turd, you have about as much "freedom" of mind and ability to think for yourself as a rottweiler who just had a lobotomy -- about as much freedom of mind as that slimeball Cheney whom you target in your column. As I like to say, people like you and Cheney are two peas in the same pod -- doctrinaire, largely non-thinking zombies fueled by bitterness and typically a fair amount of hate. Well, a lot of us who are neither liberal nor conservative have started to develop a fair amount of anger ourselves, not that someone like you would be anything but oblivious to anyone who is not a conservative or liberal (you just dismiss us as "moderates," whatever the hell that term really means). Yeah, we're out here and we're going to do our best to make CRANKY old leftist farts like you pay a bit of notice. And we're not going away.
No, Keillor, it just makes you a curmudgeony old crank liberal from Minnesota, out of touch with the overwelming majority of this country (the NERVE of someone like you having the audacity to call the repubs a "statistical subgroup."). Republicans hold a monopoly on crankiness? Your far left ilk, just like the far right, lives that characteristic 24-7, with a whole lotta hate and looniness thrown in just for good measure. The majority is "confused" and you are the "free" one? No confusion here. No mealy-mouthing. No equivocating. No pragmatism. Just a whole lot of belief and anger directed at two out-of-touch, B.S. parties controlled by their extremes. Further, as a crusty old liberal turd, you have about as much "freedom" of mind and ability to think for yourself as a rottweiler who just had a lobotomy -- about as much freedom of mind as that slimeball Cheney whom you target in your column. As I like to say, people like you and Cheney are two peas in the same pod -- doctrinaire, largely non-thinking zombies fueled by bitterness and typically a fair amount of hate. Well, a lot of us who are neither liberal nor conservative have started to develop a fair amount of anger ourselves, not that someone like you would be anything but oblivious to anyone who is not a conservative or liberal (you just dismiss us as "moderates," whatever the hell that term really means). Yeah, we're out here and we're going to do our best to make CRANKY old leftist farts like you pay a bit of notice. And we're not going away.
I like this post. It sums up the wonderful world of Independence...
and so therefore I will repeat it in this space:
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=6633772
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=6633772
On a sports note, allow me to reiterate my previously expressed sentiments as to the KC Royals' Mike Jacobs. He's quickly becoming my favorite Royal.
Rather than re-invent the wheel, I'll instead just post what I posted on another messageboard earlier tonight:
Mike Jacobs:
Dude can't play a lick of defense, and he is what he is at the plate, striking out right and left and taking that huge hack regardless of whether it's 0-2 or 3-1. First, you have to admire a guy who enjoys what he does so much that he'll take the big hack regardless of count and won't complain for a second when he gets relegated to DH based upon the high defensive prowess of one Billy Butler. Second, Jacobs is donating 1000K for each home run he hits to a charity in the KC inner city that struck his heart when he visited it (Operation Breakthrough, which aids underprivileged inner city young people and families) before the season. Add to that the fact that he's a real and positive clubhouse leader among the younger guys, by all accounts. Add to that an interview I watched how he lost his old man when he was like 6, and he has big tatoo carved out as a tribute to said father, and Jacobs is very cool in my book. I don't care if he strikes out 150 times. We could use more dudes like him in KC.
Mike Jacobs:
Dude can't play a lick of defense, and he is what he is at the plate, striking out right and left and taking that huge hack regardless of whether it's 0-2 or 3-1. First, you have to admire a guy who enjoys what he does so much that he'll take the big hack regardless of count and won't complain for a second when he gets relegated to DH based upon the high defensive prowess of one Billy Butler. Second, Jacobs is donating 1000K for each home run he hits to a charity in the KC inner city that struck his heart when he visited it (Operation Breakthrough, which aids underprivileged inner city young people and families) before the season. Add to that the fact that he's a real and positive clubhouse leader among the younger guys, by all accounts. Add to that an interview I watched how he lost his old man when he was like 6, and he has big tatoo carved out as a tribute to said father, and Jacobs is very cool in my book. I don't care if he strikes out 150 times. We could use more dudes like him in KC.
Friday, May 15, 2009
So Big Daddy (I was asked), what do you think about this whole Pelosi flap? My response: I'd just prefer to focus on looking forward.
Oh wait, that was His Majesty's response -- oops, Sorreeeey. My response is set forth on the blog below. Sorry state of things (but alas just more of the same, as it's always been) when a meager, lowly man from a town of 9000 such as myself can speak the truth about Pelosi, but yet the most powerful man on the planet, i.e. his Royal Highness and Our Majesty, cannot do so. Change We Can Believe In!!!
You wonder why I'm angry?
You wonder why I call Obama His Majesty? You wonder why I laugh at his catch-phrase, "Change We Can Believe In"?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/15/white_house_dodges_question_about_pelosi.html
Pelosi is caught in an obvious case of not telling the whole truth -- an obvious case of trumpeting a highly misleading statement over and over for weeks ("I was never briefed that the CIA was using waterboarding"), and His Majesty's White House -- just like every other one during my life -- can't give an honest answer to that question for purely B.S. political reasons. His Majesty is not change we can believe in. He is more of the same, more the same sliminess that I've basically watched up there for my entire life. More of the same sort of clown who does not represent me nor 60-65% of this country. Add to that the fact that His Majesty REALLY doesn't care for folks like me, from towns of 9000, and you have a man whom I will call His Majesty, and keep an eye on, and criticize as I see fit until the cows come home. But don't worry Slimebaugh and all you far right conservative freaks -- I gotta a lotta more for you too, boys!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/15/white_house_dodges_question_about_pelosi.html
Pelosi is caught in an obvious case of not telling the whole truth -- an obvious case of trumpeting a highly misleading statement over and over for weeks ("I was never briefed that the CIA was using waterboarding"), and His Majesty's White House -- just like every other one during my life -- can't give an honest answer to that question for purely B.S. political reasons. His Majesty is not change we can believe in. He is more of the same, more the same sliminess that I've basically watched up there for my entire life. More of the same sort of clown who does not represent me nor 60-65% of this country. Add to that the fact that His Majesty REALLY doesn't care for folks like me, from towns of 9000, and you have a man whom I will call His Majesty, and keep an eye on, and criticize as I see fit until the cows come home. But don't worry Slimebaugh and all you far right conservative freaks -- I gotta a lotta more for you too, boys!
Gingrich blasts Pelosi! Talk about a regular Slimeball Sandwich!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/gingrich-pelosi.html
Newt calls Nancy a liar, despicable, dishonest, vicious and trivial? Pots really shouldn't call kettles black, but that's not even the real point of this post.
Thinking about that rather pathetic Slimeball Sandwich got me thinking about the Real Slimeball Sandwich -- a tasty type of sandwich that I invented and so named in 1990 as a sophomore at the University of Missouri. It resulted from the need to make filling, but very cheap meals on my extremely limited budget, since my only income at the time was working in the grill at McDonald's on Nifong Boulevard 15-20 hours a week (I think my hourly pay was around $4.30/hour, but can't recall for certain). So I invented the Slimeball Sandwich -- a very economical, yet slimey, yet tasty sandwich, perfect for breakfast, lunch or dinner -- or even as a snack around 4:30 a.m. to help take the edge off.
Now, the sandwich can be made with regular, "full-flavored" ingredients (as I used to make it in college), but frankly it's pretty damn unhealthy that way. It can also be made much healthier, and still retain much of its tastiness, through utilization of low fat and fat free alternatives, which is how I make it now.
Now that one could cut the suspense around here with a knife, here's how the Slimeball Sandwich is made:
1. Toast two pieces of bread well in a toaster (I use low calorie light bread).
2. Put a piece of baloney or other lunch meat of preference on one of the pieces of bread (I use 98% fat free baloney as my #1 preference, but also use other low fat lunch meats, such as smoked ham and roast beef).
3. Then you start stackin' on top of the baloney: First is a slice of tomato (in college, I often left off the tomato for cost-reasons, but the sandwich is much better with the tomato). Also note: Sprinkling some salt, pepper and red pepper flakes on the tomato only adds to the party!
4. Then comes a giant dollop of mayo -- which ultimately gives the sandwich most of its sliminess, but also much of its taste (I use fat free Miracle Whip "salad dressing" mayo).
5. Then come sliced onions, and lots of 'em! (although you can always go lighter on the onions if that's your preference) Slice them and use them the way you would on a grilled cheeseburger.
6. Finally, a slice of American cheese on top (I use the fat free variety), followed by the other piece of well-toasted bread as the apex and roof of the sandwich.
7. Then preparation: Stick the sandwich in the microwave for about a minute and a half until the cheese is all liquidy and melted all over everything and the sandwich is very hot. For multiple sandwiches at once, go with about a minute and a half per sandwich. (I normally polish off at least four of these bad boys per sitting, which would mean 6 minutes).
Final notes: You will probaby need to let the sandwiches cool a few minutes, lest you want to scald the roof of your piehole. Also, these sandwiches are very good dipped in low fat cream of mushroom or tomato soup. Finally, note that these sandwiches are extrememly slimey, gooey and messy -- so bring plenty of napkins, unless having a mush of caked-on mayo and cheese is your sort of thing.
If I'm ever able to open up my own joint (i.e. bar and grill), this sandwich WILL be on the menu. You can thank me later for sharing it with you today -- just thank me when you see me again, Josey Wales.
Newt calls Nancy a liar, despicable, dishonest, vicious and trivial? Pots really shouldn't call kettles black, but that's not even the real point of this post.
Thinking about that rather pathetic Slimeball Sandwich got me thinking about the Real Slimeball Sandwich -- a tasty type of sandwich that I invented and so named in 1990 as a sophomore at the University of Missouri. It resulted from the need to make filling, but very cheap meals on my extremely limited budget, since my only income at the time was working in the grill at McDonald's on Nifong Boulevard 15-20 hours a week (I think my hourly pay was around $4.30/hour, but can't recall for certain). So I invented the Slimeball Sandwich -- a very economical, yet slimey, yet tasty sandwich, perfect for breakfast, lunch or dinner -- or even as a snack around 4:30 a.m. to help take the edge off.
Now, the sandwich can be made with regular, "full-flavored" ingredients (as I used to make it in college), but frankly it's pretty damn unhealthy that way. It can also be made much healthier, and still retain much of its tastiness, through utilization of low fat and fat free alternatives, which is how I make it now.
Now that one could cut the suspense around here with a knife, here's how the Slimeball Sandwich is made:
1. Toast two pieces of bread well in a toaster (I use low calorie light bread).
2. Put a piece of baloney or other lunch meat of preference on one of the pieces of bread (I use 98% fat free baloney as my #1 preference, but also use other low fat lunch meats, such as smoked ham and roast beef).
3. Then you start stackin' on top of the baloney: First is a slice of tomato (in college, I often left off the tomato for cost-reasons, but the sandwich is much better with the tomato). Also note: Sprinkling some salt, pepper and red pepper flakes on the tomato only adds to the party!
4. Then comes a giant dollop of mayo -- which ultimately gives the sandwich most of its sliminess, but also much of its taste (I use fat free Miracle Whip "salad dressing" mayo).
5. Then come sliced onions, and lots of 'em! (although you can always go lighter on the onions if that's your preference) Slice them and use them the way you would on a grilled cheeseburger.
6. Finally, a slice of American cheese on top (I use the fat free variety), followed by the other piece of well-toasted bread as the apex and roof of the sandwich.
7. Then preparation: Stick the sandwich in the microwave for about a minute and a half until the cheese is all liquidy and melted all over everything and the sandwich is very hot. For multiple sandwiches at once, go with about a minute and a half per sandwich. (I normally polish off at least four of these bad boys per sitting, which would mean 6 minutes).
Final notes: You will probaby need to let the sandwiches cool a few minutes, lest you want to scald the roof of your piehole. Also, these sandwiches are very good dipped in low fat cream of mushroom or tomato soup. Finally, note that these sandwiches are extrememly slimey, gooey and messy -- so bring plenty of napkins, unless having a mush of caked-on mayo and cheese is your sort of thing.
If I'm ever able to open up my own joint (i.e. bar and grill), this sandwich WILL be on the menu. You can thank me later for sharing it with you today -- just thank me when you see me again, Josey Wales.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Look no further than here for the truth on the Pelosi/CIA flap.
I've recently noted in this space that this whole item is not exactly one of my hot-button issues (i.e., Nancy Pelosi may have said something less than honest? -- NOOOO!), but there seems to be SO MUCH buzz concerning the issue right now that I felt compelled to read up on it and tell it how it is. The whole story seems rather confusing if you just read or watch one or a few isolated stories on the events -- things only seem to clear up if one reads a number of stories. So here goes, as best I can piece together from about 30 minutes of reading:
1. Pelosi's original story, which she apparently repeated for some number of days or weeks, is that she was "never briefed" on the fact that the CIA was using waterboarding on terror detainees. Such original story is important to keep in mind for later in this post.
2. The CIA this week comes out and says that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 concerning the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on these detainees. Admittedly, however, I don't see where the CIA is claiming that it told Pelosi in September 2002 that waterboarding, specifically, was one of the "enhanced interrogation techiques" that was being used.
3. Pelosi reacts to the CIA this week by claiming that the CIA (at such September 2002 briefing) specifically told her that waterboarding was NOT being used with these detainees.
4. Under republican pressure this week alleging that Pelosi is lying about something here, Pelosi admits today that in 2003 she learned from an aid that other members of Congress had been briefed by the CIA that the CIA was, in fact, using waterboarding on these detainees. In Pelosi's words, "I wasn't briefed -- I was informed someone else had been briefed."
OK, is your head spinning yet? Let's try to cut through the crap here: First, whether Pelosi was told in the September 2002 briefing that waterboarding was being used (as the CIA insinuates), or whether she was told at that time that it was not being used (as she claims), is not really the primary issue here -- rather that seems to me to be more of a garden variety "he said, she said" dispute where either side could be telling the truth (tell me, do any of you really trust EITHER the CIA or Nancy Pelosi?-- I sure as hell don't).
Now, that brings us to the real issue here, which is Pelosi's ORIGINAL and repeated statement that she was "never briefed" on the fact that the CIA was using waterboarding on these detainees. In fact, she did KNOW about it (as she admitted today) REGARDLESS of whether that knowledge came from a "briefing" that she personally attended and received.
Pelosi seems to be trying to cling to the fact that her original statement ("I was never briefed") was technically accurate (if in fact her version of the September 2002 briefing is truthful), when in fact (and here FINALLY we get to the truth) her original statement was HIGHLY MISLEADING AND DISINGENOUS. Think about it: She admits now that she knew about the CIA's use of waterboarding back in 2003, yet she was going around for days or weeks claiming "I was never briefed" on such use of waterboarding. WTF?
To summarize, she may technically be correct that the CIA never PERSONALLY briefed her on the issue, but her admission that she nonetheless was INFORMED secondhand that the CIA was using waterboarding back in 2003 makes her whole original story ("I was never briefed") completely slimey and misleading because it omits a material and closely related fact and fails to tell the whole truth. But does this surprise me in any way? No! That's Nancy!
1. Pelosi's original story, which she apparently repeated for some number of days or weeks, is that she was "never briefed" on the fact that the CIA was using waterboarding on terror detainees. Such original story is important to keep in mind for later in this post.
2. The CIA this week comes out and says that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 concerning the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on these detainees. Admittedly, however, I don't see where the CIA is claiming that it told Pelosi in September 2002 that waterboarding, specifically, was one of the "enhanced interrogation techiques" that was being used.
3. Pelosi reacts to the CIA this week by claiming that the CIA (at such September 2002 briefing) specifically told her that waterboarding was NOT being used with these detainees.
4. Under republican pressure this week alleging that Pelosi is lying about something here, Pelosi admits today that in 2003 she learned from an aid that other members of Congress had been briefed by the CIA that the CIA was, in fact, using waterboarding on these detainees. In Pelosi's words, "I wasn't briefed -- I was informed someone else had been briefed."
OK, is your head spinning yet? Let's try to cut through the crap here: First, whether Pelosi was told in the September 2002 briefing that waterboarding was being used (as the CIA insinuates), or whether she was told at that time that it was not being used (as she claims), is not really the primary issue here -- rather that seems to me to be more of a garden variety "he said, she said" dispute where either side could be telling the truth (tell me, do any of you really trust EITHER the CIA or Nancy Pelosi?-- I sure as hell don't).
Now, that brings us to the real issue here, which is Pelosi's ORIGINAL and repeated statement that she was "never briefed" on the fact that the CIA was using waterboarding on these detainees. In fact, she did KNOW about it (as she admitted today) REGARDLESS of whether that knowledge came from a "briefing" that she personally attended and received.
Pelosi seems to be trying to cling to the fact that her original statement ("I was never briefed") was technically accurate (if in fact her version of the September 2002 briefing is truthful), when in fact (and here FINALLY we get to the truth) her original statement was HIGHLY MISLEADING AND DISINGENOUS. Think about it: She admits now that she knew about the CIA's use of waterboarding back in 2003, yet she was going around for days or weeks claiming "I was never briefed" on such use of waterboarding. WTF?
To summarize, she may technically be correct that the CIA never PERSONALLY briefed her on the issue, but her admission that she nonetheless was INFORMED secondhand that the CIA was using waterboarding back in 2003 makes her whole original story ("I was never briefed") completely slimey and misleading because it omits a material and closely related fact and fails to tell the whole truth. But does this surprise me in any way? No! That's Nancy!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Janet Napolitano for US Supreme Court! Change We Can Believe In!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D985I63O1&show_article=1
I'm struggling to think of a more absurd proposition that has occurred since His Majesty exchanged yucks and laughs with a despicable totalarian dictator from down south way. I do recognize the political convenience and advantage to such a move -- transfer perhaps the biggest Jackass appointment His Majesty has made so far (which is really saying something) from Homeland Security to a place where she never appears on camera and can keep a much lower profile for several years -- BUT PLEASE!
I can only imagine the Napolitano-written decisions we would get 35-40 years from now (i.e. the first point in time when the other justices would actually allow her sorry ass (errrrrr, her law clerk) to write a majority opinion). I think it would go something like this: "[IN A BIG, DEEP, STUFFY, COMPLETELY CONDESCENDING VOICE:] While the 14th Amendment does say that no person's life, liberty or property shall be deprived without due process of law, the defendant here, in tying up a public sidewalk in an alleged effort to assert his right-wing extremist viewpoints as a part of what we have been informed is connected to the so-called 'teabagger movement,' voted for a third party in the last election and, moreover, used such non-protected speech items as 'swine flu' and 'terrorism', and for that reason, we the majority hereby recognize a new exception to the plain language of the 14th Amendment. It is hereby articulated as follows: Do the tea bag, and the constitutional protections shall lag."
But more simply put: that Napolitano would ever receive consideration for the USSC for even as long as it takes to break wind in an Alabama Shithouse shows a reckless disregard for the best interests of this country and just exemplifies, once again as I've been saying, that His Majesty represents about as much change as the tin cup of a Grand Avenue Kansas City panhandler. Hardly change we can believe in. More of the same as far as I'm concerned.
I'm struggling to think of a more absurd proposition that has occurred since His Majesty exchanged yucks and laughs with a despicable totalarian dictator from down south way. I do recognize the political convenience and advantage to such a move -- transfer perhaps the biggest Jackass appointment His Majesty has made so far (which is really saying something) from Homeland Security to a place where she never appears on camera and can keep a much lower profile for several years -- BUT PLEASE!
I can only imagine the Napolitano-written decisions we would get 35-40 years from now (i.e. the first point in time when the other justices would actually allow her sorry ass (errrrrr, her law clerk) to write a majority opinion). I think it would go something like this: "[IN A BIG, DEEP, STUFFY, COMPLETELY CONDESCENDING VOICE:] While the 14th Amendment does say that no person's life, liberty or property shall be deprived without due process of law, the defendant here, in tying up a public sidewalk in an alleged effort to assert his right-wing extremist viewpoints as a part of what we have been informed is connected to the so-called 'teabagger movement,' voted for a third party in the last election and, moreover, used such non-protected speech items as 'swine flu' and 'terrorism', and for that reason, we the majority hereby recognize a new exception to the plain language of the 14th Amendment. It is hereby articulated as follows: Do the tea bag, and the constitutional protections shall lag."
But more simply put: that Napolitano would ever receive consideration for the USSC for even as long as it takes to break wind in an Alabama Shithouse shows a reckless disregard for the best interests of this country and just exemplifies, once again as I've been saying, that His Majesty represents about as much change as the tin cup of a Grand Avenue Kansas City panhandler. Hardly change we can believe in. More of the same as far as I'm concerned.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Here's why the death penalty must go
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/12/death.row.exoneration/index.html
Simply put: Because although rare, innocent people sometimes get put to death. I think this is intolerable in a civilized society. Period (as they say). But I concede, this is a TOUGH issue, much like abortion. I would encourage any young person out there, when it comes to issues like these, take your time and don't feel compelled to rush to an end-all, be-all opinion right away -- if you have trouble resolving these kinds of hard issues until you're a bit older (like I was), who cares and that's fine. Better to get it right in the end than to flip-flop around in the meantime.
And here are some of the reasons that make death penalty abrogation such a close call: First, the primary justification proffered by the far left for eliminating the DP has very little merit in my eyes, i.e. that the state has no business or right taking the life of a person, even one convicted of first degree murder. I don't buy into that justification, and I certainly don't agree with it. Second, DP advocates -- leaving aside what I view to be their rather baseless and meritless "deterrence" argument -- make one hell of a compelling case in favor of the DP when they focus on their retribution argument, i.e. that if a person takes another's life in the first degree, then that person DESERVES to die for it. I agree with that basic proposition myself, but I just can't bring myself to get past the fact that on very rare occasions, an innocent person will die. To me, that is simply too high of a price to pay for a punishment with which I would otherwise have little problem.
Simply put: Because although rare, innocent people sometimes get put to death. I think this is intolerable in a civilized society. Period (as they say). But I concede, this is a TOUGH issue, much like abortion. I would encourage any young person out there, when it comes to issues like these, take your time and don't feel compelled to rush to an end-all, be-all opinion right away -- if you have trouble resolving these kinds of hard issues until you're a bit older (like I was), who cares and that's fine. Better to get it right in the end than to flip-flop around in the meantime.
And here are some of the reasons that make death penalty abrogation such a close call: First, the primary justification proffered by the far left for eliminating the DP has very little merit in my eyes, i.e. that the state has no business or right taking the life of a person, even one convicted of first degree murder. I don't buy into that justification, and I certainly don't agree with it. Second, DP advocates -- leaving aside what I view to be their rather baseless and meritless "deterrence" argument -- make one hell of a compelling case in favor of the DP when they focus on their retribution argument, i.e. that if a person takes another's life in the first degree, then that person DESERVES to die for it. I agree with that basic proposition myself, but I just can't bring myself to get past the fact that on very rare occasions, an innocent person will die. To me, that is simply too high of a price to pay for a punishment with which I would otherwise have little problem.
Some1 tonite asked "why dont the libs quit making fun of 9-11". I had to respond to that, because the blame goes both ways, and here's what I said...
-- I think there are plenty of folks on both sides who made fun of it. For example, rather than getting all of our resources devoted to finding and taking out Bin Laden, we got BS (and knowingly BS) reasons for invading a sovereign country known as Iraq for no good reason other than that "bad people" controlled that country. It was a Neo-Con dream, and it failed. And now we're in Afghanistan ratcheting up troop levels ("CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN") with no clear plan being articulated for all these new troops, new casualties, and new spending that does not appear to be in anyway calculated to take out Al Qaeda (as opposed to protecting an imminently endangered regime from being toppled -- Can you say Vietnam?).
Monday, May 11, 2009
Good observation tonite from some repub dude on foxnews re: how Loony Far Left seems to want it all, even the silence of any1 who dares criticize them
(and allow me to preface this post with the fact that (as I've made abundantly clear on this space before), I think foxnews is pathetic for the right wing spin they foist upon their so-called journalism -- but I have to watch something, and at night i routinely channel surf between all these biased outlets -- Fox, MSNBC and CNN -- because I want to see what all of them are saying.) So here the post goes: I recall when the tea parties went down, the far left ("people" like Jeanine Garafalo (I'm sure that's not spelled correctly, but who gives a rat's ass)) was screamin' bloody murder about how these tea parties consisted of "all racists" (their words, not mine) and just a bunch of town-of-9000-type conservative republicans. Anyway, the point of this dude whom I referenced above was as follows: What do THEY (i.e. the Far Left) want? How much power do they need to have? They control the White House. They control the U.S. House. They control the U.S. Senate. They control that Senate with a soon-to-be fillibuster-proof 60 votes. They can rubber stamp through Congress just about any damn piece of radical legislation they wish (as we've seen multiple times in recent weeks). But that's not enough for these people. They are still just as rabid and venemous and angry and hateful as they ever were during the "W!" debacle. They seem now to not want any dissent whatsoever. And if you dare disagree with them, we get Janet Napolitano out there issuing memos and opening files on you for daring to vote for a third party, as I did. Or we get the White House press secretary going out of his way to deliver 5 pages of talking points against the words of any high profile dissenter. Or we get the infinitely vast Far Left blogosphere and Far Left controlled media trying to ratchet up the endless blitz of propaganda in a calculated effort to effectively squelch all dissenting views and free speech in this country. This stuff is starting to scare me. Because absolute power corrupts (whether it be in the hands of one of these two slimeball political parties or the other), and we're starting to see a movement down that very road right now, methinks. Just an observation. Keep your eyes open people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
