Serve with spaghetti
Results: One onion per two peppers is not enough onions, too much pepper, but sauce is nice and thick.
served with pan cooked salmon
Sometimes you come across an article that quickly changes your perception of someone’s credibility. The following piece was published yesterday (original available here). The original title was Consensus building: Protect U.S. first. In our paper it was published as Finally, defense is making sense
My initial reactions: 1) “the allies on the litigationist left.” Why is it necessary to split the whole country in half and in the same breadth declare them off for resorting to the rule of law to maintain a balance of power? 2) he’s making a connection between phones calls between Britain and Pakistan, the German government uncovering a terrorist plot, and us being the target of death threats and how our NSA wireless tapping program is preventing this. But did the Germans monitor phone calls to uncover the threat? Did the Brits have to use a an illegal program to get their information? And isn’t the whole point of the wiretapping debate that the government already has all kinds of tools to monitor conversations but that the particular program was a concern to our civil liberties and considered illegal because it doesn’t require warrants or any oversight and can easily be abused? But that was a nice non-sequitur nevertheless. “Spectacularly ill-timed” - no. If you think about it, it may have been perfect timing to show that you can have success within the legal spectrum, without extraordinary, additional powers.
Right next comes “efforts to kill us are real, and they need to be stopped.” Yes, but the reactions also need to be stopped. Ask “why are they trying to kill us?” And “is there something you can do to reduce that reason?” Right now our actions seem to be feeding the fire? We went into the war believing that with our superior power we can pulp anybody into submission? Well, we can’t. The original terrorist attack killed 3000 people. We’ve sent people after them and killed another 3000 of our own. What is plan B?
More inflammatory messages: “third world invasion and the conquest of america”, “frontiers of a civilization on longer defended”, “death of the west”, “out in the heartland”, “elites long ago agreed on open borders”, opposition to porous borders is equivalent to opposition to gay marriage (state and church DO mix), “some multicultural cows will have to be sacrificed to protect and defend this country”, “left-wing judges … are toxic for the politicians who appoint or defend them.”
I feel icky. The final point seems to be to pull out the troops from Iraq and send them back home to defend our own borders. Not that we have border patrol, what we need are a bunch of Stryker vehicles running through the Arizona deserts patrolling dried up river beds and planes dropping laser-guided bunker busting bombs onto a group of poor Central American workers risking their lives running through the desert to hope for a better live up north. That’s exactly the moral attitude that will increase our standing in the world and improve our chances of actual successes in a highly integrated. globalized world. Be like a turtle. You’ll be the most powerful turtle, but you’re still just a turtle that can be ignored.
The writer is a Stanford University graduate. How? People that blog get a reputation for being uninformed, biased, and simplistic. People writing commentaries for newspapers are also like bloggers, with the same shortcomings. Just because it’s in the paper doesn’t mean it’s any good.
Some good news to report: There’s an emerging consensus that the best way to defend America is to defend America. Not everyone, in either party, is on board with that protect-the-homeland idea just yet. But we’re getting there, thanks to the common sense of ordinary Americans.
Let’s consider two good-news items that will affect the politics of 2006 and beyond:
First, the reaction to the Aug. 17 decision by federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit, which sought to cancel the National Security Agency’s “terrorist surveillance program.”
That decision - that warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional - was a short-term victory for the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies on the litigationist left. (Taylor gave the government until Sept. 7 to appeal before her ruling ends the program.) But it will be remembered in the long term as a defeat for the idea that liberal-activist judges should dictate homeland security.
Taylor’s decision was spectacularly ill-timed, of course, since it came just a week after the British government announced it had broken up an airplane-bomb plot involving lots of suspicious contacts between people living in Britain and Pakistan - exactly the sort of murderous international communicating and conspiring the U.S. government’s program was designed to intercept. Moreover, the day after Taylor’s decision, the German government announced it had uncovered a separate plot, evidently also by Muslims, to blow up passenger trains in Germany.
So let’s be clear here: Terror plots aren’t just figments of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ imagining or White House adviser Karl Rove’s wag-the-dogging. Efforts to kill us are real, and they need to be stopped.
The New York Times editorial page cheered Taylor’s ruling, but most top Democrats kept a quiet distance. Indeed, the Dems seem to have learned a lesson: In the battle of Uncle Sam vs. Osama bin Laden, the overwhelming majority of Americans are rooting for Uncle Sam - even if that means George W. Bush might get some credit.
But the president has to learn a few things, too, about defending America. And that lesson is being provided by our second piece of good news: the instant success of conservative commentator Pat Buchanan’s new book, “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.” Is there any part of that title that doesn’t get its message across? And it’s No. 1 on Amazon.com.
Writing from a deeply informed historical perspective, Buchanan seems pessimistic: “As Rome passed away, so the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended. . . . The children born in 2006 will witness in their lifetimes the death of the West.” Scary stuff.
And if we would simply look at Washington and its current cast of characters, it would be easy to share Buchanan’s pessimism. Inside the Beltway, the Republican and Democratic elites long ago agreed on open borders: Top GOPers are eager to flood the country with cheap labor; top Dems look forward to importing more donkey voters.
But out in the heartland people are taking Buchanan’s message to heart. And they aren’t just reading about it; they’re doing something about it. Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman recently traveled to Arizona and found voters aflame with border-control enthusiasm; as the Postie put it: “Opposition to a porous border may be to November 2006 what opposition to gay marriage was to November 2004.” Liberals and other open-borderers are horrified, of course, but some multicultural cows will have to be sacrificed to protect and defend this country.
Democrats are learning left-wing judges aren’t just destructive to our national security; they are toxic for the politicians who appoint or defend them. And as for Bush-type Republicans, it will eventually come clear even to them that Americans want U.S. troops to defend our country first, and abstract notions of Arab-world “democracy” defended second, if at all.
During Sundays brunch (Aug. 26) I get to read this article by Rosa Brooks from the LA Times that’s initiated by a nationwide (really?) awareness of the pedophiles among us. Without being a “girl lover” you do have to notice the hypocrisy in this. But then we are all just victims, aren’t we?
The National Articles headline was “No Escaping Sexualization of Young Girls.” In our paper it read “Thongs for kids, and other scary stuff”
IT’S BEEN a good week for the media, and a bad week for parents.
The arrest of former schoolteacher John Mark Karr in the slaying of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey launched a flurry of excited stories about pedophiles, child abduction and murder. The cable news stations could hardly hide their glee, and even the New York Times joined in.
In a two-part series on pedophilia, the newspaper reported that many pedophiles now use Internet support groups to swap how-to tips on getting jobs as camp counselors and teachers. Increasingly, the Times said, “pedophiles view themselves as the vanguard of a nascent movement seeking legalization of child pornography and the loosening of age-of-consent laws. They portray themselves as battling for children’s rights to engage in sex with adults….”Great. For anxious parents, it was a week of being paranoid and creeped out — a week to double-check the window locks, run a background check on the preschool music teacher and remind the kids not to enter beauty pageants, talk to strangers, go online or leave the house until their 40th birthday.
True, the statistics suggest that an American child is about as likely to share JonBenet’s fate as she is to be killed by lightning. The abduction and murder of children by people outside their families is exceedingly rare.
But as the mother of preschool girls, I know how easy it is to succumb to irrational panic in the face of this week’s 24/7 media obsession with pedophilia.
All summer I’d absent-mindedly allowed my little barbarians to streak through the house naked, bodies festooned with grape jelly and Crayola Washable Markers. Now, with pedophiles apparently lurking everywhere, demanding civil rights and social acceptance, I was suddenly insisting that the girls put their clothes back on, right this minute, please.
I eyed my neighbors with newfound suspicion. That guy mowing the lawn down the street — why was he smiling at us?
It was only when I hauled the girls off to the local shopping mall that my paranoid fears were replaced by all-too-rational anxieties. First, we darted into Abercrombie & Fitch, joining a gaggle of preteens checking out the T-shirts. Perhaps a slinky pink number that coyly declared “The Rumors Are True”? Or maybe the masculine gray one emblazoned with “Something About You Attracts Me — I Wish I Could Put My Finger On It”?
Well, no thanks. We headed toward Limited Too, where we found thong-like underwear sized for 7-year-old girls. My 4-year-old was entranced: “Mommy, those underpants have no walls!”
We soldiered on, through Old Navy (where the toddler section carries clothes that make 2-year-olds look like Britney Spears), through Toys R Us (where ads for the scantily clad Bratz Babyz dolls, with their bottles and their painted toenails, boast that these “Babyz already know how to flaunt it, and they’re keepin’ it real in the crib!”), and past the Disney Store (where little girls can covet seashell bikinis like those worn by the Little Mermaid and glittery halter tops like those worn by Princess Jasmine in the surprisingly broad-minded sultanate of Agrabah).
By the time we made it to CVS Pharmacy, I thought we were out of the woods. Wrong. Those bare-midriffed Disney princesses are everywhere — even, it turns out, on diapers sized for people weighing 18 to 34 pounds.
In our hyper-commercialized consumerist society, there’s virtually no escaping the relentless sexualization of younger and younger children. My 26-month-old daughter didn’t emerge from the womb clamoring for a seashell bikini like Princess Ariel’s — but now that she’s savvy enough to notice who’s prancing around on her pull-ups, she wants in on the bikini thing. And my 4-year-old wasn’t born demanding lip gloss and nail polish, but when a little girl at nursery school showed up with her Hello Kitty makeup kit, she was hooked.
In a culture in which the sexualization of childhood is big business — mainstream mega-corporations such as Disney earn billions by marketing sexy products to children too young to understand their significance — is it any wonder that pedophiles feel emboldened to claim that they shouldn’t be ostracized for wanting sex with children? On an Internet bulletin board, one self-avowed “girl lover” offered a critique of this week’s New York Times series on pedophilia: “They fail, of course, to mention the hypocrisy of Hollywood selling little girls to millions of people in a highly sexualized way.” I hate to say it, but the pedophiles have a point here.
There are plenty of good reasons to worry about children and sex. But if we want to get to the heart of the problem, we should obsess a little less about whether the neighbor down the block is a dangerous pedophile — and we should worry a whole lot more about good old-fashioned American capitalism, which is busy serving our children up to pedophiles on a corporate platter.
An article published in the Stl. Louis Post-Dispatch on 23. Aug. (and here 24. Aug.) Kind of scary that we have “politicians bet on the electorate’s short attention span.” Smart politicians, reasoned debate, rational thought are bad things. So we end up with this. The implications of what this means towards solving ANY problem are astonishing. If you watch the news today, it is clear that the administration is now saying that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Oops - but actually “who cares.” Yes, now it’s all about bringing democracy, or if you read one level down, about preventing the terrorists from getting oil revenues so they can start a really big war against us.
But as long as you educate people with the full belief that “thought = bad”, “entertainment = good” that’s what you will get. It starts down there. Why do you need smart people, if in an area of outsourcing there are no smart jobs left. Well, because you will develop yourself out of any significance. And while you’re the one with the red button, that’s a bad thing for everybody.
Simple, simpler, simplistic
At a hastily-called news conference Monday, President George W. Bush offered a kind of trailer for Republican themes in this fall’s midterm elections:Coming this November: A battle for America’s soul. A great nation, its psyche strained from years of war, decides whether it will cut and run, or stay the course and keep terrorists from following us home. One party, decent but confused, wants to leave. The other party stands for freedom. Not since Travis drew his saber and etched the line in the sand at the Alamo has the choice been more clear.
So the battle lines have been drawn. With polls showing 60 percent of the public disagreeing with his handling of the war in Iraq, with Democrats ginning up a “redeployment” strategy that calls for vague, deadline-free withdrawal of U.S. forces, with Britain’s top military leader in Iraq, Gen. Robert Fry, Tuesday calling the situation “a civil war in miniature,” Mr. Bush has decided to keep things simple. And simplistic.
“I’d be running on the economy, and I’d be running on national security,” the president said. “But since I’m not running, I can only serve as an advisor to those who are.”
![Click Here!]()
Mr. Bush is betting the last two years of his presidency — if the Democrats win control of even one house of Congress, his agenda will grind to a halt — that the electorate will prefer bumper-sticker-sized versions of complex problems. Never mind the awful complexity of the Iraq war. Never mind the intricate, interlocking web of problems in the Middle East. Never mind the difference between an al-Qaida terrorist and a Sunni insurgent or a Shiite death-squader.
Freedom, good. Terrorism, bad. Finishing the job, good. Cutting-and-running, bad. Republican, good. Democrat, bad.
Politically, the president may be right to bet on the electorate’s short attention span. But there is an awful cynicism to the strategy he previewed Monday, a disingenuousness that borders on recklessness.
—”Any sign that says we’re going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won’t take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country,” Mr. Bush said.
That horse has left the barn. Iraq’s government is already paralyzed because of fear of sectarian violence. In the streets, neighborhoods are closed to people from the “wrong” branch of Islam, or even the “wrong” sub-branch of the “right” branch.
— “I would guess, I would surmise, that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by al-Qaida suiciders,” the president said.
This, despite his military commanders’ assessment that the problem comes from sectarian violence, not al-Qaida. After 1,300 years of hatred and separation between Sunni and Shia, to say nothing of 30 years of resentment about Saddam Hussein’s rule, al-Qaida is the least of Iraq’s problems.
— “The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East,” the president said.
Mr. Bush admitted, finally, that 9/11 had “nothing” to do with Iraq, but claimed that by taking “threats seriously before they materialize,” he was dealing with potential terrorism. The war on that potential source of terrorism has now cost almost as many American lives (2,611) as the actual attacks of 9/11.
There may be no good way out of Iraq; there may be only bad ways and worse ways, and none of them fit on a bumper sticker. President Bush should admit that and start developing a strategy that does not merely repeat the past and hope for different results.
A letter sent yesterday by R. lB. from K. arguing why today’s immigrants are different from those that came a century ago.
Why the New Kind of Immigrant Isn’t Welcome
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants.Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren’t being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry. Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Lujan why today’s American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer.
Back in 1900, when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved goodbye to their birthplace to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan.
None of these first generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.
I’m sorry, that’s not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900s deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn’t start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
A longer letter sent in on Friday by J.U. of K. The Jones Act (wikipedia) “requires U.S.-flagged vessels to be built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and documented under the laws of the United States. Documented means ‘registered, enrolled, or licensed under the laws of the United States.’ In addition, all officers and 75% of the crew must be U.S. citizens. Vessels that satisfy these requirements comprise the ‘Jones Act fleet’.” What that means here in Hawaii is that only Jones Act fleet ships can sailed between islands or ship goods into the state. No direct deliveries from China, they need to go through Los Angeles or Oakland first. From there they are brought to use by Hawaii companies.
Of course that’s there to protect the little guy. And we end up paying for it.
Somehow that’s a weird concept. If you believe in capitalism, then the market should drive this. Capitalism makes this survival of the fittest, so if you’re not fit enough to compete in the market, you get out of it. The implication here is that Hawai’i’s businesses have no chance competing against the big players, so you need to protect them.
But this sounds suspiciously like minorities applying to college. To encourage more minorities to apply, you set quotas and lower the admission requirements. That is intended to get more of them in, which is good for everybody both short-term and long-term. Now short-term you get people crying foul, because other qualified people cannot get in. Another facet is that the people that benefitted from the lower standard now believe that they’re not equal, but only succeeded through an unfair leg-up. If you’re trying to establish true equality, you don’t get it.
The Jones Act (and perhaps any “protectionist” legislation) does the same thing. It doesn’t seem right, but you’re presented lots of arguments as to why it is the right thing to do. Hawaii companies are weak, and we need to protect our local workers, otherwise this place might look like any of the South-Pacific islands, where there is large unemployment and very little progress. But as the author below claims, protecting the few may be counterproductive for everybody. So what is the deal with capitalism.
Repeal wouldn’t ruin state or its residents
Senator Akaka said of the Jones Act, “it creates jobs in Hawaii … and that it regularizes the economy for Hawaii.” The clear implication is that if the Jones Act (the Matson and Horizon government sanctioned monopoly) were abolished, we would have massive unemployment, loose millions in tax money and our economy would be in ruin.
Please lift your eyes up and take a look around you this very moment. Take in every object you see. Now realize that “The Monopoly” has made, a part of, between $3,600 and $4,000 on every item you see. Consider even more that every item that was not American made, which would include most of what you just saw, could have reached Hawaii directly from the Far East at a cost per container savings of $6,700.
If the Jones Act were repealed do you think we would stop needing products shipped to us? Of course not. Do you think the monopoly would pick up their marbles and go out of business? Again, of course not. They would simply have to become competitive. We still need their service. Would other shipping companies be able to start up operations in Hawaii? Yes and that would mean they would need locations, equipment, supplies and employees to run their companies. If shipping rates were competitive could Hawaiian businesses afford to ship products to the mainland? Yes, and this would open up new business in agriculture, cattle and dairy products, juice and drinking water, cut stone and building supplies, forest products and Hawaii-made furniture and apparel, just to name a few off the top of my head. Would these new businesses need equipment, supplies and employees to operate their new export business? Now exactly what Hawaiian jobs would be cut? Even the local unions should be able to see that they would have to hire more of their relatives to get the job done. No one is losing their jobs here.
Now let us consider that Hawaiians can now consider importing products and offer them for sale at competitive prices. Building products, refrigerators, appliances, furniture, most of our electronic products, fabric, etc. (I just paid $6.78 for a gallon of milk. I talked with my daughter in California and she just paid $3.48.) Heck, there is even money in milk. Basically eliminating the Jones Act would free up the market and make businesses flourish in the islands. Do you think all these business would also need employees? So exactly what jobs are lost?
Now where in this scenario would you think our local government would be loosing tax revenue? If we are creating more businesses, importing and exporting more products, needing more supplies and equipment, moving more commodities interisland, and creating more jobs, where exactly is the loss of revenue that is going to plunge our economy into irreparable turmoil?
Add to all this that your hard earned dollar would be able to go farther and purchase more product.
Please do not let the status quo continue. We need your voice and your vote. Propose to elect candidates who will fight for the people of Hawaii and end the 120 year stranglehold of the Jones Act. Register and vote.
Quick letter to the editor this morning, author’s name withheld (G.S. from N.). Do you real have a moral superiority in any war? Do you have good guys or bad guys, or just guys with their own valid perspective?
Big in the news these days is the ongoing planetary angst over Iran’s uranium enrichment program. But when you see what has happened to the countries on either side of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) and the unceasing U.S. saber rattling, you can hardly blame the Iranian government for arming itself to the teeth.
Iran feels threatened by Israel because Israel has nuclear weapons. If the United States would like Iran to cease and desist from its efforts to enrich uranium, why not strongly urge Israel to disarm the nuclear portion of their arsenal? It would be refreshing for the arms race to go in a different direction, for once.
It is an unarguable fact, and the height of hypocrisy and arrogance, for any country with nuclear weapons to attack or punish another country for having or aspiring to have the very same thing.
served Friday with fries and stir-fried bok-choy, red bell with oyster sauce.
inspired by a meal at A Fish Called Coogie, Sydney
Served Thursday with rice and stir-fried zucchini and carrot strips.