Sunday, February 27, 2005
Culture: The Food Trough
I love being a Southerner but that does not mean that there are some things about my culture that I would love to see changed. I'd like to skip over the obvious "white v. black," and extreme sexual prudishness blights on the culture of my birth and rather focus on the icon which is highly indicative of our being culinary morons: The Food Trough.
It goes by several names, Ryan's, Golden Corral, others. It's a restaurant which has a menu, but no one uses it. It has servers, but no one really needs them. The main reason people go is to eat from a large trough that runs down the middle of the restaurant. You pay a fat, I mean flat, fee to eat as much slop from the trough as you can pack into your "what a good value!"-screaming gut. Anything you don't eat you can just put in the trash with no consequence or additional fee. And these restaurants draw hicks much like turds draw flies.
I suppose I'm only bitter because we tried opening up a restaurant in a location which was 80% hicks. Guess where they would rather eat -- the "good value" and highly-predictable Food Trough, or the strange, risky, "ethnic" restaurant?
It goes by several names, Ryan's, Golden Corral, others. It's a restaurant which has a menu, but no one uses it. It has servers, but no one really needs them. The main reason people go is to eat from a large trough that runs down the middle of the restaurant. You pay a fat, I mean flat, fee to eat as much slop from the trough as you can pack into your "what a good value!"-screaming gut. Anything you don't eat you can just put in the trash with no consequence or additional fee. And these restaurants draw hicks much like turds draw flies.
I suppose I'm only bitter because we tried opening up a restaurant in a location which was 80% hicks. Guess where they would rather eat -- the "good value" and highly-predictable Food Trough, or the strange, risky, "ethnic" restaurant?
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Cuisine: My granola recipe
It took me about 5 iterations, but I've finally settled on a granola recipe that beats just about anything that I can buy in a grocery store. It's essentially Alton Brown's recipe with a few modifications.
Chunky Granola
makes about 4 cups
----------------
3 cups rolled oats
1 cup slivered blanched almonds
1/3 cup canola oil
1/4 cup + 2 Tbsp brown sugar
1/4 cup + 2 Tbsp maple syrup
1 egg, scrambled
2 Tbsp. vanilla extract
Preheat oven to 250 degrees.
1. Combine oats, coconut, and almonds in a large mixing bowl. Mix well.
2. In a small saucepan, heat oil, brown sugar, and syrup, stirring constantly, until sugar is no longer lumpy.
3. Remove oil/sugar/syrup mixture from heat and pour it into the oat mixture. Stir well to combine.
4. Add beaten egg and vanillia extract to oat mixture. Stir well to combine and make sure that the egg coats everything about evently.
5. Line a cookie sheet with parchment and spread oat mixture onto parchment. Use a rubber spatula to smooth the mixture into a uniform slab.
6. Bake for 1 hour and 15 minutes. No matter what you've read in other, inferior recipes, do not agitate the mixture.
7. Use a spatula to remove the slab in large chunks and place into an airtight container.
8. If you're gross and like dried fruit in your granola, you can add it separately.
Chunky Granola
makes about 4 cups
----------------
3 cups rolled oats
1 cup slivered blanched almonds
1/3 cup canola oil
1/4 cup + 2 Tbsp brown sugar
1/4 cup + 2 Tbsp maple syrup
1 egg, scrambled
2 Tbsp. vanilla extract
Preheat oven to 250 degrees.
1. Combine oats, coconut, and almonds in a large mixing bowl. Mix well.
2. In a small saucepan, heat oil, brown sugar, and syrup, stirring constantly, until sugar is no longer lumpy.
3. Remove oil/sugar/syrup mixture from heat and pour it into the oat mixture. Stir well to combine.
4. Add beaten egg and vanillia extract to oat mixture. Stir well to combine and make sure that the egg coats everything about evently.
5. Line a cookie sheet with parchment and spread oat mixture onto parchment. Use a rubber spatula to smooth the mixture into a uniform slab.
6. Bake for 1 hour and 15 minutes. No matter what you've read in other, inferior recipes, do not agitate the mixture.
7. Use a spatula to remove the slab in large chunks and place into an airtight container.
8. If you're gross and like dried fruit in your granola, you can add it separately.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Politics: Insanely-huge profits in the black market of illegal drugs
I recently made a friend. He's a young man (23, I think) who lives in my area and was recently released from prison on a drug-trafficking charge. "Drug-trafficking" is a pretty meaningless crime, since, in my state, it can be applied to possessing an ounce of marijuana (even if it's intended for personal use), or what this young man did.
This young man is a child of privelege in a small town. His grandfather is a prominent small-town public figure. He became involved in selling drugs in a small role which quickly ballooned into a large role. On one occasion he was pistol-whipped and dumped bleeding in a parking lot by drug-selling rivals. He always carried a loaded handgun for fear of being attacked or killed. It was a terrifying lifestyle. Why would someone do something like that?
Easy. His drug-selling black-market job netted him $30,000 per month. Read it again: $30,000 per month! With this kind of income he would go buy five pairs of shoes and if any one of them received a smudge or a scratch, then he would just throw the shoes away. He admitted to never having done his laundry ever -- he just threw away dirty clothes and replaced them with new ones. He lived in an apartment which rented for several thousand dollars per month. He was also a heavy user of the expensive and high-quality drugs that he had access to on a daily basis.
Consider this: if he was willing to risk being pistol-whipped and killed for the insanely-huge profits that selling drugs offered (and still offeres to anyone who wants to get involved), then what can the government possibly do to deter people from choosing that lifestyle?
If you support the War on Drugs, then you also necessarily support insanely-huge profits for selling drugs.
This young man is a child of privelege in a small town. His grandfather is a prominent small-town public figure. He became involved in selling drugs in a small role which quickly ballooned into a large role. On one occasion he was pistol-whipped and dumped bleeding in a parking lot by drug-selling rivals. He always carried a loaded handgun for fear of being attacked or killed. It was a terrifying lifestyle. Why would someone do something like that?
Easy. His drug-selling black-market job netted him $30,000 per month. Read it again: $30,000 per month! With this kind of income he would go buy five pairs of shoes and if any one of them received a smudge or a scratch, then he would just throw the shoes away. He admitted to never having done his laundry ever -- he just threw away dirty clothes and replaced them with new ones. He lived in an apartment which rented for several thousand dollars per month. He was also a heavy user of the expensive and high-quality drugs that he had access to on a daily basis.
Consider this: if he was willing to risk being pistol-whipped and killed for the insanely-huge profits that selling drugs offered (and still offeres to anyone who wants to get involved), then what can the government possibly do to deter people from choosing that lifestyle?
If you support the War on Drugs, then you also necessarily support insanely-huge profits for selling drugs.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Politics: To Bill O'Reilly about Bush and Pot
I sent e-mail to Bill O'Reilly's show after I saw him throw a fit about the new book that's being promoted with the secret recordings of George Bush. O'Reilly was very, very upset. He used words such as, "I don't want anyone to buy this book" and expressed immense disdain for its author. Granted, the author is a sleezeball for betraying George W. Bush's trust, but I think there is more to O'Reilly's anger than that which can be blamed on witnessing another's breach of trust.
Here is the test of the e-mail that I sent to Bill:
"I understand your outrage over the Bush smear book. Your irrational support for Prohibition is embarrassing in light of the fact that getting high on pot is obviously not harmful or immoral enough to preclude one from becoming President of the United States."
I don't think that can be said enough. George Bush (along with other presidents) condemns thousands to be raped in prison for doing the very same thing that he did.
O'Reilly didn't read the e-mail on his show. Granted, I'm just one of thousands.
Here is the test of the e-mail that I sent to Bill:
"I understand your outrage over the Bush smear book. Your irrational support for Prohibition is embarrassing in light of the fact that getting high on pot is obviously not harmful or immoral enough to preclude one from becoming President of the United States."
I don't think that can be said enough. George Bush (along with other presidents) condemns thousands to be raped in prison for doing the very same thing that he did.
O'Reilly didn't read the e-mail on his show. Granted, I'm just one of thousands.
Philosophy: The most offensive phrase in the English language
The most offensive phrase in the English language is:
"I don't believe you."
Let's try it out:
"HIV causes AIDS." I don't believe you.
"The Bible is the word of God." I don't believe you.
"Socialism is progress." I don't believe you.
"Humans are causing global warming." I don't believe you.
"Islam is a religion of peace." I don't believe you.
It's not easy being a skeptic. Religious people have a hard time treating heretics with kindness or even politeness.
"I don't believe you."
Let's try it out:
"HIV causes AIDS." I don't believe you.
"The Bible is the word of God." I don't believe you.
"Socialism is progress." I don't believe you.
"Humans are causing global warming." I don't believe you.
"Islam is a religion of peace." I don't believe you.
It's not easy being a skeptic. Religious people have a hard time treating heretics with kindness or even politeness.
Politics: The Mythical "A Good Life"
A few months ago I was sharing lunch with a respected and very intelligent friend of mine, Robert. As an aside, I had tried hard and failed to categorize Robert's philosophy on more than one occasion, and I think I had been eager to label him some flavor of Leftist though he always resisted being categorized. The most he would ever admit to was having a problem with authority.) Anyhow, during lunch, I was, as per usual, arguing under my accepted premises of individual rights (including property rights) and freedom. After enduring my arguments for several minutes Robert offered up some advice in a condescending-yet-friendly tone of voice that it may do me good if I went to Portland, Oregan sometime to hear their points of view.
Aware that Robert's advice was designed principally to aquaint me with the arguments of the Leftists who infest Portland, I told him that I had no interest in his suggestion because as soon as they made a single argument that relied on the notions of "need," "greed," or "exploitation" then I would simply turn off my brain and stop communicating. I disagree with those concepts fundamentally, so why should I waste my and their valuable time entertaining an argument that is based on those concepts? I reminded him that one can't get a true conclusion from a false premise.
We left the restaurant and Robert challenged my lack of desire to entertain any arguments based on need. I answered to him that need always implied a desired action. For example, "I need a pen in order to write a letter." What I objected to was the open-ended need that Lefists so frequenly invoke to justify plunder. He retorted that people do, in fact, have certain needs or they will die, and, to this, I agreed. If our brains go three minutes without oxygen, we will die. Therefore, we need a constant supply of oxygen in order to stay alive.
As we pulled out of the parking lot, I thought of an example which would not only help explain my point of view, but crystallize why Leftist philosophy seems superstitious to me. Working from our previous agreement that humans have certain needs for basic survival, I asked him, "Robert, do homeless people get what they need?" Robert answered affirmatively, obviously seeing that homeless people would all be dead if they didn't get what they needed. He then added, "But they don't get what they need to have a good life."
"And that's where the subject becomes completely subjective," I told him. I offered, "I want to have a six-million dollar house to have a good life. I need it."
What is this "a good life" that justifies plunder? Does everyone deserve "a good life"? Obviously not! If I decide that my hobby is to kill children and then rape their mothers, then I don't deserve "a good life." I think most Leftists would agree with me on that. (I personally believe that if such horrible actions were truly my behavior, then I would deserve to suffer and die the way my victims suffered and died, but that's a different discussion.) So let's go up the ladder of bad behavior and decide where the cutoff is between "a good life" and "prison." What if I'm not a murderer, but merely a rapist? Okay, what if I'm not a rapist, but I make a living mugging people at gunpoint (but don't actually shoot or kill anyone)? Okay, suppose I have seven breaking-and-entering charges against me. What if it's only six? Or one? What if I'm just lazy and can't keep a job because I would rather smoke pot and play video games all day long? At what point does "prison" turn into "a good life"?
My guess is that if you ask 1,000 different Leftists where the cutoff is then you're going to get 1,000 different answers.
Now let's discuss what perks are to be included in "a good life." Do I get a house? Or just an apartment? Does it have to be in a "safe" part of town? Am I entitled to children? Does that entitlement depend on "how good" of a parent I am? Do I get a free education? Through college? Even if I change majors nineteen times and it takes me twenty years to graduate? How about food? Do I get to eat lobster and rack of lamb once a week or five times per week? Or will it be decided that eating some things (fill in the food items that violate your particular food morality) will be considered "unhealthy" and thus not part of "a good life"? What about clothing? Do I get designer clothes? Am I entitled to impress my friends so that I may have a high self-esteem?
I could go on and on. My guess is that you ask 1,000,000 different Leftists what all is included in "a good life" then you're going to get 1,000,000 different answers.
The "a good life" is one of the superstitious beliefs in Leftism. It goes hand-in-hand with "the common good." The "a good life" is frequently invoked but rarely named, and it is most frequently argued with an example of a person who is not deemed to be living in "a good life." It's easy to show an example of what "a good life" is NOT, but it's impossible to show what "a good life" IS.
Aware that Robert's advice was designed principally to aquaint me with the arguments of the Leftists who infest Portland, I told him that I had no interest in his suggestion because as soon as they made a single argument that relied on the notions of "need," "greed," or "exploitation" then I would simply turn off my brain and stop communicating. I disagree with those concepts fundamentally, so why should I waste my and their valuable time entertaining an argument that is based on those concepts? I reminded him that one can't get a true conclusion from a false premise.
We left the restaurant and Robert challenged my lack of desire to entertain any arguments based on need. I answered to him that need always implied a desired action. For example, "I need a pen in order to write a letter." What I objected to was the open-ended need that Lefists so frequenly invoke to justify plunder. He retorted that people do, in fact, have certain needs or they will die, and, to this, I agreed. If our brains go three minutes without oxygen, we will die. Therefore, we need a constant supply of oxygen in order to stay alive.
As we pulled out of the parking lot, I thought of an example which would not only help explain my point of view, but crystallize why Leftist philosophy seems superstitious to me. Working from our previous agreement that humans have certain needs for basic survival, I asked him, "Robert, do homeless people get what they need?" Robert answered affirmatively, obviously seeing that homeless people would all be dead if they didn't get what they needed. He then added, "But they don't get what they need to have a good life."
"And that's where the subject becomes completely subjective," I told him. I offered, "I want to have a six-million dollar house to have a good life. I need it."
What is this "a good life" that justifies plunder? Does everyone deserve "a good life"? Obviously not! If I decide that my hobby is to kill children and then rape their mothers, then I don't deserve "a good life." I think most Leftists would agree with me on that. (I personally believe that if such horrible actions were truly my behavior, then I would deserve to suffer and die the way my victims suffered and died, but that's a different discussion.) So let's go up the ladder of bad behavior and decide where the cutoff is between "a good life" and "prison." What if I'm not a murderer, but merely a rapist? Okay, what if I'm not a rapist, but I make a living mugging people at gunpoint (but don't actually shoot or kill anyone)? Okay, suppose I have seven breaking-and-entering charges against me. What if it's only six? Or one? What if I'm just lazy and can't keep a job because I would rather smoke pot and play video games all day long? At what point does "prison" turn into "a good life"?
My guess is that if you ask 1,000 different Leftists where the cutoff is then you're going to get 1,000 different answers.
Now let's discuss what perks are to be included in "a good life." Do I get a house? Or just an apartment? Does it have to be in a "safe" part of town? Am I entitled to children? Does that entitlement depend on "how good" of a parent I am? Do I get a free education? Through college? Even if I change majors nineteen times and it takes me twenty years to graduate? How about food? Do I get to eat lobster and rack of lamb once a week or five times per week? Or will it be decided that eating some things (fill in the food items that violate your particular food morality) will be considered "unhealthy" and thus not part of "a good life"? What about clothing? Do I get designer clothes? Am I entitled to impress my friends so that I may have a high self-esteem?
I could go on and on. My guess is that you ask 1,000,000 different Leftists what all is included in "a good life" then you're going to get 1,000,000 different answers.
The "a good life" is one of the superstitious beliefs in Leftism. It goes hand-in-hand with "the common good." The "a good life" is frequently invoked but rarely named, and it is most frequently argued with an example of a person who is not deemed to be living in "a good life." It's easy to show an example of what "a good life" is NOT, but it's impossible to show what "a good life" IS.
