For some reason, I'm drawn to smoky food and scents. My favorite Scotch whiskies are Laphroaig and Lagavulin. Both are, and are known for, their smokey, peaty flavor and aroma. While I enjoy a really good Tequila, given a choice between a moderate Mezcal and an excellent Tequila, I'm drawn more to the Mezcal. I've yet to find a Bourbon or Rye that gives me quite the same pleasure.
I don't own a barbeque grill - I have a Big Green Egg smoker/griller. I've never used it for simple grilling. My wife likes the smokey quality of the meat and vegetables it produces. In our house, it's the closest she lets me come to working in the kitchen - outside. I have an older model that doesn't have all the fancy stuff you'll find on their site. What else would you expect from a curmudgeon?
Yesterday, after several months hankering for it, I bought a tin of Lapsang Souchong tea. This morning, savoring the fine, camp fire like, smokiness of the tea, I'm writing this post. When describing this tea to others, the best descriptor I can come up with is "like a camp fire". Almost everyone comprehends that - few can quite understand why I like it.
Actually, even I don't completely comprehend why. The only thing that comes to mind for me is that it always evokes a flash of my youth. It's not a long drawn out memory - it's just an image that pops up and then disappears like one of those silly "whack-a--mole" games. The mole pops up when I first smell the tea (or the whiskey), then disappears. It doesn't come up again that day, regardless of how much tea or spirits I imbibe that day. A few days later, with my first sip of the day, it's there then gone again.
When I was eleven, my parents bought a new house in our home county of San Diego. I don't know if was an un-incorporated part of the city or not. I just remember it being surrounded by tons of open space, and next to the largest mountain (Cowles Mt.) in San Diego. My friends and I would often go out for an over-night camping trip to one of the canyons in the area. The image that always comes to mind is me and my friends, sitting around the camp fire, eating our canned "Chili & Beans", and talking about nonsense...
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Is Romney Just an Obama Mini-me?
Mr. Romney doesn't seem to get his numbers up very much. His opponents have surged and fallen by the way-side ever since the beginning of the primary contest. Pundits have theorized that the reason is the conservative base (and perhaps the middle) are just supporting the "anyone-but-Romney" of the day. As each of these alternatives is found to have serious flaws, the next in line is supported until another major flaw is found. While people seem puzzled by this "anyone-but-Romney" ethos, no one seems to have a handle on why it exists. To me the answer is glaringly evident.
Mr. Romney is just an Obama Mini-Me, or Obama LIte.
Why do I say that? To answer that, I look at two things that are particularly revealing about his nature and beliefs. The first thing is the answer he gave recently to the question, "What would be your first actions if you were elected President?" His response was essentially, he would, through executive order, give waivers to the States so they could "decline" to participate in Obamacare. Compare that to Newt's answer, which was he would, day one, ask Congress to repeal Obamacare. Note the difference. Newt recognizes that Congress is the source of all Federal laws. Mitt never even mentions repealing it. He'd just issue an executive order. Mitt seems to have no idea how our Constitution lays things out. When it comes to Obamacare, Congress is the real culprit here. They passed the damn law! It may have been Obama's desire to pass it, but Congress brought the desire to fruition. Romney's solution is just to "paper" over the problem, and ignore it. It doesn't make the problem go away. Worse, it allows an executive order in the next administration to remove the waivers. Mitt just doesn't understand the real issue.
The second reason is somewhat apocryphal. It is reported that in the last campaign, Mitt was sitting in a cameraman's garage, waiting for some event to begin, or for his time on stage to start. He noticed that the garage was dirty, and began to sweep it clean and tidy it up.
Now what could be wrong with that? Helping your fellow man, keeping active (since idle hands are the devil's playground), etc. Except for two things: the cameraman didn't ask Mitt to clean up the garage, and Mitt didn't ask for permission before he began cleaning. He assumed, "no one really wants to have their garage this way, let me just help by making it the way I think is best". In other words, a do-gooder liberal who thinks he knows the way that you should live - his way. I realize that cleaning someone else's garage is a humble act. It certainly is beneath me most of the time. It certainly implies that Mitt is not too much of a snob to get his hands dirty. What's telling, and disturbing, is the innate instinct to INTRUDE on someone's life without asking them. The implicit assumption of "I know better than you how you should run your life".
To me the only difference between Obama and Mitt is one of degree. Romney may have more business experience, and may be able to help the economy more - but the two of them share the same disregard or lack of understanding of our founding documents, and they both are happy to try and make sure you live your life they way they think you should.
Mr. Romney is just an Obama Mini-Me, or Obama LIte.
Why do I say that? To answer that, I look at two things that are particularly revealing about his nature and beliefs. The first thing is the answer he gave recently to the question, "What would be your first actions if you were elected President?" His response was essentially, he would, through executive order, give waivers to the States so they could "decline" to participate in Obamacare. Compare that to Newt's answer, which was he would, day one, ask Congress to repeal Obamacare. Note the difference. Newt recognizes that Congress is the source of all Federal laws. Mitt never even mentions repealing it. He'd just issue an executive order. Mitt seems to have no idea how our Constitution lays things out. When it comes to Obamacare, Congress is the real culprit here. They passed the damn law! It may have been Obama's desire to pass it, but Congress brought the desire to fruition. Romney's solution is just to "paper" over the problem, and ignore it. It doesn't make the problem go away. Worse, it allows an executive order in the next administration to remove the waivers. Mitt just doesn't understand the real issue.
The second reason is somewhat apocryphal. It is reported that in the last campaign, Mitt was sitting in a cameraman's garage, waiting for some event to begin, or for his time on stage to start. He noticed that the garage was dirty, and began to sweep it clean and tidy it up.
Now what could be wrong with that? Helping your fellow man, keeping active (since idle hands are the devil's playground), etc. Except for two things: the cameraman didn't ask Mitt to clean up the garage, and Mitt didn't ask for permission before he began cleaning. He assumed, "no one really wants to have their garage this way, let me just help by making it the way I think is best". In other words, a do-gooder liberal who thinks he knows the way that you should live - his way. I realize that cleaning someone else's garage is a humble act. It certainly is beneath me most of the time. It certainly implies that Mitt is not too much of a snob to get his hands dirty. What's telling, and disturbing, is the innate instinct to INTRUDE on someone's life without asking them. The implicit assumption of "I know better than you how you should run your life".
To me the only difference between Obama and Mitt is one of degree. Romney may have more business experience, and may be able to help the economy more - but the two of them share the same disregard or lack of understanding of our founding documents, and they both are happy to try and make sure you live your life they way they think you should.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Does Breaking the Law for 25 Years Qualify You to Stay?
Last night in the Republican debate on CNN, Mr. Gingrich suggested that if an illegal alien (i.e. a breaker of our laws), had been here for 25 years, had raised a family, gone to church, paid his taxes, held a job, etc., then we shouldn't just eject him from the country.
Let me posit a different scenario. For the last 25 years, an American citizen, has been committing the same crime every day - say stealing $100.00 every day from his employer. During that 25 years he's raised a family, gone to church, paid his taxes, held a job, etc. When he is caught, should we let him go scot-free with an admonition that he shouldn't do this anymore? I don't think anyone would agree that is the correct response.
If someone is here illegally, they are commiting a crime every day they remain. To pay taxes, they must have perjured themselves to get a social security number, or they must have stolen someone else's number. Each is a federal crime. If they've gotten a loan to buy a house, or gotten a credit card, they've likely committed fraud when they signed their application.
If we would penalize an American citizen for a crime, why shouldn't penalize an illegal alien for committing several? We're either a nation of laws, or emotions. I prefer laws.
Let me posit a different scenario. For the last 25 years, an American citizen, has been committing the same crime every day - say stealing $100.00 every day from his employer. During that 25 years he's raised a family, gone to church, paid his taxes, held a job, etc. When he is caught, should we let him go scot-free with an admonition that he shouldn't do this anymore? I don't think anyone would agree that is the correct response.
If someone is here illegally, they are commiting a crime every day they remain. To pay taxes, they must have perjured themselves to get a social security number, or they must have stolen someone else's number. Each is a federal crime. If they've gotten a loan to buy a house, or gotten a credit card, they've likely committed fraud when they signed their application.
If we would penalize an American citizen for a crime, why shouldn't penalize an illegal alien for committing several? We're either a nation of laws, or emotions. I prefer laws.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Proof the World Is Not Ending May 21, 2011?
I believe I've found incontrovertible proof the world will not end on May 21, 2011.
First, you have to understand that while the ancient Mayans were "advanced" for their time, their "prediction" of the end of the world might be subject to some small margin of error. First, their calendar ended some 400 - 600 years (approximately) in the future at the time of their production of the calendar. This is something grander than our current predictions of the doom of civilization predicted by the global warmist alarmists. After all, they're only looking out about 100 years, and merely predicting ecological catastrophe, rather than the total destruction of the earth (and perhaps the universe itself).
Secondly, since that ancient time we've made some minor, but significant, advancements in the understanding of orbital mechanics - not just of our solar system, but also of our galaxy. So our predictive models should be more accurate than those produced primarily with sticks and stones. After all, we have personal computers, calculators on our iPhones instead of our fingers, etc. So clearly we know a little more. Plus, we can shoot our arrows much higher into the sky...
Recently, I was at my local, going-out-of-business bookstore looking to score a printed book cheaper than I could get for my Kindle. Alas, no joy for me. However, I did find calendars. Hundreds of them, all produced by not just one oracle, but dozens of them. They all had similar calendars. But more importantly, THEY ALL ENDED ON THE SAME DAY - December 31, 2011!
That means the world ends January 1, 2012.
Now, we know a little more than the Mayans. And our current time is much closer to the modern predicted end of the world, so less subject to days or even weeks of marginal error. So I have faith that our modern predictions are more accurate than those of the Mayans 400 or so years ago.
So rather than party my ass off on May 20, 2011, I'm waiting until December 31, 2011. I understand others have similar plans this year ...
First, you have to understand that while the ancient Mayans were "advanced" for their time, their "prediction" of the end of the world might be subject to some small margin of error. First, their calendar ended some 400 - 600 years (approximately) in the future at the time of their production of the calendar. This is something grander than our current predictions of the doom of civilization predicted by the global warmist alarmists. After all, they're only looking out about 100 years, and merely predicting ecological catastrophe, rather than the total destruction of the earth (and perhaps the universe itself).
Secondly, since that ancient time we've made some minor, but significant, advancements in the understanding of orbital mechanics - not just of our solar system, but also of our galaxy. So our predictive models should be more accurate than those produced primarily with sticks and stones. After all, we have personal computers, calculators on our iPhones instead of our fingers, etc. So clearly we know a little more. Plus, we can shoot our arrows much higher into the sky...
Recently, I was at my local, going-out-of-business bookstore looking to score a printed book cheaper than I could get for my Kindle. Alas, no joy for me. However, I did find calendars. Hundreds of them, all produced by not just one oracle, but dozens of them. They all had similar calendars. But more importantly, THEY ALL ENDED ON THE SAME DAY - December 31, 2011!
That means the world ends January 1, 2012.
Now, we know a little more than the Mayans. And our current time is much closer to the modern predicted end of the world, so less subject to days or even weeks of marginal error. So I have faith that our modern predictions are more accurate than those of the Mayans 400 or so years ago.
So rather than party my ass off on May 20, 2011, I'm waiting until December 31, 2011. I understand others have similar plans this year ...
Saturday, September 25, 2010
And The Problem Is...?
I'm a native of the land of Fruits, Nuts & Flakes (California). I live on a small island in the San Francisco Bay off the coast of Oakland. We have two local newspapers. I tend to read the one that comes out on Friday, because it has a better real-estate section than the paper that comes out on Wednesday. I always read the Editorials & occasionally respond to them. The particular item that I wish to discuss here, is the political cartoon. It shows our Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman, holding a money bag, and the caption is "If you have to ask how much?... You can't afford to be governor."
The implication is that a wealthy individual willing to spend their own hard-earned money to campaign for a political office is somehow a bad thing.
Personally, I think it's a wonderful thing. Just think - she's not beholden to the Union fascists, the Oil Companies, the Environmental fascists, the racist Hispanics who want to remake California back into the paragon of civilization called Mexico (what's the murder rate there right now?), or the ad nauseum etcs. that belong in that ilk.
I guess she's wealthy enough she can actually afford to listen to what the citizens of California want her to hear.
On the other hand, all the above types of interest groups spending "independently" on Moonbeam's behalf will no doubt be whispering in his ear loudly and often enough that he won't really be listening to you or me. Not to mention that he has in one interview long ago admitted lying in his campaigns to win. In another more recent interview (in L.A. I believe) after accusing Whitman of lying, he was asked if he had ever lied. (I paraphrase here ...) "I've never lied - although I have equivocated. And when I did equivocate, it was obvious to the voters." Now, you don't really need to run off to your dictionary to look up the definition of equivacation. It's a fancy word for lieing when done intentionally. It's about the same level as Clinton's famous "define is" moment. So I suppose we should give Moonbeam some points for being honest about lieing? Boy, there's a conundrum - but hardly a recommendation for my vote.
Personally, I'm choosing the person who is so committed to trying to save California that she's willing to spend more money than anyone else has in American politics over someone who admits he's willing to say anything just to get back in office.
Regardless of the size of her fortune, I have no doubt that Moonbeam has more lies than Whitman has dollars.
The implication is that a wealthy individual willing to spend their own hard-earned money to campaign for a political office is somehow a bad thing.
Personally, I think it's a wonderful thing. Just think - she's not beholden to the Union fascists, the Oil Companies, the Environmental fascists, the racist Hispanics who want to remake California back into the paragon of civilization called Mexico (what's the murder rate there right now?), or the ad nauseum etcs. that belong in that ilk.
I guess she's wealthy enough she can actually afford to listen to what the citizens of California want her to hear.
On the other hand, all the above types of interest groups spending "independently" on Moonbeam's behalf will no doubt be whispering in his ear loudly and often enough that he won't really be listening to you or me. Not to mention that he has in one interview long ago admitted lying in his campaigns to win. In another more recent interview (in L.A. I believe) after accusing Whitman of lying, he was asked if he had ever lied. (I paraphrase here ...) "I've never lied - although I have equivocated. And when I did equivocate, it was obvious to the voters." Now, you don't really need to run off to your dictionary to look up the definition of equivacation. It's a fancy word for lieing when done intentionally. It's about the same level as Clinton's famous "define is" moment. So I suppose we should give Moonbeam some points for being honest about lieing? Boy, there's a conundrum - but hardly a recommendation for my vote.
Personally, I'm choosing the person who is so committed to trying to save California that she's willing to spend more money than anyone else has in American politics over someone who admits he's willing to say anything just to get back in office.
Regardless of the size of her fortune, I have no doubt that Moonbeam has more lies than Whitman has dollars.
The Purpose Of A Business Is...?
I've been a natural born citizen of the US for over 60 years now. I've been employed, or self-employed in some capacity for over 40 years. When I was in college, I had part-time jobs (often several concurrently), and began full-time employment in 1976. Since then, I've been an employee, self-employed, and had a consulting business with nearly twenty staff members. During that time, it's become clear that the common perception of why businesses exist has changed.
These days it seems most people think the purpose of a business is to provide jobs to people.
It's not.
A business exists to create profits for its owners. Period - finito - end of story.
Some businesses create those profits through employing others, and paying them for their efforts. However, there are many other businesses that have no employees. Most of them are now on the Internet. Some businesses have small numbers of owners, and many others have millions of owners through shares publicly traded on stock exchanges.
Regardless of the form of ownership, or the size of a company, each has been started for one and only one reason; to make a profit for the owners. Nobody in their right mind starts a business with the main purpose of employing people. Starting a business for any other reason than profit dooms it to failure from the beginning. If profit is not the main reason for your business, then the choices you make as an owner will eventually fail to bring you the money you need to keep the business in existence.
Somehow, Union-ites(*), Democrats, liberal Republicans, and a few other Left Wing Nut Jobs, don't understand this. Clearly the people in the Administration don't get it. Which is why the stimulus is not really working. They're all Academics who've never been in business, let alone owned a business. Until they finally understand this, or surround themselves with business people to whom they will actually listen, EVERY attempt they make to stimulate the economy will fail and waste more of my and your money.
I finally stopped having a small business and went back to being self-employed. It was too risky and too painful to have employees. I was fortunate enough to not have to deal with unions in addition to all the headaches employees provide.
All I can say is I prefer to be self-employed with all those risks, than to be an employer and all the headaches and increased risk that comes from being an employer.
(*)Union-ites: A common precipate of the unfortunately prevalent element Absurdium.
These days it seems most people think the purpose of a business is to provide jobs to people.
It's not.
A business exists to create profits for its owners. Period - finito - end of story.
Some businesses create those profits through employing others, and paying them for their efforts. However, there are many other businesses that have no employees. Most of them are now on the Internet. Some businesses have small numbers of owners, and many others have millions of owners through shares publicly traded on stock exchanges.
Regardless of the form of ownership, or the size of a company, each has been started for one and only one reason; to make a profit for the owners. Nobody in their right mind starts a business with the main purpose of employing people. Starting a business for any other reason than profit dooms it to failure from the beginning. If profit is not the main reason for your business, then the choices you make as an owner will eventually fail to bring you the money you need to keep the business in existence.
Somehow, Union-ites(*), Democrats, liberal Republicans, and a few other Left Wing Nut Jobs, don't understand this. Clearly the people in the Administration don't get it. Which is why the stimulus is not really working. They're all Academics who've never been in business, let alone owned a business. Until they finally understand this, or surround themselves with business people to whom they will actually listen, EVERY attempt they make to stimulate the economy will fail and waste more of my and your money.
I finally stopped having a small business and went back to being self-employed. It was too risky and too painful to have employees. I was fortunate enough to not have to deal with unions in addition to all the headaches employees provide.
All I can say is I prefer to be self-employed with all those risks, than to be an employer and all the headaches and increased risk that comes from being an employer.
(*)Union-ites: A common precipate of the unfortunately prevalent element Absurdium.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Why We Hate the Government
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. I have a rental property in Oakland. I have a professional management company manage the property. This is for two reasons:
There was one especially significant problem with the letter. The address of the property was incorrect. I don't own the property on which the lien was threatened to be placed.
I did call the city and the waste management company and point out their error. They didn't seem too concerned. It seems this happens with some non-negligible frequency. I was just trying to help out the poor schlub who obviously didn't get the letter, and was probably going to get a lien on his property because he didn't get the letter to be able to respond.
Our governments seem to be filled with a surfeit of functionally incompetent automatons.
- I don't want to deal with tenant problems, particularly late at night
- The City of Oakland and the State of California, are so anti-landlord it is quite dangerous financially to make a simple management mistake and open yourself up to huge penalties
There was one especially significant problem with the letter. The address of the property was incorrect. I don't own the property on which the lien was threatened to be placed.
I did call the city and the waste management company and point out their error. They didn't seem too concerned. It seems this happens with some non-negligible frequency. I was just trying to help out the poor schlub who obviously didn't get the letter, and was probably going to get a lien on his property because he didn't get the letter to be able to respond.
Our governments seem to be filled with a surfeit of functionally incompetent automatons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)