America is sometimes called The Land of the Free which at times causes me to laugh sardonically. Most people think they know the Bill of Rights..."uh...Speech, religion, guns, something about punishment." So here, for your edification, are all 10 amendments comprising the "Bill of Rights"
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Pretty strait forward, right? Believe what you want, practice that belief how you want, read about it in the paper, say what ever you want and then complain to the government when they piss you off. Simple. NO! Some republicans are contesting now that only Christians should be able to hold political office. Schools are forbidding students from wearing symbols of faith. And don't get me started on news media today. FUCK YOU GLENN BECK!!
2. A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Thankfully in Los Angelas it is still legal to own shotguns, rifles and handguns for home protection. It is illegal to carry said weapons on the street, but I agree with that restriction. The Democrats are constantly trying to pass "gun control legislation". It's only a matter of time before this right is gone. And really, when was the last time you were asked to join the militia.
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No comment. I see no immediate threat that I'll be housing marines in my home against my will.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
PATRIOT Act. Need I say more.
5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Conspiracy Theories by their nature can never be proven. We've all heard the rumors of terrorist suspects being held indefinitely. The horror stories that came out of Guantanamo Bay. Fucking PATRIOT Act!
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
See preceding diatribe about THE FUCKING PATRIOT ACT
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
No comment. Law suits and stuff.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Guantanamo Bay aside, the only major problem with the prison system is over crowding. I have a solution for that, but that's a rant for latter.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I like this one a lot. Translated it says that just because a right is not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Constitution does not mean you don't have it. Including the right to privacy, the right to an education and so on. If, as a group, Americans believe they have a right, then they do and it's the job of the government to uphold it. Fucking PATRIOT act.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
DAMN STRAIT. Example of why this is no longer true. In California, Medicinal marijuana is legal. That is a state law. The Federal government, however, still holds marijuana as illegal. So while California says you can purchase, grow and use for medical reasons the FBI can arrest you on Federal Charges. Fun Times.
Land of the Free my ass.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Monday, December 27, 2010
It's Still Rock and Roll To Me
I would like to take this time to talk to you about "Political Correctness". I'm sure most of you would agree with me when I say that this concept is out dated and offensive. There are some of you out there who would disagree with me.
Let's start with "African Americans". Calling a person "African American" is the worst kind of insult. You might be thinking to yourself "Insult!? How so?" Well simply this, the point of being PC is not to offend and the worst offense we can offer our fellow humans is to assume that we know anything about them by looking. Not all black people (yes I said black) are Americans. They might be from this country, but that in know way means that they are citizens. Canada, England, France, all of Europe, Russia and Asia and, surprise surprise, Africa all have significant black (I said it again) populations. And I think it would be safe to say that they are proud of their citizenship in these countries and as such would like to be recognized as such.
So, recognizing this, we now have to, in the interest of not offending any one, remove the "American" portion of the title "African American". This leaves us referring to our dark skinned brethren as "Africans". But can we, in good conscience, do so. I would point out Australia. Australia, as you may or may not know, has strong population of black people known as the Aborigines. So, assuming that we know the genetic heritage of the person we were talking to as well as the citizenry, do we then refer to them as "Australian Americans" or "Aboriginal Americans"? This moral conundrum goes on and on.
Oh, going back, I would also like to point out the the continent of Africa has a strong and influential population of Anglo white people. People who have been living there longer than whites have been in America. So, in the interest of non offensive speech, shouldn't we also refer to them as "African Americans"? To witch you, being a liberal-minded thinker, would reply; "Of course not, you moron. Those people came to that country from Europe.
Which brings me to my next point. The, so called, "Native Americans". You are now thinking; "Whoa whoa whoa! What have you got against the Native Americans"? To witch I reply; "Not a damn thing." The point I'm trying to make here is simply that I can trace my ancestry back to Simon Bolivar Buckner, on my mothers side, who was a General in the Civil War. That was 165 years ago. Should I not be considered a Native of this land? Not to mention that most of the black people (I just can't be stopped) in this country can trace their ancestry back as far as the ban on shipment of new slaves into this country in the early 1800's some even farther back to the original slaves brought to this continent by the original settlers. Are they not Native Americans? At what point does it become permissible to call some one a native? You would probably reply "Not having emigrated to the land that you inhabit."
You might be right with that one. But, do you not know that even the Indians (now I'm using Indian, Whats wrong with me?) came to this continent on the Bering-Strait Crossing during the Ice Age? (known to scientists as the "Glacial Age") The only peoples who are truly "native" to their lands are the tribal Africans and the Asians.
Aristotle is one of my favorite philosophers. Mostly for what is now known as "The Laws of Definition". They are:
1. A thing is what it is
2. A thing can not be what it is not
Or, to put it a more racist way, "Let's call a Spade a Spade"
If you're black be proud, if you're white be proud. But, above all, remember to always be a human first. I am an American and proud.
Oh, I fell I must admit that Simon Bolivar Buckner served for the Confederacy not the Union. It causes me shame, you don't need to rub it in.
Let's start with "African Americans". Calling a person "African American" is the worst kind of insult. You might be thinking to yourself "Insult!? How so?" Well simply this, the point of being PC is not to offend and the worst offense we can offer our fellow humans is to assume that we know anything about them by looking. Not all black people (yes I said black) are Americans. They might be from this country, but that in know way means that they are citizens. Canada, England, France, all of Europe, Russia and Asia and, surprise surprise, Africa all have significant black (I said it again) populations. And I think it would be safe to say that they are proud of their citizenship in these countries and as such would like to be recognized as such.
So, recognizing this, we now have to, in the interest of not offending any one, remove the "American" portion of the title "African American". This leaves us referring to our dark skinned brethren as "Africans". But can we, in good conscience, do so. I would point out Australia. Australia, as you may or may not know, has strong population of black people known as the Aborigines. So, assuming that we know the genetic heritage of the person we were talking to as well as the citizenry, do we then refer to them as "Australian Americans" or "Aboriginal Americans"? This moral conundrum goes on and on.
Oh, going back, I would also like to point out the the continent of Africa has a strong and influential population of Anglo white people. People who have been living there longer than whites have been in America. So, in the interest of non offensive speech, shouldn't we also refer to them as "African Americans"? To witch you, being a liberal-minded thinker, would reply; "Of course not, you moron. Those people came to that country from Europe.
Which brings me to my next point. The, so called, "Native Americans". You are now thinking; "Whoa whoa whoa! What have you got against the Native Americans"? To witch I reply; "Not a damn thing." The point I'm trying to make here is simply that I can trace my ancestry back to Simon Bolivar Buckner, on my mothers side, who was a General in the Civil War. That was 165 years ago. Should I not be considered a Native of this land? Not to mention that most of the black people (I just can't be stopped) in this country can trace their ancestry back as far as the ban on shipment of new slaves into this country in the early 1800's some even farther back to the original slaves brought to this continent by the original settlers. Are they not Native Americans? At what point does it become permissible to call some one a native? You would probably reply "Not having emigrated to the land that you inhabit."
You might be right with that one. But, do you not know that even the Indians (now I'm using Indian, Whats wrong with me?) came to this continent on the Bering-Strait Crossing during the Ice Age? (known to scientists as the "Glacial Age") The only peoples who are truly "native" to their lands are the tribal Africans and the Asians.
Aristotle is one of my favorite philosophers. Mostly for what is now known as "The Laws of Definition". They are:
1. A thing is what it is
2. A thing can not be what it is not
Or, to put it a more racist way, "Let's call a Spade a Spade"
If you're black be proud, if you're white be proud. But, above all, remember to always be a human first. I am an American and proud.
Oh, I fell I must admit that Simon Bolivar Buckner served for the Confederacy not the Union. It causes me shame, you don't need to rub it in.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
What Would You Do If I Sang Out Of Tune
Music today pisses me off.
There once was a time, not to long ago, when, to be successful as a musical performer one had to be able to carry a tune and/or play an instrument. Now-a-days you can just run your voice through auto-tune and presto now you're a virtuoso. Never mind that you have no talent and are, for all intents and purposes, a pretty face. This would be tolerable if not for one thing. It used to be that these people would release an album that was successful and when their concerts were disappointing owing to the fact that they had no talent, they would fade away. Much like "The Killers". Now, however, auto-tune has become "a sound" so artists like Kanye West are running their vocals through auto-tune even at their concerts.
Gone are the days of masterful, precise guitar playing of Eric "Slow Hand" Clapton, the earth shattering vocal prowess of Aretha Franklin and the genre defining genius of "The Beatles." There are a few shining points in the see of darkness. Jack White for instance. While I do not particularly like his music I can respect him for bringing back Ensemble Recording.
You see, most modern recording is done in parts. First a drummer comes in and lays down a beat. Next the bass player does his thing, then the guitar then the vocals and so forth. After which a sound man lays the tracks together, runs them through a computer to fix the tuning and BAM that's a hit song. This leads to clinical sounding music with no soul. 30 years ago a band would set up in a sound room and play the song same as they would at a concert, allowing them to build off and respond to each other more naturally. This leads to a guy as ugly as Keith Richards being as ridiculously famous as he is.
Those days are gone. Dead and gone. Instead, the people who get the deal are the ones who can be sold for their sex appeal. We do get lucky sometimes. Taylor Swift is super talented, but she didn't win American Idol because of her writing ability. I could keep going on and on and on, but I'm starting to get angry. Suffice to say there is hope, not much, but some. And I will always here my dads voice saying "Tune it or Die."
Topic of discussion for this week: What's worse obligatory Christmas episode or obligatory Halloween episode?
There once was a time, not to long ago, when, to be successful as a musical performer one had to be able to carry a tune and/or play an instrument. Now-a-days you can just run your voice through auto-tune and presto now you're a virtuoso. Never mind that you have no talent and are, for all intents and purposes, a pretty face. This would be tolerable if not for one thing. It used to be that these people would release an album that was successful and when their concerts were disappointing owing to the fact that they had no talent, they would fade away. Much like "The Killers". Now, however, auto-tune has become "a sound" so artists like Kanye West are running their vocals through auto-tune even at their concerts.
Gone are the days of masterful, precise guitar playing of Eric "Slow Hand" Clapton, the earth shattering vocal prowess of Aretha Franklin and the genre defining genius of "The Beatles." There are a few shining points in the see of darkness. Jack White for instance. While I do not particularly like his music I can respect him for bringing back Ensemble Recording.
You see, most modern recording is done in parts. First a drummer comes in and lays down a beat. Next the bass player does his thing, then the guitar then the vocals and so forth. After which a sound man lays the tracks together, runs them through a computer to fix the tuning and BAM that's a hit song. This leads to clinical sounding music with no soul. 30 years ago a band would set up in a sound room and play the song same as they would at a concert, allowing them to build off and respond to each other more naturally. This leads to a guy as ugly as Keith Richards being as ridiculously famous as he is.
Those days are gone. Dead and gone. Instead, the people who get the deal are the ones who can be sold for their sex appeal. We do get lucky sometimes. Taylor Swift is super talented, but she didn't win American Idol because of her writing ability. I could keep going on and on and on, but I'm starting to get angry. Suffice to say there is hope, not much, but some. And I will always here my dads voice saying "Tune it or Die."
Topic of discussion for this week: What's worse obligatory Christmas episode or obligatory Halloween episode?
Friday, December 17, 2010
Do You Believe In Magic
It all starts with bones.
Believe it or not almost all cooking, going back to the first civilizations, begins with bones. We used everything else, why not the bones? Just put them in a pot, roasted or not, add aromatic vegetables and aromatic herbs, cover in water and simmer anywhere from 6 hours to 2 days. Once that's done, strain it through cheese cloth, skim of the fat and you have "Stock"
It all starts with stock.
Walk into any kitchen in the world on any given day and 90% of the time you will find at least one large pot, cauldron, kettle, what have you, of stock. We use it for everything, my kitchen goes through 6 gallons a day. Those glazed vegetables, cooked in stock. That sauce on your fish, reduced stock. That braised lamb shank, cooked in stock. Stock is magical. And if you add meat to it and a few more aromatics, simmer for anywhere from 3 hours to 2 days and now you have broth.
It all begins with broth.
Broth, made correctly, is rich and deep, clear and flavorful. Now what do you do with it?
It all begins with flower.
Mix that flower with eggs and kneed. Work it together to build up the gluten. Then, in a process that is unfortunately a mystery to me, roll it out. Now you have noodles. Once you have noodles the possibilities are endless. And I do mean endless.
Now we have noodles and broth. These two things would go remarkably well together. We could add some meat to that, my prefrance is thin sliced grilled pork. At this point we've achieved perfection. The beauty of food is that perfection can be improved upon. Add scallions, bean sprouts, Thai basil, lime and sriracha and suddenly you have Pho. It's delicious, it's filling, it's cheap.
And to think, it all begins with bones.
Believe it or not almost all cooking, going back to the first civilizations, begins with bones. We used everything else, why not the bones? Just put them in a pot, roasted or not, add aromatic vegetables and aromatic herbs, cover in water and simmer anywhere from 6 hours to 2 days. Once that's done, strain it through cheese cloth, skim of the fat and you have "Stock"
It all starts with stock.
Walk into any kitchen in the world on any given day and 90% of the time you will find at least one large pot, cauldron, kettle, what have you, of stock. We use it for everything, my kitchen goes through 6 gallons a day. Those glazed vegetables, cooked in stock. That sauce on your fish, reduced stock. That braised lamb shank, cooked in stock. Stock is magical. And if you add meat to it and a few more aromatics, simmer for anywhere from 3 hours to 2 days and now you have broth.
It all begins with broth.
Broth, made correctly, is rich and deep, clear and flavorful. Now what do you do with it?
It all begins with flower.
Mix that flower with eggs and kneed. Work it together to build up the gluten. Then, in a process that is unfortunately a mystery to me, roll it out. Now you have noodles. Once you have noodles the possibilities are endless. And I do mean endless.
Now we have noodles and broth. These two things would go remarkably well together. We could add some meat to that, my prefrance is thin sliced grilled pork. At this point we've achieved perfection. The beauty of food is that perfection can be improved upon. Add scallions, bean sprouts, Thai basil, lime and sriracha and suddenly you have Pho. It's delicious, it's filling, it's cheap.
And to think, it all begins with bones.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
What's In A Name
In the time I've spent reading philosophy the one branch, school, what have you has been semantics. As a philosophy semantics is more than just a way to annoy people in an argument. At it's heart semantics states that to truly understand the concepts of other schools of thought or the world at large we first need to understand the words we use to describe them. So, naturally, I have spent a lot of time in debates with friends about the proper way to use the words we take for granted every day.
With that in mind, presented here is the results of an argument I had at work a couple years ago. Being that I work in a kitchen I am at times not the nicest person. The same can be said for everyone I've worked with over the years. The problem is that we are all curmudgeonly in our own special ways. So, presented here are the definitions of the commonly used to describe me and the people we work with.
Jerk: A jerk is any one who acts from a place of hatred. To put it another way, a jerk is someone who, with every action and statement, is trying to hurt and insult you. We've all known this guy, he wears a wife beater, he has some obnoxious tattoo (not a comment on tattoos, I have tattoos too). Oh, and he cannot handle any kind of criticism and will respond with threats of violence and over the top insults in response.
Douche-bag: A douche is not always an unlikeable guy and can be fun to hang out with. The problem is that a douche doesn't realize that NOT liking them is an option. To make matters worse, the Douche-bag tends to try and live with in a genre or personality that doesn't suite them at all. Example: The short, fat, Phillepeno with "Thug Life" tattooed on his arm.
Cock Sucker: These are fun. Not for the reason you're thinking. A Cock Sucker is any one who is looking for a reaction, any reaction, from the things he says and does. This can be unbelievably entertaining at times just be careful not to give them any personal information as they will use it against you. Example: My former boss. On one occasion I had to pee, but I couldn't get away from my station. I told him and he stood next to me for the next ten minutes holding two glasses pouring water back and forth. On another I made the mistake of coming in with a hangover, so once again he stood next to me banging on a pot with a ladle. Hilarious.
And then there are Assholes. I am proud to be one. An asshole just doesn't care whether or not you like him or not. He's not trying to get a reaction. He thinks he's better than you. True or not, that is at his core. As a result an asshole will always tell you when you're being wrong. In their eyes at least.
Still in debate for a proper definition are Cunt, Bitch, Slut, Thug, Punk and Fag. Also Gentleman and Lady. Please help with any ideas you may have.
On a more doughnuts side not. Last night was a very sad night. Due to financial reasons, I was forced in to eating Maruchen Noodles for dinner. After 8 years working as a professional chef, to be reduced to that level is nothing short of devastating. No worries though. Tonight I have money and am planning to have Pho and I'm going to drink the second best beer I've had that wasn't brewed by me. Little known fact, I am powered by noodles.
With that in mind, presented here is the results of an argument I had at work a couple years ago. Being that I work in a kitchen I am at times not the nicest person. The same can be said for everyone I've worked with over the years. The problem is that we are all curmudgeonly in our own special ways. So, presented here are the definitions of the commonly used to describe me and the people we work with.
Jerk: A jerk is any one who acts from a place of hatred. To put it another way, a jerk is someone who, with every action and statement, is trying to hurt and insult you. We've all known this guy, he wears a wife beater, he has some obnoxious tattoo (not a comment on tattoos, I have tattoos too). Oh, and he cannot handle any kind of criticism and will respond with threats of violence and over the top insults in response.
Douche-bag: A douche is not always an unlikeable guy and can be fun to hang out with. The problem is that a douche doesn't realize that NOT liking them is an option. To make matters worse, the Douche-bag tends to try and live with in a genre or personality that doesn't suite them at all. Example: The short, fat, Phillepeno with "Thug Life" tattooed on his arm.
Cock Sucker: These are fun. Not for the reason you're thinking. A Cock Sucker is any one who is looking for a reaction, any reaction, from the things he says and does. This can be unbelievably entertaining at times just be careful not to give them any personal information as they will use it against you. Example: My former boss. On one occasion I had to pee, but I couldn't get away from my station. I told him and he stood next to me for the next ten minutes holding two glasses pouring water back and forth. On another I made the mistake of coming in with a hangover, so once again he stood next to me banging on a pot with a ladle. Hilarious.
And then there are Assholes. I am proud to be one. An asshole just doesn't care whether or not you like him or not. He's not trying to get a reaction. He thinks he's better than you. True or not, that is at his core. As a result an asshole will always tell you when you're being wrong. In their eyes at least.
Still in debate for a proper definition are Cunt, Bitch, Slut, Thug, Punk and Fag. Also Gentleman and Lady. Please help with any ideas you may have.
Monday, December 13, 2010
A whole new world
This is my first blog. I don't mean the first for this site, I mean my first ever. Until a few days ago I believed that blogging was, to put it simply, retarded. Who in their right mind could be so narcissistic as to believe the rest of the word gives a good flying crap about the random, meandering thoughts and opinions of arm-chair politicians or the philosophies of barely literate college drop-outs.
I certainly don't. Really I don't. Sure I have on occasion been enticed to read the blog of a friend from time to time. Who hasn't? What better way in this world of cyber-stalking to follow the every move of an ex-girlfriend (or potential future girlfriend)? Don't judge me, you've done it too. But as life is growth and I am alive, I have grown. It seems now that a blog could be a good way to vent the voluminous ideas stuffing my head. It will also be a chance to get feed back in a way, assuming that anyone reads the damn thing. Or that I manage to keep up with it. We'll see won't we.
So what will this be about. To be honest I'm not sure, but it will be interesting. At least for me. Maybe. It will definitely follow my two biggest interests. The first being the random thoughts that help me to make sense of the world at large (logic) and cooking (doughnuts).
So let's see how this works out and never forget, no regrets.
I certainly don't. Really I don't. Sure I have on occasion been enticed to read the blog of a friend from time to time. Who hasn't? What better way in this world of cyber-stalking to follow the every move of an ex-girlfriend (or potential future girlfriend)? Don't judge me, you've done it too. But as life is growth and I am alive, I have grown. It seems now that a blog could be a good way to vent the voluminous ideas stuffing my head. It will also be a chance to get feed back in a way, assuming that anyone reads the damn thing. Or that I manage to keep up with it. We'll see won't we.
So what will this be about. To be honest I'm not sure, but it will be interesting. At least for me. Maybe. It will definitely follow my two biggest interests. The first being the random thoughts that help me to make sense of the world at large (logic) and cooking (doughnuts).
So let's see how this works out and never forget, no regrets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)