“The exploitation of fear and anger is going to be a strong component of the campaign. And people in the grip of such emotions... don't stop to check facts and figures, don't stop to question whether the person telling them what they want to hear... is genuinely on their side, or using them to further an agenda. They grasp, they grab, and they hope that _this_ time, they'll be right.
And this woman is very good at exploiting fear and anger.
Can she win? I doubt it. She's got no real friends in the main line of the party- they're trying to use her right back, basically. And without them- she hasn't got the support. The Tea Party cannot do it alone- they are only just at the stage of influencing, not electing. And she won't win converts- she's not flexible enough to widen her appeal, so her base won't grow sizable enough to provide any surprises.
But. We are a nation of people who cannot learn by anything other than example- we cannot be educated or forewarned away from trouble. We cannot be talked past it or guided. In most cases- we just have to go through it. And despite what seem- to me- to have been a very loud series of warnings... I think we will eventually have to suffer through someone like this _as_ president... in order to learn why we probably shouldn't have them in office.”
JoeBlough on Jun 23, 2011 at 13:01:24
“Good post, but why didn't people learn from the Bush Blunder?”
Jun 16, 2011 at 18:42:12
“Yes... but the heart of the movie wants to be... attached to the experiences of a scrabbling middle class kid of that time frame- a kid with a slightly tougher road to travel than the other kids. Family issues, maybe some distance from his dad... a little mis understood and absolutely not the cool guy. That's Spielberg. Abrams was a privileged kid. Spielberg escaped into the movies, Abrams was born into the business. Spielberg brought his past into the movies with him... Abrams is borrowing Spielberg's past as a setting.”
“So, like... people should have be able to pay for an abortion- or be able to raise a kid- before having sex. This would be... advocating willful abstinence, yes? Saying that people should be able to make a rational decision.... about sex. Probably in the heat of the moment.
In the history of history, tell me how that tends to work out for people. Tell me how many people have ever managed to remain abstinent pending perfect conditions.
I would bet the ratio of people who manage to make a rational decision not to have sex because they cannot afford the consequences... to the people who just can't stop themselves... distills down to thousands to one.”
“So many people protest to be worried about Sharia law gaining a foothold in this country... and yet we are seeing restrictions put into law based on religious morality right HERE. Moreover... those of you who say that this issue is simply a matter of not wanting YOUR money to go to people or uses that you don't specify... you might want to review the idea of a social compact, an underlying pillar of any society. Shame.”
mick1984 on Jun 15, 2011 at 16:58:40
“No one says you can't go out on the town and do your thing. Just be sure you can afford your kid or an abortion before you hop in the sack.”
“Yeah, go ahead and let them build it. I will enjoy the inevitable "surprise" launch of Infinite Loop One, the Apple Genius Space station... which will eventually declare itself an independent nation, and as such, no longer subject to ANY of the terms and conditions once binding. Forcing every contract to be renegotiated at favorable terms.”
“Keith could probably use a dose of the salts, once in a while. His comfortable brand of good humored irascibility scales into genuine ill humor, from time to time... and sometimes the ghost of Edward R. Murrow tries to talk to him in the shaving mirror... but... so what?
Stewart and Colbert express our outrage and anger and shame at what's going on in our country via targeted, sly humor. Maddow lectures, Al Franken's actually gotten into the damn game...
Who but Keith actually gets in there and screams when screaming needs doing?”
Lahi on Jun 9, 2011 at 22:49:19
“No one, which is why it is going to be good to have him back.”
“I think Mitt believes that... in the end... looking reasonable is going to be a helluva lot more attractive than it is right now. Right now, the extremists are all fighting in the middle of the road. It's entertaining, and even kinda fun to watch. Gets the blood flowing and stimulates conversation and all of that. But eventually, people will realize... Holy mother of god, we've got no one here who we can even RUN! Palin? Extremist, doesn't have the support of the vast majority of the party. Bachmann? You don't let your crazy aunt have the remote, let alone the power to start a war. Newt's already dead and gone. Unless they can pump enough stem cells into Ronnie's corpse to get him up and around in Iowa, they have no one-
And there he'll be. Reasonably tanned, reasonably handsome, acceptably bland. Revising your positions on every possible topic every coupla weeks ain't gonna look so _bad_ by then.
Except... Mitt? This is your soul. It ain't gonna happen. You're right about a non controversial pick having an excellent chance to pick up the nomination... but it's not going to be you, twist and turn and look up your own backside as you might. You've gone every which way so often that no one knows where you really stand. That's what's missing from the pie here, Mitt. It's why you didn't get the nomination last time, and why you'll probably never get it.”
“The problem here is that none of the powers that be care for the guy. If they did- there would be calls for tolerance and understanding pouring out across the land. Many of them saying the sort of reasonable things that are being said here.
But he's not liked, and the powers are using this opportunity to push him out.
Me? I hope he stays. Even if he ends up with no authority, sitting in his office playing XBox while he waits for Jon Stewart to return his calls. Even if all he can really accomplish until the end of his term is to just show the hell up.
Because forcing him out is wrong. It's hypocritical, it's an exercise in manipulation, and the only people who ought to have any skin in the game here... are him, his family and his constituents. He didn't break any law, he didn't kill anyone or steal anything. He screwed up- badly and humiliatingly. He lost any chance- for the conceivable future- to be taken seriously by the public.He could push through the most amazing legislation in modern times. He could drop a solution to the deficit crisis- which not only maintains but improves the social network- that makes the strong weep and his enemies ruefully admit to having been mastered.
And everyone's still gonna snicker. Let him alone. The short attention span press will be on to something else soon enough. Look! SHINY! And off they'll go.”
CATNIP1 on Jun 9, 2011 at 22:28:42
“Barbara Walters said the x photo was "impressive". Woooo Barbara.”
Jun 9, 2011 at 19:34:15
“Spielberg's early movies had a sort of sixties/seventies middle class cultural vibe... because he was _of_ that period, and learned his craft _in_ that period. He wasn't referencing it out of any sense of nostalgia, he was basing stories in what he had actually known and experienced.
Abram's attempt to recreate that feeling- the nostalgia in which this movie is fairly steeped- is kinda creepy to me. Spielberg's stuff felt honestly observed to me when it came out. I recognized the sensibility of someone who'd lived a similar life. I responded to his work strongly, because it played out like something from my own mind and heart.
I'm certainly not alone in that.
Abrams' stuff feels- on the other hand- like an effort to capture something in a jar, kill it, and then display it with pins through its wings.
It's what was wrong with his approach to Mission Impossible, and Star Trek, come to think of it.”
LivelyLexie on Jun 10, 2011 at 20:51:39
“JJ Abrams decided to make this movie because he and his brother used a Super 8 camera when they were kids. This is set in the late 70s/early 80s, which he learned his craft in, so it IS based on his experiences.”
“Past a certain point, I think the law of diminishing returns comes into play with burgers. While there are any number of things you can _do_ to the basic hamburger, after a while I think you're putting in a lot of effort to very little effect.
I've made burgers with different cuts and grinds of meat, tried various cooking techniques and more mix ins and toppings than I care to remember; soy sauce and ketchup and garlic and onions and Tabasco and god only knows what the hell else. I've put the things on everything from cheap white bread buns to home baked brioche to Naan to pressed rice.
And it seems to me that there's very little benefit to be gained, fiddling around too much. You're doing more and more to less and less effect, once you've gotten the basic burger down.
Using good, fresh meat- with a decent fat to lean ratio?
Letting it get to room temperature before you cook it?
Not packing it too tight?
Seasoning it just before it hits the grill or griddle?
Avoiding the temptation to fiddle with it?
Cook, flip, cook, top, serve, eat.
When I see someone going as far as this to try and improve on the basic savory crust surrounding hot juicy meat thing... I just giggle.”
“I have twenty years of professional cooking- mostly grill and saute- under my formerly bulging belt. I am, by any standard I know, an experienced, professional grill man. My initial training was under a Swiss trained Chef. I have done volume and scratch based high end cooking, fryolator heavy and prep heavy. And....
I do not know a grill man worth his salt who presses the burgers. First time I cooked one like that- pressed it down, as my dad showed me at home? That Swiss trained chef I mentioned whipped me in the ass with a damp side towel (there's classical European training for you!).
I think the issue here has to do with your concept of "solid" meat, or chilled meat. You may well be right when starting with that. But... one other precept I learned along the way is that you do not start with chilled meat..
I am going to try the burger your way- and prepare one the way I would normally do it. Same ingredients, same technique- save the cold versus warm bit and the pressing. And I will report back..
My question for you is this... Will you trust me to give an honest report? Nothing but respect for you, and I hope it is clear that I intend to give this a fair test. But the whole idea is wasted if you're going to just dismiss the idea...”
“As you said, not all rules are immutable. And my experience quite simply leads me to think that this practice is wrong.”
onlyaquarterdelusional on Mar 12, 2011 at 11:19:56
“Agreed...you don't ever press any meat while it's cooking unless you want it dry and tasteless. Just make it thinner to begin with. It's a burger. As basic as cooking gets.
80/20 chopped meat cooked on a hot grill or hot pan (put small dollop of butter in pan first). Medium rare pretty much covers most peoples taste.
If you want cheese, whatever kind siuts your fancy, use the real stuff not processed crap.
Whatever condiments your taste prefer, pepper/salt, all on a good quality toasted roll.
What seperates a good burger from a 'damn this is a really good burger' is the cuts and quality of the beef in the 80/20 mix. The best burger joints either have the mix made for them or occasionally (rarely) make it themselves. The best steak houses only serve 'prime', it's why they are the best. Same thing with burgers. Start with the right mix of the right cuts and don't over/under cook it, and you can't go wrong.”
“I know this is going to cause a certain amount of blow back, and I want to reiterate that I have respect for the guy, but... I don't believe that the meat remains cold for more than a moment or two once put onto the grill or griddle or pan. At which point, fat renders.”
“As much as I appreciate your enthusiasm, I feel compelled to wave a finger: Never, ever, ever- and I mean never- press a burger on the grill, griddle, or in the pan. I know, I know, you get the sizzle, the aroma, the sense of sealing something in.... but what you're really doing is pressing out the juices that make a good burger great- that lovely, warm, melty, fatty _juice_. If you have the temp right, you'll _get_ that tasty crust... and if you want a thin burger- shape the patty that way from the start. .
I spent twenty years in kitchens, and _not_ pressing burgers may be the single most useful "secret" I ever learned.”
rickthaluddite on Mar 11, 2011 at 14:31:37
“Yup-- don't press the burger and only flip it once.”
hp blogger Meathead on Mar 11, 2011 at 10:40:54
“I should also point out that Josh is one of the world's leading authorities on burgers and the author of a great book on the subject "The Hamburger: A History". He writes the rules.”
hp blogger Meathead on Mar 11, 2011 at 10:39:15
“I think Josh makes it clear that when the meat is cold the juices will not run, and if you look, you can see that this is true. When it is HOT, you don't want to press out the juices as you say, and if you watch, you can see that he resists the temptation to press the onions in for that reason. Not all rules are immutable.”
“Anyone remember the Soviet Union? How horrified we were, here, at the thought of the constant surveillance people living under that government endured? Every movement, every day. Recorders, cameras, people lurking in the streets. Checking what you were doing... against their _idea_ of what you should be doing. Authorized to watch, and wait, and strike without warning. A system which assumed guilt was the natural state of it's citizenry. Couldn't happen here- we knew better. Our system presumed innocence of all citizens and required proof of guilt _before_ actions could be taken. We believed that people ought to go through their lives with as little interference as possible- from one another and especially from the government. We preferred to rely on the ideal of individual responsibility to protect us. The reality for much of us is changing- traffic cams, helicopters, internet monitoring- but the ideal remains. And this scheme absolutely contradicts that ideal. It willingly discards it.”
“I am no fan of this idea, but I would like to correct your science. Geostationary satellite orbits exist- essentially timing the orbit of the satellite to match the rotation of the Earth. It's how communication satellites are generally placed. For this specific scheme- that wouldn't work, since equatorial orbit would likely not give you coverage. But- nothing stopping someone from putting multiple satellites in the same orbits, and designing overlapping orbital coverage. Satellites would simply scan and record a wide area as they passed- slowly- and then transmit the data to ground. If you needed historical coverage, the operator would grab the data from any sat in range at the given time frame, scan for information and enhance. For real time data, the operator would find whatever satellite was in range and use that to get the best image for as long as could be- probably long enough to get good images and alert ground or air authorities for target pickup. And if protracted coverage was needed, satellites orbits _can_ be reassigned on the fly.”
“The whole debate is silly. For X to live, Y has to die. The question of whether Y is an animal or a vegetable? Leaving aside _learned_ morals and _learned_ ethical constructs for the moment... it comes down to what's most available and sustainable. And going forward, a diet more heavily based on vegetable consumption is going to make more sense according to both criteria. .
We can sit here and debate _now_. We can pelt one another with evidence supporting animal and plant consciousnesses, the good of the planet, etc. But the outcome of this debate is predestined. As more people fight for diminishing resources, devoting bales and bales of otherwise useful grains to the raising of 1 animal that can feed a limited amount of people...isn't going to make much sense. My prediction is that the Western diet- a hundred years on- is going to be heavily based on vegetables and a few meat substitutes- for "hot dogs" and "hamburgers" and other tastes people crave. Further on- I would bet that the "meats" people eat are going to be largely synthetic and much different from what we eat today.”
Jolicoeur1 on Aug 16, 2010 at 07:19:11
“If you eat pastured beef, lamb and so on then there are not generally any bales of grain being used, just a well managed pasture. I say eat more pastured meat, eggs, cheese and less of it.”
“The greatest threat to humanity remains humanity itself. With the exception of grand scale external threats- vacuum state changes, alien invasion, gamma bursts- every threat facing us, as a species, can be dealt with. We can adapt to climate changes, resource elimination, population pressures- all of it. .
But we are a short sighted, nest fouling species. And rather than truly plan ahead, share, rather than compete, raise ALL rather than a privileged few? We prefer to fight it out, to argue and make it all US versus THEM when there never has been a damned THEM. .
I offer as proof- the golden age we're not living in. We've long had the knowledge and ability to feed, clothe, house and educate virtually everyone on the planet. To end our dependence on oil for energy. To live in a society of mutuality and common purpose. .
We're not. Because all we really seem to want to do is splinter and argue and grasp for OURS and screw the other guy for wanting any. We want to be comfortable and fat and happy. And we don't ever think- as a species- about long term goals beyond that. Comfortable, fat and happy- that's the domestic and foreign policy of every nation. .
If that could be changed? It won't be. Humanity is pathological. Possibly self hating. Whatever gets us- whether we could do something about it or not? We won't. And an attitude like that makes our extinction a matter of time.”
OregonDoug on Aug 8, 2010 at 14:13:15
“Great post, Kendall. However, I do think we can change. And it starts with people like you to set the standard, who, I believe, seem to understand (appreciate?) the issue overall. And you're obviously not alone. I believe people are inherently good, whether they are from the left or right, or in between. Sure, we can do evillll, but that is the exception. But the good begins at the individual, personal level. Well, I'm off to watch Mary Poppins. Peace.”
Sfumato2 on Aug 8, 2010 at 13:53:17
Absolon on Aug 8, 2010 at 13:44:11
“Ihate to fave something so awful, but you are correct. Faved.”
CompashCat on Aug 8, 2010 at 13:42:31
“F & F - good post.”
CompashCat on Aug 8, 2010 at 13:34:05
I think the Right hates the Left so much because we see the wisdom in planning ahead, looking at the Big Picture, using less resources, sharing what we have with the less fortunate, sharing our planet with other species of animals, embracing compassion over competition, etc. It is all very threatening to the "I want to be Comfortable, Fat and Happy!" crowd.”
“Really? What type of vehicle, how long is the journey? It seems to me that these variables need to be known before stating the energy needs. That's literally a best guess based on whatever assumptions they considered reasonable. Well. Look at some of what was considered reasonable 100 years ago, 200 years ago, hell, 50 years ago, scientifically. And look at some of what we have now. At what we can do now. Technology- particularly when research is stimulated- tends to advance leapfrog. .
There are concepts out there that reduce the trip time to 70 years- propulsion concepts. That seems a lot less daunting, a lot more theoretically graspable. .
I think this gets even more graspable, more do-able if we factor OUT human beings for the initial recon, the fly by. No need for atmosphere, for a lot of radiation protection, waste elimination, boredom management, etc. Get out there, see if there's something worth getting to, and THEN see if that doesn't motivate us..
As for manned extrasolar flight- we have no practice with that, or with dealing with the requirements of surviving on another actual planet. But we have everything we need with which to practice such things right to hand. Long term trips to Mars, Mars habs, etc..
The tech is doable- with enough effort, enough practice, enough brains bent to the problem. The real issue is... getting people to see the need. Finding a way to enthuse the WORLD.”
“What's needed here is some balance. Food labels should be comprehensive, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. We damned well ought to know what's in our food- which goes into us and becomes us. But... how do you actually _do_ that? Stating that the main ingredient is GMO is not that hard, but follow down the chain- until the main ingredient is used in another thing, which is then used as part of something else. How do you label that accurately- particularly when, due to the vicissitudes of the supply chain, the GMO ingredient may or may not be in it every time? And how much information do you give? GMOs are harmful, according to some studies? GMOs may be harmful? It's not that easy. And as to the organic versus non organic debate... I feel like the agnostic watching the atheists and the theists fight it out. Organic costs more because of the way it's grown. Inorganic costs less- but could be poisoning us. Surely there's a goddamned middle ground, kids? Maybe not stepping back centuries in food production technology, but maybe not embracing profit over safety either? Seems like everyone wants the same thing- good, reasonably priced food. And maybe if each side stopped throwing accusatory bombs at the other, we could have a discussion and get this dealt with.”
HazelPethigFan on Jul 29, 2010 at 18:40:39
“I am sure you think I am one of those people who fight it out while you somehow get to remain above all this. That's laughble. I look at data and I make decisions. There are people saying "GM is unsafe blah blah blah" I own a farm. I either use GM or nonGM. I need to make a decision. I have no "middle ground" Ever notice by my comments I am also a liberal? I voted for Paul Wellstone and am proud of it. But this confuses the leftie HP masters here who try to make sure HP is purist.”
nomadrdw on Jul 29, 2010 at 16:27:36
“actually, GMOs contaminate ALL of the corn and soy food chains in this country, South America, and China. and about 50% of the rice crop”
Jul 17, 2010 at 03:35:55
“I understand why entertainers struggle to retain every inch of their youth; we remain a painfully youth obsessed culture, and every sag, pound, wrinkle or grey hair is a threat to their livelihood. On the whole, we don't want to see Courtney Cox as she is now... we still want to see the girl in the Springsteen video, the woman from Friends... And if she values her career- she'll do what she can to deliver her to us. .
What's sad is... a lot of stars don't seem to understand that the miracles stop working after a while. The skin doesn't respond like it did. The muscles don't work like they did. You can only fight off 35 for so long- before you start to look like Ivana Trump. Or Barry Manilow. You've all seen the look. Smooth faced, wrinkle free faces hanging from ancient bones. It fools no one, that glassy, too tight look. Everything else- shaking hands, faltering gait, thready voice- betrays it.
Not to mention... Most of what they do adversely affects the facial flexibility and mobility that helped them become entertainers and stars.
“When the Perrier clip is done- and it goes to Replay mode- look at the bottom of the screen. Select- from the images- the one that pops up as Absinthe Dance... shows her doing a full strip tease, ending with a bath in a giant champagne glass full of what looks like absinthe. .
My. Sweet. Lord.