I thought I would try this one in video. Sorry you have to watch my ugly mug, but the cocktail recipe is worth it!!
By the way, I shrank the size of the video for this blog skin. If you want to see a larger version, click on the viewer to watch it on YouTube.
For those of you who don’t want to watch, here is the recipe:
4 parts vodka
1 part sage-infused simple syrup
1 part apple juice
6 fresh blackberries
For the simple syrup, bring 1/2 cup water and 1/2 cup sugar to a simmer, dissolving the sugar. Add two sprigs of fresh sage and simmer for several minutes until aromatic (don’t boil the syrup.) Remove sage and allow to cool.
Muddle blackberries in a shaker. Add the ingredients and plenty of ice. Shake vigorously and strain into a chilled glass. Garnish with a lemon twist.
[Editor's Note: I love the word douche. It's like the new fuck. I'm happy that Megyn Kelly has given me an opportunity to use it. Although, if I watched Fox News more often I might have even more opportunities.]
Check out this stunning display of disingenuous reporting on Fox News. There are a couple of things to consider here:
Megyn Kelly is a lawyer;
Megyn Kelly is paid a lot of money to work for Fox News;
Megyn Kelly has an entire production staff at her disposal, for the purpose of providing her with accurate research.
So it’s kind of astonishing to see the discussion on Net Neutrality which aired Tuesday, May 11th, on her show America Live, between Josh Silver, the president of freepress.net, and Jim Harper, a fellow at the Cato Institute. Kelly displays a bias to the story from the moment the piece opens, whether she is calling Net Neutrality a government-takeover of the internet, or claiming that the Obama administration will have their hands in too many aspects of everyone’s business. Let’s remember, this show airs at 1:00p.m. ET, right in the middle of Fox News’ “fair and balanced” news reporting. It was just last fall when Michael Clemente, senior vice-president for news, made the distinction between Fox’s news programming and their shock-jock personalities like Hannity and Beck.
Please note how Harper is allowed to drone on and on, while Kelly interrupts Silver, telling him that her audience doesn’t understand the very clear talking point he asserted. When Harper’s statements are challenged, he falls back to idiotic Libertarian claims of big government that have no bearing on the subject, and Kelly gives him a pass.
Since Kelly is admittedly too stupid to understand that Net Neutrality is about preventing content discrimination on the internet, let me paint Harper’s suggestion in terms even she can understand:
If the internet were our highway system, then Harper wants all the roads to be owned by the trucking companies. As you traveled from one road to another, you would be subject to different rules by a different authority. Randomly, without warning, the rules could change and you might be prevented from driving on the road. You might not be allowed to go to certain locations, unless they were owned by the trucking company. Trucks could run you off the road, and you couldn’t do anything about it.
Now, does that sound like any way to enjoy a family vacation?
Cato must be in trouble, because Harper really gives them a bad name. He might want to go back to school and read a little Adam Smith or Frederick Hayek – both godfathers of libertarian economics – who discuss the necessity of fair playing fields and low barriers to entry for any free marketplace. Railing against ‘Big Government’ in this case is insulting, for the alternative is monopoly. Libertarians like Harper have a real PR problem: explaining how to live in a lawless, third-world society controlled by corporations that exist solely for the pursuit of greater profit, while providing services and protections to the public. I’m still listening…
As for Kelly, I can only thank her for allowing me to write this piece and highlight her bias and stupidity. And reinforce my decision not to watch Fox News Channel.
I found myself on YouTube the other day, viewing the new RNC web ad, which assumes their audience has a mental age of about 8. So far, the leadership of the Republican Party has yet to approach an issue with maturity, and I couldn’t help but post a comment to the page, asking if anyone didn’t feel offended by the aforesaid assumption. My question was: “I’m stunned by how many people can be swayed by this kind of trash, even in the face of the Arizona legislation, the GOP refusing to work on financial reform, and the plain lack of substance to many of the falsehoods being circulated. Do you really believe Michelle Bachmann when she talks about internment camps? Do you believe Sarah Palin when she threatens you with ‘Death Panels’? When does their credibility suffer?”
The response was swift. I was told that all would be made clear if I read the “Founding Documents” and stopped drinking Kool-Aid (no offense to the KraftFoods Corporation.) As justification for their paranoia, I was referred to FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was asserted that the Department of Labor – responsible for the census – gave Roosevelt the information he needed to find people. Now we have to worry about Obama, because anyone who disagrees with the need for healthcare reform should be shipped off to central Nevada and be placed in holding pens.
Of course, I pointed out that there have been six decennial censuses since 1942, so why freak out now? Because our freedom is threatened: the government owns 96% of home mortgages, it has taken over student loans, and will force everyone to buy health insurance. After a couple of back-and-forths, this is how the argument lined up:
The new Arizona “Papers, Please” law is okay even though it presumes you are breaking the law;
Warrantless wiretapping is okay because it made us safe;
Holding Jose Padilla (a U.S. citizen) without charge for years was okay because he was obviously a terrorist;
But insuring (not owning) home mortgage securities so that banks will offer them at lower interest rates is tyranny.
These assertions seem nonsensical; they certainly don’t adhere to a consistent policy platform. How is this possible? Back in the 1980s, a Canadian psychologist named Bob Altemeyer did ground-breaking research to find an answer. Altemeyer studies authoritarianism, and has identified the ‘right-wing authoritarian’ (RWA) personality type.
Briefly, since this information rightly occupies multiple volumes, the RWA is characterized as being submissive to [proper] authority, or following established authorities without question; will aggressively support their established authority, even to the point of violence; can be described as conventional and reject moral relativism; separate into homogenous groups and hold prejudices against minorities; tend to lack skepticism and rely on information provided by their authorities; construct a moral standard and reject everything outside of it; and view the world as a dangerous place, with society on the brink of destruction. There is more, but I think the point is made. An RWA personality is capable of accepting an authority like the Bush Administration violating Constitutional tenets while claiming that last year’s stimulus package is ‘big government’, because Glenn Beck told them so.
Which brings us to the end of this post. Altemeyer would define figures like Beck, Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney as social dominators, those who score high on a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale. While RWAs tend to be submissive by nature, SDOs are in control. They believe in a social Darwinism, will discriminate against minority groups, identify threats everywhere in the world, and are Machiavellian (sorry for the disrespect, Niccolo) in their approach to enemies. Interestingly, while they use morality as a talking point, their own behavior demonstrates little of it. If the RWAs are the wind, then SDOs are the sail.
There’s much more, so I’d like to just cite a couple of books, in case you want to keep going (I’m off for a tasty falafel sandwich.) While much of our media makes the Tea Party movement out to be something significant in contemporary politics, I see it differently: it is an incoherent fringe that has always existed, but is now being prodded by a major political party that’s out of power and willing to play hardball. Which was the point of my question on YouTube: if directly confronted with shameless manipulation by the Republican Party, the RWAs will happily lap up their milk and proceed as directed.
“Conservatives Without Conscience,” John W. Dean, Penguin Books, 2007
“The Authoritarians,” Bob Altemeyer, Self-Published, 2007
“The Authoritarian Specter,” Bob Altemeyer, Harvard University Press, 1996
I’m currently reading “The American Claimant” by Mark Twain, one of my favorite writers. Twain has a lovely talent for skewering the undeserving, in a manner that is timeless. I thought I would share some words regarding the function of the press:
The chief function of an English journal is that of all other journals the world over: it must keep the public eye fixed admiringly upon certain things, and keep it diligently diverted from certain others… It must keep the public eye fixed in loving and awful reverence upon the throne as a sacred thing, and diligently divert it from the fact that no throne was ever set up by the unhampered vote of a majority of any nation; and that hence no throne exists that has a right to exist…
And then, in defense of the American press:
Our press does not reverence kings, it does reverence so called nobilities, it does not reverence established ecclesiastical slaveries, it does not reverence laws which rob a younger son to fatten an elder one, it does not reverence any fraud or sham or infamy, howsoever old or rotten or holy, which sets one citizen above his neighbor by accident of birth…
Given the tradition of the White House Correspondents Dinner, I wonder just how close we’ve gotten to the English journal of the late 19th century?
Okay, so I’ve been slack. Laura and I went to Key West during the last week of April to get our U.S. Sailing keelboat certification at J/World. It was a lot of work, a lot of fun, and we got to see a variety of conditions on the water. Sadly, my devotion to the Canon G11 prevented me from taking it on the boat, but I did snap a couple of pics. These will have to suffice…
