Way back in March, I promised some postings about veg*n and cheap eating. Since then the current events of the year (politics) have dominated my online life but now I'll return to the eating part like I promised!
Anyway, my parents used to trim up carrots, radishes, and celery for a "relish tray" which they kept in a Tupperware.....well, box is the only way to describe it. Anyhoo, they (I assume) always just tossed the carrot peels and ends and the celery bits (you know the ones I'm talking about: those dried ends where the celery ribs were cut to fit into the bags at the store, plus the--pardon my French--the white part of the ribs down at the butt end of the whole stalk) and celery leaves in the trash. A while back, I realized that the veggie broth that I wish I could buy at the store, but didn't because it was so expensive, could easily be done at home with those veggie bits!
So, here we go!
Now, I know we all use carrots and onions in our cooking (right??), so when you trim them up, just save the ends and peels and stray bits in a gallon freezer bag plus any other veggie bits that are used during the week. (One big caveat, though: DON'T use anything from the cabbage family! That's broccoli, cabbage, brussels sprouts, kohl rabi, etc. They produce a bitterness that just ruins things). I've used radish ends, daikon bits, turnips (when they aren't waxed, which is rare where I am), and other veggies I happen to have used that week.
There are some prep hints though:
Carrots: I use organic ones that are a dollar per pound at a local store, scrub 'em.
Onion: don't use the skins from yellow onions; they'll darken the broth and give a rather "dark" flavor. I usually use white onions anyway. Red onions in broth don't usually work unless you're making a beef or lamb dish anyway. I usually peel away the outermost layer of the onion (it's usually a lot tougher than the inner layers) and use that as well.
Celery: Wash the bottom ends of the ribs!! And by all means, use the leaves! That's the best part.
Garlic: peels, ends, the mush left after you put a clove thru the garlic press, and I usually smash an extra clove or two for each pot of stock.
Lettuce: Yep, lettuce! Specifically the bottom of Romaine lettuce heads. Just chop it off and toss it in the pot.
Fennel: don't use this. Licorice soup just doesn't sound appetizing!
Turnips: I usually only use turnips in beef stew, so don't have much in the way of trimmings for a pot of stock, but it works fine if you only have 1 or 2 turnips' worth of peels and ends in a pot.
That's pretty much it, that I can think of. By far, my veggie broth is usually just onion/carrot/celery with garlic.
Just toss everything in a pot with a couple bay leaves and some salt and pepper, and cover with filtered water. Boil/simmer for 30-45 minutes and strain (the strainings are great for compost!) I have a 4 quart slow cooker and just fill it with water till it reaches the brim. After you strain the veggies out, run the broth thru a couple layers of cheese cloth or an ultra-fine strainer, and it's ready to use in your recipes. I usually add enough water to make an even four quarts of broth and store it in pint containers in the freezer.
For chicken broth, it's pretty much the same recipe, except you add in the carcass of a chicken, of course. I usually get a rotisserie chicken 2-3 times a month, and when I do, I just take the meat off the bones and put the bones, and skin, etc in with the veggies. Yes, you'll have to skim the fat off if you're doing fat-free (refrigerating the stock works easiest; the fat just lifts off), but that's a small price you pay for some great tasting chicken soup!
Friday, May 20, 2016
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Why "hate speech" must be protected speech
Youtube is a wondrous thing!
I watched a panel discussion with (among others) Milo Yiannopoulos a British GAY man, which discussion took place at UMass, Amhurst on April 25, 2016, during which Milo gave the best example of the truth of the title of this blog post.
Milo spoke about the BNP, the British National Party, a far right (some would even say "fascist") political organization within the UK, which espouses racism, homophobia, and every other bad "-ism" that frightens modern day Social justice Warriors so much. It was led by (in Milo's words) "a very odious character called Nick Griffin."
He told the audience that for a rather long while, the British media was "boycotting" the BNP; BBC did not report on their activities or opinions and neither did any of the British press. The people of the UK heard NOTHING about the BNP or Mr. Griffin, the party's leader, other than the sanitized, out-for-votes, soundbits put out by the BNP itself, and thus the party won control of many local councils (the Brit version of city councils and county supervisor boards, etc), and they were growing and getting more control in more local councils, mostly out of anxieties of the public about immigration and the changing nature of local communities.
Then came the day when the media embargo ended. The BBC had Mr. Griffin appear on the show "Question Time", an hour long discussion program. As Milo stated, "as anyone with any brains at all would be able to predict the BNP evaporated. When the British people saw what this guy who ran this party was really like, they stopped voting for that party. A couple of years later, the BNP is no longer a force in British politics. This is why it isn't just important to give a platform to ordinary speech, but it's important to give platforms to ALL speech, because 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'".
The best way to deal with people you don't agree with, with people with odious opinions and beliefs is the full glare of the spotlight. As I've said before in this very blog, the only way to root out bigotry and prejudice and discrimination is the market place. If we silence the bigots and the racists and the homophobes and all the other favorite "bad guys"of all good and decent people, then society, out of ignorance that they are doing so, will continue to give money and validation to these vermin. Let them spew their hatred openly. If they do it loudly enough (and we all know they will because they just LURVE hearing themselves pontificate!) and often enough, more and more people will know exactly what they believe and, more importantly, **Who. They. Are.** then more and more people will cease their support of these bigots. If it causes a small uptick in actual discrimination then that must be tolerated for the long-term benefit of getting these people out of positions of power in society. Any worries about mass discrimination happening are baseless. This isn't the 1940s and 1950s etc. any more. There are vastly more people that are non-racist, non-bigots now than in the Jim Crow days. Plus (and this is the important part) without government-sanctioned discrimination (Jim Crow was, above all, a set of LAWS) there would have been much less discrimination in the 40s and 50s and early 60s than there actually was. Even more so today, there are vastly more non-bigots around than before, so any fears of massive uptick in discrimination is just a steaming pile of BS.
You want bigotry and discrimination to stop? Shine a light on it. Expose it for the hate that it is and the good people will respond appropriately. Hide it, cover it up, and silence it, and it will just fester and never go away.
I watched a panel discussion with (among others) Milo Yiannopoulos a British GAY man, which discussion took place at UMass, Amhurst on April 25, 2016, during which Milo gave the best example of the truth of the title of this blog post.
Milo spoke about the BNP, the British National Party, a far right (some would even say "fascist") political organization within the UK, which espouses racism, homophobia, and every other bad "-ism" that frightens modern day Social justice Warriors so much. It was led by (in Milo's words) "a very odious character called Nick Griffin."
He told the audience that for a rather long while, the British media was "boycotting" the BNP; BBC did not report on their activities or opinions and neither did any of the British press. The people of the UK heard NOTHING about the BNP or Mr. Griffin, the party's leader, other than the sanitized, out-for-votes, soundbits put out by the BNP itself, and thus the party won control of many local councils (the Brit version of city councils and county supervisor boards, etc), and they were growing and getting more control in more local councils, mostly out of anxieties of the public about immigration and the changing nature of local communities.
Then came the day when the media embargo ended. The BBC had Mr. Griffin appear on the show "Question Time", an hour long discussion program. As Milo stated, "as anyone with any brains at all would be able to predict the BNP evaporated. When the British people saw what this guy who ran this party was really like, they stopped voting for that party. A couple of years later, the BNP is no longer a force in British politics. This is why it isn't just important to give a platform to ordinary speech, but it's important to give platforms to ALL speech, because 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'".
The best way to deal with people you don't agree with, with people with odious opinions and beliefs is the full glare of the spotlight. As I've said before in this very blog, the only way to root out bigotry and prejudice and discrimination is the market place. If we silence the bigots and the racists and the homophobes and all the other favorite "bad guys"of all good and decent people, then society, out of ignorance that they are doing so, will continue to give money and validation to these vermin. Let them spew their hatred openly. If they do it loudly enough (and we all know they will because they just LURVE hearing themselves pontificate!) and often enough, more and more people will know exactly what they believe and, more importantly, **Who. They. Are.** then more and more people will cease their support of these bigots. If it causes a small uptick in actual discrimination then that must be tolerated for the long-term benefit of getting these people out of positions of power in society. Any worries about mass discrimination happening are baseless. This isn't the 1940s and 1950s etc. any more. There are vastly more people that are non-racist, non-bigots now than in the Jim Crow days. Plus (and this is the important part) without government-sanctioned discrimination (Jim Crow was, above all, a set of LAWS) there would have been much less discrimination in the 40s and 50s and early 60s than there actually was. Even more so today, there are vastly more non-bigots around than before, so any fears of massive uptick in discrimination is just a steaming pile of BS.
You want bigotry and discrimination to stop? Shine a light on it. Expose it for the hate that it is and the good people will respond appropriately. Hide it, cover it up, and silence it, and it will just fester and never go away.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
More L/libertaran thoughts....
If taxation is theft, why is it wrong for the government to steal my money, but it's OK for the government to enshrine into law the ability for others to steal my labor? (This question is for the Johnsonite Libertarians out there)
If slavery is defined as forced labor for another, aren't people who support forcing service providers to provide services to others slave traders? Are (insert favorite protected class) rights so important and imperative that slavery is once again being allowed?
Yes, yes, yes, I know: "if you aren't willing to serve everyone that comes thru the door, then just don't go into business"
Isn't that kind of the same as saying, "well, if you aren't ready and willing to go thru all the (ridiculous and unnecessary) red tape and pay all the (ridiculous and freedom restricting) fees to have a business, then you shouldn't have a business?"
I've heard it said that "no, it is NOT participating in a gay wedding to make a cake for it"....... is that really for someone other than the Christian baker and his faith to decide? Who gives you the right to declare a religious belief correct or incorrect? More importantly, what gives the state that right? If anything, the first amendment PROHIBITS the state from exactly that kind of decision.
If slavery is defined as forced labor for another, aren't people who support forcing service providers to provide services to others slave traders? Are (insert favorite protected class) rights so important and imperative that slavery is once again being allowed?
Yes, yes, yes, I know: "if you aren't willing to serve everyone that comes thru the door, then just don't go into business"
Isn't that kind of the same as saying, "well, if you aren't ready and willing to go thru all the (ridiculous and unnecessary) red tape and pay all the (ridiculous and freedom restricting) fees to have a business, then you shouldn't have a business?"
I've heard it said that "no, it is NOT participating in a gay wedding to make a cake for it"....... is that really for someone other than the Christian baker and his faith to decide? Who gives you the right to declare a religious belief correct or incorrect? More importantly, what gives the state that right? If anything, the first amendment PROHIBITS the state from exactly that kind of decision.
Friday, March 25, 2016
Prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination, part 1: Free Speech.
For all the talk from the left side of the socio-political spectrum nowadays about discrimination, human rights, freedom of speech, etc. they're pretty intolerant of people that don't agree with them. Now, that, in and of itself, isn't a problem. It only becomes a problem when they try to enshrine their intolerance into law.
"WAIT!!!!" I can hear you shout now, "That's the right wing, not us!!" Well, it's both actually, but at least the right wing is somewhat honest about their intolerance.
Let's get some definitions down before we go any further.
Prejudice: a preconceived notion about something or someone, not based on reason or actual experience.
Bigotry: an habitual state of mind including an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from one's own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.
Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction for or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs or is perceived to belong, rather than individual merit. It is based primarily in prejudice and bigotry, though, technically, not always. (E.g. discriminating against mass murderers or cobras is not based in prejudice or bigotry)
hate speech: speech that expresses hatred, offense, or insult to groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
"fightin' words" face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that they are likely to start an immediate fight.
----------
On bigotry and prejudice:
One big difference between prejudice and bigotry is the aspect of choice. Most, if not all, of us with prejudices (and, please don't say you have none. We ALL have prejudices against SOMEthing) don't choose to have these preconceived notions. We do choose, however, to continue having them if we purposely do not educate ourselves about what we're prejudiced against, but, again, the prejudice itself is not a choice.
Bigotry, on the other hand, is always a choice. You choose to intolerant of a differing opinion. If you are unfairly intolerant to it (remember, "unfair" is part of the definition), you are a bigot. That being said, there is no such thing as "bigotry" against the KKK. I dare say, according to most of us, intolerance toward the KKK is not "unfair"; they are people who espouse evil ideas. There IS such a thing as bigotry (and remember here, the intolerance must be UNFAIR, i.e. not grounded in fact) against anyone whose names starts with "J" just because everyone you ever met (which is NOT the same as "everyone") whose names started with "J" was a jerk to you for some reason.
Please note, you can be a bigot without being prejudiced. I don't like heavy metal music. But, because of what "prejudice" means, that does NOT mean I'm prejudiced against it: I have experienced it, I've even studied its musicality. I still don't like it.
On the other hand, I don't tolerate it in my hearing. If you ride with me in my car, or are in my home, I will not allow you to play heavy metal music. That is unfair. I freely admit, I am a bigot against heavy metal music.
-------------
On free speech
Freedom of speech. It's right there in the 1st amendment to the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law........abridging the freedom of speech..........". but what exactly does "freedom of speech" entail?
I'm sure we can all agree that the 1st amendment does NOT protect slandering another person. We can also agree that it doesn't protect overt threats to another's life, safety, or property. now, by "overt" I mean saying it flat out: "I'm going to assassinate the King" that is an overt threat against another person's life. "The king really deserves to die" is not a threat, overt or otherwise. A little more into "grey" territory are things like yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, or bomb threats (especially when there is no bomb). Most people (maybe even all people) would say that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect this kind of speech either, mainly because the effect of this speech is the extreme likelihood that its utterance will result in a panic-driven stampede (for which there is no justification) for the doors which will most probably injure (or even kill) others.
Now, we move onto speech over which there is more controversy. Let's start with "fightin' words". I believe this type of speech should be considered protected speech under the 1st amendment. Why? Well, if somebody comes up to me and calls me a "flappy-wristed, nelly faggot" (considered to be "fightin' words" by the law) and a fight ensues, who is really the one responsible for the fight? The name-caller? Or is it me, the guy who threw the first punch? If I were to just walk away and he doesn't pursue, that's the end of it----now, if he does pursue and continues saying these words, I may become afraid for my well-being. At that point, the 1st amendment protection vanishes. Of course, the difficulty here is determining if there was indeed a threat to my well-being. My mere saying so should not be grounds for denying someone his freedom, because let's face it, if the speaker is someone I hate, here's a perfect opportunity to get him in trouble!
No, there has to be some outward sign that I do indeed fear for my well-being. I may start trembling, or go into a panic, or worse, actually pee my pants out of fear. Any one of those things together with my saying "I feared for my well being" would be enough to justify depriving my opponent his freedom of speech. But his merely saying "You're a flappy-wristed faggot" does not, morally, justify my punching him in the face, (regardless of how much I want to do it) but that's exactly what the "fightin' words" doctrine says: I have the right to punch him in the face because of the words that he said to me. Really? Are we that emotionally immature that we need the force of the law to keep us from being insulted? Are we so weak-willed that merely hearing an insult against us gives us NO choice but to lash out with violence? I'm sorry, but I call "bullshit." Those are the actions of children.
This brings us to the broader concept of hate speech. Hate speech, in and of itself, is not in the same category as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. There is no probability, great or otherwise, that anyone is going to be maimed or killed by hateful words. Just because some rube calls me a faggot (which in today's political correctness dominated arena is considered "hate speech") that means nothing more than the fact that he hates be because I'm a gay man. There is little (if any) substantial difference between "You faggot!" and "I hate you because you're gay, and gay people sicken me." So why is the first considered "hate speech" worthy of prosecution but the second one is not (so far, any way)? Please don't start harping on the words used. They're just WORDS. They are not harmful in the same way a rock up side of the head is harmful. Sure, they're offensive, and they hurt my feelings, but as the saying goes, "There is no freedom from offense" (and the good ol' "Sticks and stones........") and it's a very good thing there isn't any such "freedom from offense" because if there were, we'd ALL be in jail because EVERYONE has at one time or another offended SOMEBODY over SOMETHING. If you want to be completely free from offense at all times, I suggest you go find yourself a cave or deserted island and move there, cuz that's the only way you're gonna get what you want.
Now, I can imagine that some of you are saying, "Well, OK, but that only applies to the government, so if your boss fires you because you call him a nincompoop on your facebook page, you can't do anything about it." As things stand now, that's true, but people should not be liable to punishment for exercising their rights, either by the government or by private entities. So, if Francis can be fired for expressing himself because "it wasn't the government" then by that logic, his boss should also be able to fire Frencis for being a Catholic. After all, it wasn't the government! Oh, Francis has freedom of religion, you say? Well, guess what? The same constitution that says he has freedom of religion says he also has freedom of speech! You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the boss can't fire Francis on the basis of his religion, regardless of how offensive the boss may find Catholicism, then he can't fire Francis on the basis of his speech, either. They are both freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. If you honor one, you must honor the other; if you reject one, you must reject the other also. To say otherwise is to be a hypocrite. The law should give absolutely no consideration to emotions, only physical harm and forced violation of rights. If you believe otherwise, you are no more than a slave and your being an adult is only a matter of chronological timespan, and not maturity. In other words, strap on a pair and deal with it. The first amendment was not written to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech.
"WAIT!!!!" I can hear you shout now, "That's the right wing, not us!!" Well, it's both actually, but at least the right wing is somewhat honest about their intolerance.
Let's get some definitions down before we go any further.
Prejudice: a preconceived notion about something or someone, not based on reason or actual experience.
Bigotry: an habitual state of mind including an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from one's own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.
Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction for or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs or is perceived to belong, rather than individual merit. It is based primarily in prejudice and bigotry, though, technically, not always. (E.g. discriminating against mass murderers or cobras is not based in prejudice or bigotry)
hate speech: speech that expresses hatred, offense, or insult to groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
"fightin' words" face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that they are likely to start an immediate fight.
----------
On bigotry and prejudice:
One big difference between prejudice and bigotry is the aspect of choice. Most, if not all, of us with prejudices (and, please don't say you have none. We ALL have prejudices against SOMEthing) don't choose to have these preconceived notions. We do choose, however, to continue having them if we purposely do not educate ourselves about what we're prejudiced against, but, again, the prejudice itself is not a choice.
Bigotry, on the other hand, is always a choice. You choose to intolerant of a differing opinion. If you are unfairly intolerant to it (remember, "unfair" is part of the definition), you are a bigot. That being said, there is no such thing as "bigotry" against the KKK. I dare say, according to most of us, intolerance toward the KKK is not "unfair"; they are people who espouse evil ideas. There IS such a thing as bigotry (and remember here, the intolerance must be UNFAIR, i.e. not grounded in fact) against anyone whose names starts with "J" just because everyone you ever met (which is NOT the same as "everyone") whose names started with "J" was a jerk to you for some reason.
Please note, you can be a bigot without being prejudiced. I don't like heavy metal music. But, because of what "prejudice" means, that does NOT mean I'm prejudiced against it: I have experienced it, I've even studied its musicality. I still don't like it.
On the other hand, I don't tolerate it in my hearing. If you ride with me in my car, or are in my home, I will not allow you to play heavy metal music. That is unfair. I freely admit, I am a bigot against heavy metal music.
-------------
On free speech
Freedom of speech. It's right there in the 1st amendment to the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law........abridging the freedom of speech..........". but what exactly does "freedom of speech" entail?
I'm sure we can all agree that the 1st amendment does NOT protect slandering another person. We can also agree that it doesn't protect overt threats to another's life, safety, or property. now, by "overt" I mean saying it flat out: "I'm going to assassinate the King" that is an overt threat against another person's life. "The king really deserves to die" is not a threat, overt or otherwise. A little more into "grey" territory are things like yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, or bomb threats (especially when there is no bomb). Most people (maybe even all people) would say that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect this kind of speech either, mainly because the effect of this speech is the extreme likelihood that its utterance will result in a panic-driven stampede (for which there is no justification) for the doors which will most probably injure (or even kill) others.
Now, we move onto speech over which there is more controversy. Let's start with "fightin' words". I believe this type of speech should be considered protected speech under the 1st amendment. Why? Well, if somebody comes up to me and calls me a "flappy-wristed, nelly faggot" (considered to be "fightin' words" by the law) and a fight ensues, who is really the one responsible for the fight? The name-caller? Or is it me, the guy who threw the first punch? If I were to just walk away and he doesn't pursue, that's the end of it----now, if he does pursue and continues saying these words, I may become afraid for my well-being. At that point, the 1st amendment protection vanishes. Of course, the difficulty here is determining if there was indeed a threat to my well-being. My mere saying so should not be grounds for denying someone his freedom, because let's face it, if the speaker is someone I hate, here's a perfect opportunity to get him in trouble!
No, there has to be some outward sign that I do indeed fear for my well-being. I may start trembling, or go into a panic, or worse, actually pee my pants out of fear. Any one of those things together with my saying "I feared for my well being" would be enough to justify depriving my opponent his freedom of speech. But his merely saying "You're a flappy-wristed faggot" does not, morally, justify my punching him in the face, (regardless of how much I want to do it) but that's exactly what the "fightin' words" doctrine says: I have the right to punch him in the face because of the words that he said to me. Really? Are we that emotionally immature that we need the force of the law to keep us from being insulted? Are we so weak-willed that merely hearing an insult against us gives us NO choice but to lash out with violence? I'm sorry, but I call "bullshit." Those are the actions of children.
This brings us to the broader concept of hate speech. Hate speech, in and of itself, is not in the same category as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. There is no probability, great or otherwise, that anyone is going to be maimed or killed by hateful words. Just because some rube calls me a faggot (which in today's political correctness dominated arena is considered "hate speech") that means nothing more than the fact that he hates be because I'm a gay man. There is little (if any) substantial difference between "You faggot!" and "I hate you because you're gay, and gay people sicken me." So why is the first considered "hate speech" worthy of prosecution but the second one is not (so far, any way)? Please don't start harping on the words used. They're just WORDS. They are not harmful in the same way a rock up side of the head is harmful. Sure, they're offensive, and they hurt my feelings, but as the saying goes, "There is no freedom from offense" (and the good ol' "Sticks and stones........") and it's a very good thing there isn't any such "freedom from offense" because if there were, we'd ALL be in jail because EVERYONE has at one time or another offended SOMEBODY over SOMETHING. If you want to be completely free from offense at all times, I suggest you go find yourself a cave or deserted island and move there, cuz that's the only way you're gonna get what you want.
Now, I can imagine that some of you are saying, "Well, OK, but that only applies to the government, so if your boss fires you because you call him a nincompoop on your facebook page, you can't do anything about it." As things stand now, that's true, but people should not be liable to punishment for exercising their rights, either by the government or by private entities. So, if Francis can be fired for expressing himself because "it wasn't the government" then by that logic, his boss should also be able to fire Frencis for being a Catholic. After all, it wasn't the government! Oh, Francis has freedom of religion, you say? Well, guess what? The same constitution that says he has freedom of religion says he also has freedom of speech! You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the boss can't fire Francis on the basis of his religion, regardless of how offensive the boss may find Catholicism, then he can't fire Francis on the basis of his speech, either. They are both freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. If you honor one, you must honor the other; if you reject one, you must reject the other also. To say otherwise is to be a hypocrite. The law should give absolutely no consideration to emotions, only physical harm and forced violation of rights. If you believe otherwise, you are no more than a slave and your being an adult is only a matter of chronological timespan, and not maturity. In other words, strap on a pair and deal with it. The first amendment was not written to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
One of those "other topics as life happens" posts
If you don't live it, don't proclaim it!
I'm talking about the claim to value (so-called) "diversity."
There's a phenomenon in psychology called "cognitive dissonance" which means, among other things, performing an action that is contradictory to one's beliefs or values. If cognitive dissonance becomes a habit or lifestyle, then it becomes what some people call "hypocrisy." There. I said it.
If you claim to value diversity and then go and threaten associates with no longer associating with them (or some other childish reaction, such as calling them stupid or self-delusional, or actually defriending them on social media) whenever they express an opinion you don't agree with, and you make a habit of this? That means you are a hypocrite.
There are only two ways to NOT be a hypocrite here: 1. Stop claiming to value diversity (because your actions show otherwise), or else 2. Stop acting like a spoiled toddler who doesn't get his way when you're confronted with an opinion you don't like.
If you truly value diversity like you claim to, then grow a thicker skin and either let it go, or discuss why you think they're wrong in a calm, logical manner. Be an adult and refrain from false accusations or threatening bad fall out unless they keep their opinion to themselves.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Blog reboot, St. Patrick's day, 2016
Since my (mostly self-imposed) exile from the Esperanto Community, I've been trying to figure out a theme for this blog, and I've decided that there would be 2 main threads: 1. Veg*n (see note below) and cheap eating, and 2. A healthy dose of Christian Orthodoxy (note, that's "big O" Orthodox (as in the Greek or Russian Orthodox churches) not "small o" which many non-Orthodox just take to mean "believing exactly the way I do") with a sprinkling of other topics as life happens (these will mostly be about liberty and/or L/libertarian ideals and my involvement with the Libertarian party).
Since today is St. Patrick's day, I'm going to rant a little.
I don't like what has happened to the ancient and venerable feastday of St. Patrick. It has turned into a debauchery of drunkenness and a tip of the hat to all things Irish. Not that honoring our Irish heritage is a bad thing, but we must remember, before and above anything else, His Grace was a bishop of the Church not very long after Gaelic Ireland (as a sociopolitical entity, not, of course, the island) came to historic knowledge. And by "the Church" (since we ARE talking about the 400's AD here), I mean the Church now known as the Orthodox church. The distinctive doctrines that make the Roman Catholic Church what it is today were not believed by anyone in the 5th century and wouldn't even be made mandatory or professed liturgically till 1014 AD, a mere 40 years before the Great Schism.
The other big surprise for many, will be that he wasn't actually Irish! He was born in Roman Britain of Brythonic heritage (Brythonic is Welsh, Cornish, or "P-Celtic" as opposed to Irish and Scottish "Q-Celtic). Here's an icon and his story:
(Of note, I should explain that "veg*n" is a relatively new internet term (as far as I know) that encompasses everything from strict vegan to lacto-ovo vegetarian (which is just vegan with the addition of eggs and dairy products))
Since today is St. Patrick's day, I'm going to rant a little.
I don't like what has happened to the ancient and venerable feastday of St. Patrick. It has turned into a debauchery of drunkenness and a tip of the hat to all things Irish. Not that honoring our Irish heritage is a bad thing, but we must remember, before and above anything else, His Grace was a bishop of the Church not very long after Gaelic Ireland (as a sociopolitical entity, not, of course, the island) came to historic knowledge. And by "the Church" (since we ARE talking about the 400's AD here), I mean the Church now known as the Orthodox church. The distinctive doctrines that make the Roman Catholic Church what it is today were not believed by anyone in the 5th century and wouldn't even be made mandatory or professed liturgically till 1014 AD, a mere 40 years before the Great Schism.
The other big surprise for many, will be that he wasn't actually Irish! He was born in Roman Britain of Brythonic heritage (Brythonic is Welsh, Cornish, or "P-Celtic" as opposed to Irish and Scottish "Q-Celtic). Here's an icon and his story:
Saint Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland
March 17
March 17
Saint Patrick, the Apostle of the Irish, was seized from his native Britain by Irish marauders when he was sixteen years old. Though the son of a deacon and a grandson of a priest, it was not until his captivity that he sought out the Lord with his whole heart. In his Confession, the testament he wrote towards the end of his life, he says, "After I came to Ireland - every day I had to tend sheep, and many times a day I prayed - the love of God and His fear came to me more and more, and my faith was strengthened. And my spirit was so moved that in a single day I would say as many as a hundred prayers, and almost as many at night, and this even when I was staying in the woods and on the mountain; and I would rise for prayer before daylight, through snow, through frost, through rain, and I felt no harm." After six years of slavery in Ireland, he was guided by God to make his escape, and afterwards struggled in the monastic life at Auxerre in Gaul, under the guidance of the holy Bishop Germanus. Many years later he was ordained bishop and sent to Ireland once again, about the year 432, to convert the Irish to Christ. His arduous labours bore so much fruit that within seven years, three bishops were sent from Gaul to help him shepherd his flock, "my brethren and sons whom I have baptized in the Lord - so many thousands of people," he says in his Confession. His apostolic work was not accomplished without much "weariness and painfulness," long journeys through difficult country, and many perils; he says his very life was in danger twelve times. When he came to Ireland as its enlightener, it was a pagan country; when he ended his earthly life some thirty years later, about 461, the Faith of Christ was established in every corner.
Well, that's my "healthy dose of Orthodoxy" for this episode of my blog.
(Of note, I should explain that "veg*n" is a relatively new internet term (as far as I know) that encompasses everything from strict vegan to lacto-ovo vegetarian (which is just vegan with the addition of eggs and dairy products))
Thursday, February 4, 2016
new language announcement
Hello, all! I'm back.
Or as we say in Govro, Kajxo a xutis! Mi renaidekar! (pronounced: KYE-sho ah TOO-teese. me REH-nah-ee-deh-KAHR)
You may well be asking "What the heck is Govro?" Well it's a new language project, started by yours truly :). I've devoted a whole other blog to it: http://govroanesperantoalternatie.blogspot.com/2015/11/kajxo-tutis-kaj-bonaida-to-all-and.html in case you're interested (and if you're not, you won't hurt my feelings, lol).
Anyhoo, Not much of any import has happened since last summer. It seems that the people who run Lernu (the Esperanto learning site online) are not the tolerant liberals they profess themselves to be. Let's just say, when you have to resort to locking someone out of a forum because of their political and religious beliefs, you are not the lover of tolerance you tout yourself as being, and leave it at that.
I am again living alone; roommate finally took the hint and moved out. I don't think he was too dumb to realize what was going on; he just didn't have anywhere else to go (he finally did find another person to dupe). So, I'm back to my severe budget crunch, which includes eating as cheaply as possible, which usually translates as no meat.
Of course, here in Iowa, where pork subsidies are a way of life, it's not too hard to buy pork. A pound of ground pork (not sausage) is usually a third of the price of similar-fat-content ground beef, and ham is relatively cheap, so there is all that. Once in a while, like yesterday, there's a great deal at Aldi's (a no-frills grocery store): I got an 8.5 lb bone-in ham for $7.34! When all was said and done, there were fixin's for about 7 dinners and 4 or 5 lunches with tons of leftovers expected. Add all that to the deals I get at the local Amish store (e.g. a 6.8 lb bag of navy beans for just under 6 bucks, which will probably last me about 3 weeks) and living on a food stamp budget isn't as hard as the Welfare Industrial Complex would have us believe.
As most of us are well aware, the Iowa Caucuses were this past Monday. No, I didn't go. Why? Well, being a Libertarian, there was no need for me to go. My candidate gets chosen at our convention later in the spring. I guess you could say the convention IS the Libertarian caucus, but every state Libertarian Party picks their candidate at their conventions instead of a primary election, not just Iowa and New Hampshire. Frankly, I don't like the idea of the caucus, at least not for picking the candidate for president. A primary election, as done in the other 48 states, has a much better chance of getting a more representative result of the voting process. Of course when it comes to the two major parties (or The Party, if your opinion goes that way), that's probably not such a good thing. I have yet to hear any Democrat and more than a scant handful of Republican cite "what's best for the country" as the reason for the voting choice they'll be making. For Bernie supporters, I've noticed (of course this is all in my own experience) it's almost entirely "what's in it for me??" I just can't help but wonder how popular he'd be if he were NOT promising "free" college and "free" medical care and "free" this and "free" that. I honestly don't know if the John Doe American Voter is greedy and selfish or just plain stupid. Where do they think all the money for this "free" stuff is going to come from? Oh, sure, Bernie SAYS "start making the super rich pay their fair share" (they already do and then some), or "end corporate welfare" (I agree with him in this regard), but in reality it's going to end up coming out of every taxpayers pocket, eventually.
Or as we say in Govro, Kajxo a xutis! Mi renaidekar! (pronounced: KYE-sho ah TOO-teese. me REH-nah-ee-deh-KAHR)
You may well be asking "What the heck is Govro?" Well it's a new language project, started by yours truly :). I've devoted a whole other blog to it: http://govroanesperantoalternatie.blogspot.com/2015/11/kajxo-tutis-kaj-bonaida-to-all-and.html in case you're interested (and if you're not, you won't hurt my feelings, lol).
Anyhoo, Not much of any import has happened since last summer. It seems that the people who run Lernu (the Esperanto learning site online) are not the tolerant liberals they profess themselves to be. Let's just say, when you have to resort to locking someone out of a forum because of their political and religious beliefs, you are not the lover of tolerance you tout yourself as being, and leave it at that.
I am again living alone; roommate finally took the hint and moved out. I don't think he was too dumb to realize what was going on; he just didn't have anywhere else to go (he finally did find another person to dupe). So, I'm back to my severe budget crunch, which includes eating as cheaply as possible, which usually translates as no meat.
Of course, here in Iowa, where pork subsidies are a way of life, it's not too hard to buy pork. A pound of ground pork (not sausage) is usually a third of the price of similar-fat-content ground beef, and ham is relatively cheap, so there is all that. Once in a while, like yesterday, there's a great deal at Aldi's (a no-frills grocery store): I got an 8.5 lb bone-in ham for $7.34! When all was said and done, there were fixin's for about 7 dinners and 4 or 5 lunches with tons of leftovers expected. Add all that to the deals I get at the local Amish store (e.g. a 6.8 lb bag of navy beans for just under 6 bucks, which will probably last me about 3 weeks) and living on a food stamp budget isn't as hard as the Welfare Industrial Complex would have us believe.
As most of us are well aware, the Iowa Caucuses were this past Monday. No, I didn't go. Why? Well, being a Libertarian, there was no need for me to go. My candidate gets chosen at our convention later in the spring. I guess you could say the convention IS the Libertarian caucus, but every state Libertarian Party picks their candidate at their conventions instead of a primary election, not just Iowa and New Hampshire. Frankly, I don't like the idea of the caucus, at least not for picking the candidate for president. A primary election, as done in the other 48 states, has a much better chance of getting a more representative result of the voting process. Of course when it comes to the two major parties (or The Party, if your opinion goes that way), that's probably not such a good thing. I have yet to hear any Democrat and more than a scant handful of Republican cite "what's best for the country" as the reason for the voting choice they'll be making. For Bernie supporters, I've noticed (of course this is all in my own experience) it's almost entirely "what's in it for me??" I just can't help but wonder how popular he'd be if he were NOT promising "free" college and "free" medical care and "free" this and "free" that. I honestly don't know if the John Doe American Voter is greedy and selfish or just plain stupid. Where do they think all the money for this "free" stuff is going to come from? Oh, sure, Bernie SAYS "start making the super rich pay their fair share" (they already do and then some), or "end corporate welfare" (I agree with him in this regard), but in reality it's going to end up coming out of every taxpayers pocket, eventually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
