Kitchen advice
|
Posted:Nov 11, 2006 8:16 am
Last Updated:Nov 12, 2006 1:50 pm
1215 Views
|
For all those who dislike cooking... get good knives.
Pros:
- they stay sharp longer
- makes cutting safer since sharper knives require less force to cut.
- less force = less tiring
- quicker to finish cutting
Cons:
- a little more expensive
- have to be more careful around the knife since it is going to stay sharp longer
And you don't need to get the whole set. I only have 3: small paring knife, 6" chef's and 9" chef's. And a sharpening steel. Just run the knife against the steel twice every other time you take the knife out of the drawer to use, and it'll stay razor sharp. You don't need to get the "name brands". They may still sell the carbon-steel Chicago Cutlery at walmart.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Lindsay Lohan on the Tonight Show
|
Posted:Nov 11, 2006 7:56 am
Last Updated:May 26, 2024 12:19 pm
1042 Views
|
I ended up staying up later than expected so I caught part of the Tonight Show. I don't know what's going through this girls mind, but Lohan is becoming quite the skank. Bad makeup, flat "greasy looking" hair, and the voice of a 70 year old 2 pack a day smoker. And they showed a movie clip, and her appearance was somewhat better, but the voice was still bad. Is she using Courtney Love as her role model?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
deleted
|
Posted:Nov 10, 2006 6:22 pm
Last Updated:Jan 6, 2008 1:56 pm
947 Views
|
del
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
deleted
|
Posted:Nov 10, 2006 6:01 pm
Last Updated:Jan 6, 2008 1:57 pm
937 Views
|
del
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
daily reading
|
Posted:Nov 10, 2006 5:35 pm
Last Updated:May 26, 2024 12:19 pm
987 Views
|
I ran into a really long blog off site. Pro linux, some MS bashing, and made some very good points. If anyone is interested, it is the 10-27 entry on the "Blog of Helios". Just google it. Warning, it's long and has some tech talk, but you might learn something. I would have to say that the writer and I share the same viewpoint on the linux vs. MS debate, except he writes much better, and has been more active in the linux community.
A blog I follow almost daily is groklaw. It may be boring to some, ok most of you, but it is very well written and very educational. You may learn what the acronym IANAL means. 
So now you know what kind of boring reading I enjoy. And just to prove it, here are some other periodicals I like to read:
The Wall Street Journal
Business Week
US News & World Report
I also like to read the blogs on here, so maybe there's hope for me yet 
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Accept no Substitutes
|
Posted:Nov 10, 2006 5:05 pm
Last Updated:Nov 11, 2006 11:48 am
962 Views
|
I've been informed my profile pics are making the rounds on other people's profiles. So now I need new pics. Any suggestions? And I'm not going to consider anything that contain "in your ass" 
This time I have to remember to overlay my "handle" on the pics.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Political "morals"
|
Posted:Nov 7, 2006 10:23 am
Last Updated:Nov 10, 2006 3:57 pm
1106 Views
|
I went to go vote this morning. Before doing so, during breakfast, I figured out why religion in politics bothers me. I am against religion in politics, believing that the founding fathers had it right, separation of church and state is essential. The US and state governments are in place to protect and serve the needs of the people. Religion is a second citizenship to another "nation". An easy example is Catholics. They have dual citizenship, one to the US and another to Rome. Those who have a second citizenship to Mecca or Jerusalem may not want Rome's influence in US government. I definitely do not.
The Amish seem to understand this. They decide to live their life as they choose, but do not impose their belief system on the county, state, or national level. They have freedom to practice their religion as they wish and seem to leave the rest of us to do the same.
The religious candidates like to swing their "holier than thou" morality bat to beat their "wicked" opponent in the eyes of the public. But the issues they raise have no black & white answers. There are some "absolute" rights, like the rights of women to vote, and the whole civil rights movement. But pro-life or pro-choice is a personal, not government choice. Same with gay marriage (civil unions). Just because the state may accept civil unions does not mean the "church government" is required to do the same. "Civil Rights" are the ones in the Constitution, not the Bible, Koran, or Torah. Are people getting these things confused? Or did I go off the liberal deep end?
They need to start arguing about something more relevent to government. Like how to handle the impending Medicare problem, how to implement and pay for the 911 commission recommendations, a good plan to secure and leave Iraq, clean energy, etc. All this "morals" stuff is just crap. Morals are taught at home, not by the government.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
More politics.
|
Posted:Nov 6, 2006 8:58 pm
Last Updated:May 26, 2024 12:19 pm
897 Views
|
Sorry about all the political crap here, but the election is coming up and I've been trying to do my civic duty and prepare to vote... so it's been on my mind.
Anyway, I was trying to figure out why it bugs me when Bush says "War is hard. ... It's hard work.". Then it dawned on me. As a team leader, you don't say that your job is "hard". It sets up the mentality to expect failure. Your team already knows it is going to be hard. What they need is the leader to show confidence in his plan to lead them to success. He can say it will be "difficult" and to "expect challenges", but don't give them the impression that the problem is too "hard" for you to handle.
And he follows it up with "It's hard work". This basically tells me that he doesn't like "hard work". Not that he should enjoy war, but most people who complain about "hard work" generally don't do a good job. There are physically and mentally challenging jobs which people do well. So call it challenging, not hard. At least leave me the impression that you are motivated to do a good job.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
|
Posted:Nov 6, 2006 8:33 pm
Last Updated:May 26, 2024 12:19 pm
898 Views
|
I caught "Meet the Press" on Sunday. One comment made by the Rep. Senator was that the Dem. party was on the wrong side of the abortion issue. This kinda ticked me off. Why is this even an issue? If your religion says not to do it, then YOU don't do it. It doesn't mean that I need to follow your religious edicts. And the Rep party still does not account for the embryos destroyed in fertilization clinics. For all we know, the number of embryos destroyed in the fert. clinics is much higher than the abortion clinics.
The other issue is the gay marriage ban. Personally, I'm a little divided on this one. I think that if two people want to be in a committed relationship, then they should have the same property rights as a hetero couple. But, I am currently against them creating , either through surrogacy or insemination. Biologically they can't have , so why allow it artificially? And what about the growing up and having to deal with gay parents in school? I could probably allow adoption, since it is better to have (hopefully good) parents than not.
In either case, both the abortion and gay marriage ban is of much lower importance than running the government and providing security and services to the citizens. They've wasted too much time and money on "morality" and are failing to govern effectively.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Tomorrow is election day.
|
Posted:Nov 6, 2006 8:07 pm
Last Updated:Nov 10, 2006 3:57 pm
985 Views
|
Which party is going to win the House or Senate? I have no idea. For the last election, I think overall people were pretty unhappy with the available choices. Since we were "at war", most folks decided to keep the current leadership. After the election, the Rep. party heads were all over the news circuit calling it a national approval for the Rep. platform. Personally, I think they used the terrorism issue to scare the public to their advantage. However they won, they maintained power, and continued down their path, full of victory. And on the way, they lost touch with the real issues affecting the public.
I think there will be people voting to change the balance of power, since being one-sided seems to be ineffective. Some good people may be voted out of office just for being a Republican. The two party system is not as "representative" of the public as it should be. Those in office need to support the party line to get funded by their national committees. And having one party control the White House and both houses of Congress, seems to have made things more divisive, contrary to the "uniter, not divider" promise.
Is there such a thing as an altruistic politician?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Why?
|
Posted:Nov 4, 2006 8:13 pm
Last Updated:Nov 5, 2006 10:06 am
1376 Views
|
Why is Rumsfield still there? He's offered his resignation twice, military leaders have lost confidence in his capabilities, and now the military press is writing for his removal. The only one keeping him there is Bush. Is he to be the official scapegoat?
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
I pay too much in taxes.
|
Posted:Nov 4, 2006 7:54 pm
Last Updated:Nov 6, 2006 7:26 pm
883 Views
|
I was going over an investment newsletter, the one that comes in the quarterly statement, and reading about the tax consequences for this year. They mentioned the 15% tax for long term holdings, which used to be much higher. I have to admit, I prefer the 15% over what I used to pay.
But, then I recalled an article I read earlier. About 50% of the households own stock. This included any stock in 401K's or IRA's. So only half of the households get any benefit from the reduced 15% tax. Is this fair? On the one hand, I paid tax on my salary, which I then invested. Should I be taxed again? Or should I have spent most of it on luxury goods, and pay sales tax there? I guess either investing it or spending it, my earnings will get taxed again.
It's disgusting how much tax money is wasted in government, on pork projects. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a section on the tax forms where we could select how a portion of our tax is to be spent? And I don't mean the additional 2 or 3 bucks for the presidential re-election check box.
Here's a thought.... if I pay so much in taxes, why am I too cheap to pay the 10 to 15 bucks per month for this site? Well, I did for a while. But there were too many game players and fakes locally that I pretty much gave up. Now I just read the blogs. The good thing about these blogs is that they can't be censored for "adult" content
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Getting calls from the RNC
|
Posted:Nov 4, 2006 7:04 pm
Last Updated:Nov 6, 2006 7:27 pm
911 Views
|
I've been getting calls from the RNC. More like attack ads. I thought I was on a "do not call list". So far, they have all been about bad things about the other person, not about good things about their candidate. And it's not even from the candidate's camp, but from a "third" party. Makes it feel like gossip... bad gossip. I don't have , but I don't think I would want them to hear any of these messages being left on my answering machine. What happened to the party of "morals"? It's more like fear mongering and half-truths. What happened to "vote for me because I'm good". Now it's "don't vote for him because he's bad". With everyone mudslinging, I guess we're supposed to vote for the one who is the least dirty.
It seems to be the RNC throwing the most dirt. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it since 1) they're calling me at home (automated messages, not even a real person), and 2) being the "moral" party, they are acting pretty immoral. Or maybe being the party in power, and have the most money, can affort to pay for more airtime.
I caught the CBS evening news the other night. The "free speach" segment had 2 speakers, one from each of the major parties. The Dem. was speaking about a "new plan" and positive things about the Dem party. Nothing explicitly negative. The Rep. was nearly entirely negative on the Dems. Here was a chance to have a positive message on your own party, but the Reps stayed on message and went with a negative attack. I was pretty disappointed.
Is there a "positive" message out there somewhere? Why can't I decide which I think is the better candidate, and not pick the lesser of two evils?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
To link to this blog (str8h) use [blog str8h] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
31
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
