Yeah, Right

Easily my favorite picture of Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards - passing through US Customs circa 1972.

Happy Memorial Day

CWCID: Tigerhawk.

I Didn't Know Wagner Wrote That

I watched this for the second time this morning with the young squire and I can not get it out of my head.



CWCID: American Digest

Write-In Candidate

In The Footsteps Of John Kennedy

From The Belmont Club:

"Those who have grown up believing that John Kennedy's finest moment was the Cuban Missile crisis will be disappointed to learn that he may have contributed to the face off: widely considered the moment the world came closest to Central Nuclear War, by telegraphing weakness by his eagerness to "talk" to his adversaries. A NYT op-ed co-authored by Nathan Thrall and James Wilkins recounts:

Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

The meeting was a disaster. Kennedy was prepared to be conciliatory. Khruschev was prepared to take the ball Kennedy wanted to hand him and run with it to the goal line.

Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.”

If that were all, Kennedy could have chalked it up to experience. But JFK had repeated Chamberlain's key mistake at Munich. He sent a signal of abject weakness to an aggressor held back only by fear. He walked into shark-infested water bleeding and ringing the dinner bell. And although the US was overwhelmingly stronger than Khruschev's Soviet Union, the wily old Bolshevik judged it safe to hustle the "very inexperienced, even immature" Leader of the Free World. The Soviet strongman struck while the going seemed good.

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

Yet the John Kennedy who faced off against Nikita Khruschev was a combat veteran of the Second World War, and presumably tougher than the veteran of combats with the Rev Jeremiah Wright. But why is it so important for the American President to have manifest the qualities of coolness, discipline and steadfastness? Why can't America simply elect a man who will greet every foreign dictator he meets with a pre-emptive apology at the door?

Because the US President is, as Winston Churchill once described Grand Fleet Commander Admiral John Jellicoe, 'the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon'. He is the one person who can manufacture a world crisis by manner alone. The question is what impression The People We've Been Waiting For will convey to America's enemies may be put to a test. And this time we may not be as lucky as Kennedy was during the Days of October."

This Just Says It All

America's "Problems" Are Just Gripes

I lifted this post in its entirety from Maggie's Farm (emphasis added):

"It's an election year - the time when politicians and their fellow job-seekers work their butts off trying to convince you that you have big problems and that your life is difficult - and that only they can fix that.

They want to be important and powerful.

Truth is, America has essentially no serious problems. It's quite remarkable, really.

We are the most prosperous nation in the world. We are the most powerful nation in the world. We are materially the best-off people in the world. We have more freedoms than anyone else in the world. We have more opportunity for everyone than anywhere else in the world. We reward effort more than anywhere else in the world. "Tolerance"? We tolerate things and people that few in the world would tolerate. We speak our mind freely, and dispute fervently. We have the lowest unemployment rates in the world, and our work ethic is the envy of every nation (except France, where they do not seem to like to work). Our blue-collar workers have two houses, $100,000 boats, and send their kids to college. Our most unfortunate have hot water, TVs, DVD players, and obesity problems. Our wealthiest are the most generous in the world. Our middle class is the salt of the earth. We are the most charitable nation on earth. We are the most conservation-minded nation in the world (or maybe on a par with England). Our educational systems educate kids who are ambitious about learning as well or better than any other nation. We go to church, and we value things greater than our our comfort and pleasure - but we rightly love the latter. We read books, news and the internets to our heart's content. We believe that every honest citizen deserves respectful behavior, and we do our damndest to provide justice for all. Our medical care is the most advanced in the world, and it takes very little effort for the most unfortunate among us to access it (via Medicaid, Medicare, and simple charity). Our only external enemies are ignorant loonies who hate almost everybody - but if they get the bomb, that would be a real problem - but one we could solve in 15 minutes if we decided to.

What a great country we are blessed with.

We are at the point at which our "problems" are gripes and bitches and minor details (see my recent post on Spencer's law) rather than major structural or institutional problems. Yes, we have an illegal immigration issue - but it's because most of the world wants to come here for freedom and opportunity. So enforce the laws. Gas prices? Gimme a break. A global market issue that pols can do little about. Energy prices? Readily solved by nuke plants. The housing market? Just a healthy bust of a bubble that dinged some reckless risk-takers but which provides cheaper homes for buyers. Iraq? If we can help those folks out, it will be to our credit, and we have fine guys and gals willing to fight and die for the cause. The economy? This normal rhythmic slowdown (not even a true recession except for Wall St. banks) will sort itself out in due time.

The working poor? Everyone who works should earn a living wage, I believe, but nowadays married immigrants will send one to work at WalMart, and one to do landscaping - and they end up with a middle class income of around $35,000 - not poor, and with excellent job benefits. Racism? We have a black guy who could be our next President. Global warming? Gimme another break. Some warming would be good for everybody. Just ask a Minnesotan.

So what change do people want?

Don't have as much money as you want? Who does? Envy the rich folks you read about? Go work for them or sell them something, and benefit from their wealth (and in the meantime, work on your envy problems). Want life to be easeful and totally secure? Get a government job or move to France (but don't decide to try to start a business there: it's almost impossible). Freedom, like religion, is not meant to be easy and stress-free - such things are far too valuable to be easy. Freedom is messy, and freedom requires that people be grown-ups and take responsibility for their lives.

In America in 2008, the only serious problem we face is the problem which our Founders intentionally handed us, the eternal problem which is our proud inheritance: maintaining freedom from the powers of our own government, and freedom from external forces which threaten our personal freedom.

But how do you run a national campaign on that? (Unless you are Ronnie Reagan.)"

Republican Doesn't Necessarily Mean Conservative

I suppose it's never too late to try and re-brand the Republican Party....

....but Fred Thompson isn't in the race anymore.

They had their chance.

He Said What?

I have not been able to find this on Obama's website or on YouTube to confirm the the statement below. According to an article by AFP:

"Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added."

Why should we care what other countries think about what we drive, how much we eat and how warm we keep our homes? When did that become the acid test?

I have encountered this sentiment from liberals before. "We have lost our standing in the world because of George Bush". "No one likes Americans anymore". What self-deluding nonsense. The Europeans didn't care that much for us before Bush became president and just forget about the Russians and the Chinese. It all comes down to envy cloaked in politics.

I have never given one second of consideration to what the rest of the world thinks about my vehicles, my dinner, my home or my politics and I am not about to start now. And the fact that a Democrat presidential candidate does should be a cause of great concern to us all.

McCain's Advice To The Democrats

It's A Jeep Thing

If you have to ask you wouldn't understand.

After nearly a year M'Lady and I are still exceptional happy Jeep owners. One of the many benefits of Jeep ownership is that we are now members of Jeep Nation and as such are able to participate in "The Jeep Wave".

It is not uncommon for us to receive and return waves from six or eight other Jeeps while out and about just running errands. The best wave of all had to be when we came to a four way stop near the house one day just as another Wrangler pulled up to the intersection. The couple in the other Jeep was about half our age and their Wrangler was covered in so much mud you couldn't tell what color it was. Our Jeep was brand new and didn't have a spec of dirt on it. We all stared at each other for a few moments, grinned enthusiastically, waved, and then went on our separate ways.

For your further edification and entertainment I offer the Etiquette of the Jeep Wave:

Definition:

The Jeep Wave: An honor bestowed upon those drivers with the superior intelligence, taste, class, and discomfort tolerance to own the ultimate vehicle - the Jeep. Generally consists of vigorous side-to-side motion of one or both hands, but may be modified to suit circumstances and locally accepted etiquette.

Examples of commonly accepted modifications:

Top off: One handed wave above windshield or outside body tub
Top off during blizzard: Shiver and nod, hands may remain frozen to steering wheel
Southern/rural locations: Raise fingers from steering wheel, nod

It's not what you buy, it's what you build and what you do with it.

In keeping with this cardinal rule of Jeeping, categories have been established to account for each part of the equation. These categories are:

The Jeep Waving Hierarchy:

Based on the vehicle itself. Takes into account the nostalgia factor, the discomfort tolerance quotient, and the amount of owner dedication required to maintain the steed.
The Modifying Sub-categories: Based on what you do with your Jeep.
Equipment Adjustments: What you build.

General Rules:

1. All Jeepers are responsible for upholding the tradition of the Wave. Upon contact with a higher scoring Jeep, a Jeeper is required to initiate the Wave, and continue the Wave until:

The Wave is returned
The Wave is blatantly disregarded
The higher scoring vehicle has passed by and is out of sight

2. All Jeepers are required to return the Wave, unless the initiating vehicle is clearly has a negative (below 0) score.

3. All Jeepers are encouraged, but not required, to return the Wave to negative balance vehicles, and take any opportunity presented to guide and mentor them about their responsibilities to their Jeeps in the hopes that they can correct the error of their ways.

4. When unsure of status or wave requirements of a particular encounter or unable to completely assess the other Jeep's score quickly enough to ensure that the proper Jeep Wave Etiquette rules are followed, immediately initiate wave.

Uh Oh

Occasionally, I get the feeling M'Lady is sending post cards to PostSecret....

Bread Blogging

The recipe below is courtesy of Mark Bittman at the New York Times. I am adapting it to the Jim Lahey "bread baked in a pot" method so that it has a nice crisp crust without fussing around with water in the broiler pan. I like the idea that I can store it in the refrigerator and pull some out when I want freshly baked bread.

Recipe: Simple Crusty Bread
Adapted from “Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day,” by Jeff Hertzberg and Zoë François (Thomas Dunne Books, 2007)

Time: About 45 minutes plus about 3 hours’ resting and rising

1 1/2 tablespoons yeast
1 1/2 tablespoons kosher salt
6 1/2 cups unbleached, all-purpose flour, more for dusting dough
Cornmeal.

1. In a large bowl or plastic container, mix yeast and salt into 3 cups lukewarm water (about 100 degrees). Stir in flour, mixing until there are no dry patches. Dough will be quite loose. Cover, but not with an airtight lid. Let dough rise at room temperature 2 hours (or up to 5 hours).

2. Bake at this point or refrigerate, covered, for as long as two weeks. When ready to bake, sprinkle a little flour on dough and cut off a grapefruit-size piece with serrated knife. Turn dough in hands to lightly stretch surface, creating a rounded top and a lumpy bottom. Put dough on pizza peel sprinkled with cornmeal; let rest 40 minutes. Repeat with remaining dough or refrigerate it.

3. Place broiler pan on bottom of oven. Place baking stone on middle rack and turn oven to 450 degrees; heat stone at that temperature for 20 minutes.

4. Dust dough with flour, slash top with serrated or very sharp knife three times. Slide onto stone. Pour one cup hot water into broiler pan and shut oven quickly to trap steam. Bake until well browned, about 30 minutes. Cool completely.

Yield: 4 loaves.

Variation: If not using stone, stretch rounded dough into oval and place in a greased, nonstick loaf pan. Let rest 40 minutes if fresh, an extra hour if refrigerated. Heat oven to 450 degrees for 5 minutes. Place pan on middle rack.

Fred Returns

Fred Thompson is now writing for Townhall.com:

"Spending some time on the campaign trail has confirmed a couple of thoughts I’ve had before I entered the Republican primary race.

First, conservatism is alive and well in America; don’t let anyone tell you differently. And by conservatism, I don’t mean the warmed-over “raise your hand if you believe …” kind of conservatism we see blooming every election cycle. No, I’m speaking of the conservatism grounded in principles based upon enduring truths: an understanding of the importance of human nature in the affairs of individuals and nations. Respect for the lessons of history, the importance of faith and tradition. The understanding that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things when not subjugated by a too-powerful government. These are the principles that inspired our Founding Fathers, and resulted in a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among the branches of government and further diffused governmental power by a system of Federalism.

Second, change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance. In fact, from Burke to Buckley, there has been an acknowledgement that change in the political arena is inevitable and necessary, and we in the U.S. tend to experience it in regular, 2, 4 and 6 year intervals, so 2008 is hardly our first rodeo. The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate.

Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today … and for the next generation. Now isn’t the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law."

"The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks"

Here it is - my May installment of Liberal(s) Of The Month.

I find this fascinating. The entire Democrat Party apparatus is up in arms over President Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset because they think he took a swipe at Barack Obama and his naive "lets sit down and talk with everyone" approach to foreign policy.

According to Politico "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation" at the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary.

Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: "I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

Politico also quotes Senator Hillary Clinton as saying:

"President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.

There is a very clear difference between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy and that difference will be evident once we take back the White House."

Ah, that last sentence is really the bottom line, isn't it?

I have to hand it to the President; he certainly struck a nerve. But you have to stop and ask yourself why these women immediately assume President Bush was talking about Barack Obama? He could just as easily have been talking about Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry or even Nancy Pelosi. Though the more I think about it, their reaction should not come as much of a surprise because if you're talking appeasement, you must be talking about the Democrats. It's certainly a Cinderella moment for them - if the shoe fits, wear it.

For the record, here is what the President said:

"The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers.

In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."

And of course, Dana Perino has to break it all down for the White House press corp:

"Q There's some question about his comment here about "some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong" -- you know the passage. And he talks about the "false comfort of appeasement." This is being seen in some quarters as a slam on Senator Obama. Is this in any way directed at Senator Obama?

MS. PERINO: It is not. And I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that President Bush thinks we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you -- that is not always true and it is not true in this case.

Q But, so, not aimed at him -- do they include him?

MS. PERINO: He'll have to speak for himself as to what his policy is and you guys can know it well. This was a speech that the President gave to the Knesset. And this is not a new statement by President Bush. This is long-established United States policy, so it should come as no surprise that President Bush suggests that we should not be talking with these people.

Q This is part of the election cycle, though -- was he stepping into the political cycle?

MS. PERINO: Of course he's not -- the President is President, regardless of an election cycle. And he's going to be the President of the United States until January 20, 2009. And we are not going to change policy based on the '08 election. We're not going to stop talking about the ideals and the values of the United States because there's an '08 election. They can fight it out for themselves over there, but this is not new policy that the President announced and it should come as no surprise to anybody that the President would talk about this. He talks about it in almost every interview, and in particular when he's talking about the issues of Hamas and Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran, other state sponsors of terror. It's long-established United States policy."

QED - The defense of the United States of America and western civilization can not be entrusted to the Democrat Party.

Volcano Photo

From Reuters:
"Lightning bolts appear above and around the Chaiten volcano as seen from Chana, some 30 kms (19 miles) north of the volcano, as it began its first eruption in thousands of years, in southern Chile May 2, 2008. Cases of electrical storms breaking out directly above erupting volcanos are well documented, although scientists differ on what causes them. Picture taken May 2, 2008."

No One Can Out-Obama Obama

Victor Davis Hanson nails it with this post at NRO:

"On this great debate, I tend to agree with Mark Levin and others that conservatives should reach out with conservative principles better framed and presented, rather than change the message for the perceived advantage of the hour.

What the Republicans need is not an abandonment of conservative principles, but a smarter, more articulate defense of even more conservativism, not less.

E.g., Gas Prices? More nuclear power, hydro-, refineries, clean coal, drilling off coasts and in ANWR. And why? As a necessary bridge to next-generation cleaner and non-petroleum energy so that in the time lag, we don't empower our enemies, demand that others abroad who are less environmentally sound produce the oil we consume, and watch our hard-won way of life decline.

Taxes? Not hikes, since revenues went up, not down with past cuts, but more fiscal discipline to end the deficits. The problem was not tax-cutting, but wild-eyed spending that ran up debt and discredited tax cuts.

The border? Close it, not out nativism or racism, but out of respect for the rule of law, the tradition of national sovereignty, the need to promote integration and assimilation, the need to be more concerned with American entry-level low-paid workers, and a desire to help Mexico wean itself off remittances and make the tough-love decisions to modernize its archaic government and economy.

Judges? We need constitutionalists, because they alone follow the rules of the legislative branch and what is written in the Constitution, do not turn rarified, laboratory theory into the law that millions must suffer under, and bring respect to the judiciary sorely damaged by aristocratic elitists on the bench.

National Security? Not more U.N.ism, but careful explanations that both Iraq and Afghanistan have hurt jihadism, taken out odious regimes, and with patience will make the region safer.We need more reasoned and inspired explanation of just how the U.S. military allows the present globalized system of commerce and communications to survive, rather than asleep at the wheel reaction to cheap attacks on our foreign policy.

Ethics? Republicans by consensus in Washington need to be less tolerant of sleeze than Democrats, since conservatism and traditionalism are moral precepts. When they engage in tawdry sex, bribery, and influence peddling, they suffer the double wage of hypocrisy — in the manner supposedly men-of-the-people liberals like Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and the Clintons talk one way and live like 18th-century French kings.

In short, low taxes, secure borders, moral governance, sober government spending, ethical leadership, exploration and conservation of petroleum, and strong defense is what the American public wants — but those core principles have to be articulated hourly and can't be compromised. In an honest debate, Obama's alternatives to the above would be to turn toward more government, higher taxes, more bureacracies, more dependence of the individual upon the state, etc. And I can't believe the public wants a prescription that historically simply doesn't work.

I think in their depression, the Republicans fail to see that their problems were not in their principles, but rather in the sometimes sleezy and sloppy way they advanced them — and even more often in the manner that they abandoned them — and as a result, they are apparently eager to compromise on them.

To the degree McCain can articulate the above, he will win; to the degree that he either cannot or believes the latest gurus that he must abandon them, he will lose. Moving toward a lite version of the Obamian/European "bipartisan"and socialist view of government and calling it a new conservatism is a prescription for utter disaster.

No one can out-Obama Obama."

Fairness, Idealism And Other Atrocities

P.J. O'Rourke's commencement advice:

"Well, here you are at your college graduation. And I know what you're thinking: "Gimme the sheepskin and get me outta here!" But not so fast. First you have to listen to a commencement speech.

Don't moan. I'm not going to "pass the wisdom of one generation down to the next." I'm a member of the 1960s generation. We didn't have any wisdom.

We were the moron generation. We were the generation that believed we could stop the Vietnam War by growing our hair long and dressing like circus clowns. We believed drugs would change everything -- which they did, for John Belushi. We believed in free love. Yes, the love was free, but we paid a high price for the sex.

My generation spoiled everything for you. It has always been the special prerogative of young people to look and act weird and shock grown-ups. But my generation exhausted the Earth's resources of the weird. Weird clothes -- we wore them. Weird beards -- we grew them. Weird words and phrases -- we said them. So, when it came your turn to be original and look and act weird, all you had left was to tattoo your faces and pierce your tongues. Ouch. That must have hurt. I apologize.

So now, it's my job to give you advice. But I'm thinking: You're finishing 16 years of education, and you've heard all the conventional good advice you can stand. So, let me offer some relief:

1. Go out and make a bunch of money!

Here we are living in the world's most prosperous country, surrounded by all the comforts, conveniences and security that money can provide. Yet no American political, intellectual or cultural leader ever says to young people, "Go out and make a bunch of money." Instead, they tell you that money can't buy happiness. Maybe, but money can rent it.

There's nothing the matter with honest moneymaking. Wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino's box. In a free society, with the rule of law and property rights, no one loses when someone else gets rich

.2. Don't be an idealist!

Don't chain yourself to a redwood tree. Instead, be a corporate lawyer and make $500,000 a year. No matter how much you cheat the IRS, you'll still end up paying $100,000 in property, sales and excise taxes. That's $100,000 to schools, sewers, roads, firefighters and police. You'll be doing good for society. Does chaining yourself to a redwood tree do society $100,000 worth of good?

Idealists are also bullies. The idealist says, "I care more about the redwood trees than you do. I care so much I can't eat. I can't sleep. It broke up my marriage. And because I care more than you do, I'm a better person. And because I'm the better person, I have the right to boss you around."

Get a pair of bolt cutters and liberate that tree.

Who does more for the redwoods and society anyway -- the guy chained to a tree or the guy who founds the "Green Travel Redwood Tree-Hug Tour Company" and makes a million by turning redwoods into a tourist destination, a valuable resource that people will pay just to go look at?

So make your contribution by getting rich. Don't be an idealist.

3. Get politically uninvolved!

All politics stink. Even democracy stinks. Imagine if our clothes were selected by the majority of shoppers, which would be teenage girls. I'd be standing here with my bellybutton exposed. Imagine deciding the dinner menu by family secret ballot. I've got three kids and three dogs in my family. We'd be eating Froot Loops and rotten meat.

But let me make a distinction between politics and politicians. Some people are under the misapprehension that all politicians stink. Impeach George W. Bush, and everything will be fine. Nab Ted Kennedy on a DUI, and the nation's problems will be solved.

But the problem isn't politicians -- it's politics. Politics won't allow for the truth. And we can't blame the politicians for that. Imagine what even a little truth would sound like on today's campaign trail:

"No, I can't fix public education. The problem isn't the teachers unions or a lack of funding for salaries, vouchers or more computer equipment The problem is your kids!"

4. Forget about fairness!

We all get confused about the contradictory messages that life and politics send.

Life sends the message, "I'd better not be poor. I'd better get rich. I'd better make more money than other people." Meanwhile, politics sends us the message, "Some people make more money than others. Some are rich while others are poor. We'd better close that 'income disparity gap.' It's not fair!"

Well, I am here to advocate for unfairness. I've got a 10-year-old at home. She's always saying, "That's not fair." When she says this, I say, "Honey, you're cute. That's not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That's not fair. You were born in America. That's not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you." What we need is more income, even if it means a bigger income disparity gap.

5. Be a religious extremist!

So, avoid politics if you can. But if you absolutely cannot resist, read the Bible for political advice -- even if you're a Buddhist, atheist or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those people who believes that God is involved in politics. On the contrary. Observe politics in this country. Observe politics around the world. Observe politics through history. Does it look like God's involved?

The Bible is very clear about one thing: Using politics to create fairness is a sin. Observe the Tenth Commandment. The first nine commandments concern theological principles and social law: Thou shalt not make graven images, steal, kill, et cetera. Fair enough. But then there's the tenth: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

Here are God's basic rules about how we should live, a brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts. And, right at the end of it we read, "Don't envy your buddy because he has an ox or a donkey." Why did that make the top 10? Why would God, with just 10 things to tell Moses, include jealousy about livestock?

Well, think about how important this commandment is to a community, to a nation, to a democracy. If you want a mule, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don't whine about what the people across the street have. Get rich and get your own.

Now, one last thing:

6. Don't listen to your elders!

After all, if the old person standing up here actually knew anything worth telling, he'd be charging you for it."

Sunday In The Park With George

Garden Blogging

We have been very busy in the garden lately and I haven't had a chance to post anything about it. All of M'Lady's seedlings are growing into healthy transplants which we will begin to put out later in the month. She already has half of the kitchen garden planted and the radishes are beginning to come up as is the lettuce.

In between thunderstorms yesterday, I took an opportunity to take a picture of some of our apple trees which are in full bloom right now.

Here is a picture of our recent addition of fruit trees - most all of which are showing signs of growth already. In a few years we hope to be harvesting cherries, peaches, apricots, pears and walnuts.

And later today I am going to plant blackberries....

Good Question

Rachel Lucas is an "interesting" voice in the blogosphere. In a recent post she decided to respond to a great question posited by John Hawkins. I have got to say that responses 1 and 3-9 sound pretty good to me:

Suppose you were elected Temporary Supreme Dictator of America. What are 10 laws you would pass/repeal or government programs you would create/tear down? (Assume that you are in office for however long it would take to do these things and that any changes you make will remain in place after you leave office.)

Excellent. It should be a meme, that one. The questioner and Hawkins both offer good, solid programs such as Fair Tax and conceal-carry amendments and term limits and balanced budgets. Well that fancy stuff is for brainy people.

Here’s what Dictator Lukis would do:

1. Banish Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, and anyone else who needs it to the Isle of Cuba. Permanently.

2. Turn half of all golf courses into free-range dog shelters.

3. Implement the No Babies for You Program, which involves mandatory sterilization of every citizen at puberty, only to be surgically reversed upon reaching the age of 25, having $10,000 or more in a cash account (in addition to paying for the surgical reversal out-of-pocket), holding full health coverage, being married, and passing an IQ test with a result of over 100. At least. Within 10-20 years, this will automatically eliminate the vast majority of abortions, welfare, gangbangers, and so on.

4. Legalize, regulate, and tax the living SHIT out of marijuana. Use the profits to eliminate the federal deficit. I’m almost not kidding; it’s probably possible. People like to smoke dope.

5. Require every voter to pass a political science test before voting. If you don’t know what communism did to the world in the 20th century or what socialism is doing to it in the 21st century, no vote for you. Go home and start reading books.

6. Quadruple the pay of all military personnel. Also impose a salary cap on the amount “entertainers” are allowed to be paid for being nothing more than performance monkeys.

7. Capture every illegal immigrant and make them build an actual physical wall the entire length of all our borders. When they’re done, put them on the other side of it.

8. Eliminate criminal liability for people who realize the only way they’re going to get through that aisle at Target is to ram the oblivious asshole blocking it with your cart.

9. Free tacos for all citizens every third Tuesday.

10. Forget that “temporary” shit. Make self Dictator for Life.

Mark Bittman

Mark Bittman is a food writer for the New York Times and the author of several cook books. He is well known for his efforts to popularize no-knead bread which I have blogged about here. Mark also has a blog called Bitten which I can recommend as well. I recently made his version of "Chicken Under A Brick" that received high marks from our young miss when she made it. How bad can a whole chicken marinated with salt, garlic, rosemary and olive oil then grilled over charcoal be, I ask you? His recipes do manage to get the creative as well as salivary juices following.

Anyway, the cook book featured in the picture below sits within arms reach as I write this - and no, I would not be surprised if it contained a recipe for "Braised Infant With Spring Vegetables" or "Enfant Au Vin".