text:
-Studio Visit- Ricardo del Pozo
Date: Monday, November 15th, 2010,
Location: North Williamsburg, Brooklyn NY
We see to what extent music is everywhere steeped in time: (a) time in the form of impalpable flux or (b) time in its frozen form, outside time, made possible by memory. Time is the blackboard on which are inscribed phenomena and their relations outside the time of the universe in which we live. -Iannis Xenakis
Ricardo Del Pozo is a multimedia artist from Norway. His studio visit took place during a residency at Point B, "a self-sustained, artist-run International Worklodge for art and science professionals" located in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. An excerpt from his artist statement:
Through digital real-time processes and spatialization techniques my work aims at addressing the formal aspects of sound and video, their inherent properties as artistic value. My work primarily concerns itself with the recorded material. It deals with the aspect of acousmatics and space and how these recordings gain new significance as art through constructed environments.
Ricardo's in-progress "electro acoustic" installation featured a video projected on a wooden surface with an accompanying music sequence that were both mathematically created using algorithms. One did not generate the other, however. Instead, they existed as individual entities with unique codes that endlessly performed together in an ambient, layered progression. The music was created from a one second segment of audio and the video from two to three seconds of visual data. The fluxuation of output was made from a code that created a set of parameters—endless possibilities within a set of rules. Each set contained information that altered feedback, position and movement, mapping sounds through fragmentation to explore a sense of timelessness.
Ricardo described the audio as music rather than sound and explained his interest in the materials themselves as a sculptural experience. He talked about the technical aspect of feedback, reverb, and perceiving echo through understanding the formal construction of a room. Comments from the group included suggestions for experimenting with other projection surfaces (screen, plastic or other translucent materials) and questions as to how the video projected on natural wood or brick might exist as a form of temporary graffiti. Comments arose about incorporating a seating area (see Pipilotti Rist at MoMA) and the usage of support structures and stages as integrated elements in an installation (see Banks Violette).
Other comments included how the work provoked a meditative experience. Some viewers perceived a narrative element, a residual experience that conjured memories: passing cars, travel, a sense of longing. There were also comments about tension in the work—a sonic buildup occurred that did not materialize as a climactic moment but as a form of repetition, leaving the viewer in a slowed but anticipatory state. Through this perceived tension, a drama of the synch formed a temporal joining of the senses to elucidate a union between the realm of the ephemeral with the realm of the physical.
- Carlos Cruz Diez
- Ethan Greenbaum
- Rhizomatic Theory (Deleuze and Guattari)
- Radiolab (Episode 104: Time)
We examine the relativity of time — how time for You is different than time for Me — with physicist Brian Greene and neurologist Oliver Sacks. And we'll hear a piece on the experience of listening to Beethoven's 9th Symphony for 24 hours straight – but only hearing it once.
- Dream House by La Monte Young and Marian Zazeela
In The Brooklyn Rail (June 2003), Nick Stillman wrote: The Dream House can inspire sincere self-reflection—of how people physically move, of how little time there is for stillness, of how we've become trained to seek and to reward movement and action. To embrace the Dream House is to become entranced and lost in time. And with no permanent closing date established for Young and Zazeela's collaborative installation, this could be the dream that never ends.
- "Iannis Xenakis: Composer, Architect, Visionary," at The Drawing Center
Each of his creations represent a point of dialectical merger between, on the one hand, mathematical and scientific thought and, on the other hand, intuition: 'I think intuition is something rational: it's highly complex and at the same time something of which we're unaware.'
I'm reminded of something Chrissie Iles said in an October roundtable, with regard to projection: If you bring the image down to the floor, you're negating cinema on a certain level. You're saying: "This is not meant for you to watch all the way through like a narrative film. This is part of the 'going for a walk' of museum and gallery viewing."
– Audra Wolowiec


text:
Return to Transcripts main page
Awaiting Senate Vote on Deal
Aired October 16, 2013 - 18:28 ET
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news. NEWT GINGRICH, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. I'm Newt Gingrich on the right. VAN JONES, CO-HOST: And I'm Van Jones on the left. It is a big day for the country. We are waiting for the Senate to start voting, finally, on the deal to end the government shutdown and to raise the debt ceiling. This is a total vindication, in my view, of President Obama and his strategy of refusing to negotiate with the crazy wing of the Republican Party. And it is a total humiliating, crushing defeat for Ted Cruz and his wing of the Republicans. Listen to how House Speaker John Boehner conceded defeat on his hometown radio station. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE (via phone): We've been locked in a fight over here, trying to -- trying to bring government down to size, trying to do our best to stop Obama care. We fought the good fight. We just didn't win. (END VIDEO CLIP) JONES: Well, from my point of view, he didn't win, but the rest of us did win, and I'll tell you why I fell like -- and I'm interested to hear this from you. This is bigger than John Boehner. To me, it's bigger than the Republicans, bigger than Obama. This was about whether or not America is still governable, despite this group of extremists that burrowed down into the House. And I think that they lost, and I am happy, happy, happy. How are you? GINGRICH: Well, I think first of all, this is why it's CROSSFIRE. I think this is a sad day for America. I think it's a day where we didn't fix Obama care, which is failing in every single state right now. It's a day when we didn't fix the budget, which is going to bankrupt our children and grandchildren. It's a day when we didn't fix the bureaucracies, which don't work. It's a day when we saw no sign of the president of the United States leading the country. What we saw was a partisan who went around the country vilifying his opponents in a way that makes no sense for an incumbent president. And I think it's going to be a challenge. But tonight, in CROSSFIRE, we have two congressmen, Rhode Island Democratic Congressman David Cicilline, and Louisiana Republican Congressman Steve Scalise. And I really want to start, if I can, Congressman Cicilline, from this perspective. And this is part of my populist bias, I guess. Once again, we see leaders meeting in secret to design a secret deal which they announce the principles of, which a few minutes ago, they actually released the 35 pages of, which the Senate will vote on presently before the American people know what's in it, which will come to the House for you to say yes or no. And in the end, we're not going to get anything major. We're going to end up kicking the can down the road. Don't you think somehow that we ought to find a way to get back to more open government, more open legislating, and some kind of commitment to solve... REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D), RHODE ISLAND: I would say, Mr. Speaker, first of all I disagree that it's a secret. This was the position of the president from the very beginning and of the Democrats in the House. Open government, raise the debt ceiling so we don't default on the full faith and credit of the United States, and then send this matter to the budget committee, to a conference committee, regular order, so we can hammer out a resolution. That's been the president's position from the beginning. It's been the position of the House Democrats. So I don't think there's any secret about that. I think today the Republicans finally accepted that proposal so that government will open, so that we won't default, and that we'll have a process in the budget committee. The budget committee -- you know, the House passed a budget, a budget I voted against. The Senate passed a budget. Then the next thing is to go, as you know, is conference committee. The speaker refused to appoint conferees. We asked him back in April. I sent a letter. All the Democrats asked him to appoint conferees. So there is a process. I think today's deal, as outlined in the Senate proposal, will make sure that we go to regular order so we can actually have a long- term solution and adopt a budget. GINGRICH: So -- so let me ask you a follow-up on that. They didn't meet, according to Chairman Ryan, because they are so far apart, particularly on taxes, where the Senate called for a trillion dollars in additional taxes in a weak economy. Why should any of us believe that, having failed to get anything done for months and months and months, we now have a magic date of December 13, and all of a sudden, magically this thing is going to work? CICILLINE: No. I don't think it will be magic, but the reality is not having a conference committee, because the sides disagree. That's exactly why you have a conference committee. There are two difference versions, and you go to conference, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, work out the differences. But to suggest that we shouldn't have a conference committee, because the differences are big, we would never have a conference committee. But that's the idea. Go to conference committee. Make your case; make it in public, in front of cameras, where you have to defend the Ryan budget, or we defend the Democratic budget from the Senate, and let the voters see that. And I think that's what a conference committee will do. JONES: Fair enough. Well, first of all, welcome, Congressperson. I am -- just can't wait to hear from you. Because you have an opportunity now to do something pretty important, which is to vote to end this shutdown, to raise the debt ceiling. Because of the shutdown that you were a big part of, we've got, I don't know, 80 -- a lot of people, I think 350,000 people who right now are sitting home, should be working, including my cousin, including my best friend from high school. Got a lot of people who are sitting down right now They should be making America better. Are you going to vote tonight to put them back to work? REP. STEVE SCALISE (R), LOUISIANA: Well, first of all, Van, I voted four different times to open the government up and to prevent a shutdown, each one of those times, by the way, Harry Reid didn't even have a debate on it, just tabled the bill summarily. Then we passed about another 14 different bills, each of which has large bipartisan support, to open up different parts of government where we had agreement while offering to the president the ability to start negotiating. JONES: Fair enough. SCALISE: Look, I spent -- I spent an hour and a half with the president in the White House last week. And the first offer we said was, "Look, we'll raise the debt ceiling if you just agree to start negotiating." And Barack Obama wouldn't even agree to negotiate. But the fact that the president is declaring victory over the fact that he was able to shut the government down, to then get a deal from the Republicans and from the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, to then max out the credit card again. Look, the reason we're hitting the debt ceiling is because the government maxed out the credit cards. We should be solving the problem. JONES: Can I ask you the question again? You may have missed my question. I understand what you're -- relegating the past, but tonight, here you are. Are you going to vote with your speaker? Are you going to vote with the Senate? Are you going to vote with hundreds of thousands of federal workers who want to get back to work? Are you going to vote with Americans who are terrified that we're going to hit this debt ceiling? Are you going to vote to open the government? Yes or no? SCALISE: Well, first of all, this bill doesn't solve the problem. I voted for 14 different bills to open the government back up. JONES: How about this one? SCALISE; This bill doesn't address the long-term debt problem. Look, Van, if you like crisis-to-crisis living, which President Obama clearly likes living from crisis to crisis, this sets up yet another crisis on January 15. And then the debt ceiling comes right behind that in a couple more weeks. JONES: Does that mean you're voting against opening up the... SCALISE: So why do we want to set up a deal where all these people that want to get back to work and get the government back open again, they don't want a deal that just lasts a couple of weeks. JONES: How are you voting tonight? SCALISE: ... back into crisis. I'll be voting no on this deal, but I voted yes 20 different times to open either all or parts of the go. This forces yet another crisis. Well, look, on January 14, you're going to be sitting there with the president, going, "Give me everything I want again. Let's kick the can down the road for a few more weeks and max out another credit card. JONES: So you're voting again opening the government. GINGRICH: Let me ask you that from -- not the standpoint that we're getting another shutdown. But from the standpoint of, if you're a normal American and you've watched this now for years, and you've seen the only time there's been a major breakthrough in spending was in 2011, which was clearly a crisis, and produced the entire process the president hates, where we've simply sequestered money. Why would you now look up and say, you know? The very same people who have refused, as you point out, have refused to conference, and the very same people who are apart by at least $2 trillion if you count taxes and spending. They're now going to somehow magically over Thanksgiving solve the problems so by January 15. And I'm not talking about shutdowns. But do you think by January 15 we're going to actually have a big enough agreement that it will, in any significant, move the whole process of American indebtedness? CICILLINE: Well, I think there's no question that we will not have that if we don't go to conference committee. We've got to go through this process. Look this shutdown has cost, according to S&P today $24 billion in the U.S. economy; hurt hundreds of thousands of families who are furlough. The threat of default has already had an adverse effect on our economy. I think every reasonable economist has said a default would be catastrophic. We're the reserve currency to the world. And the implications of that are really difficult to even contemplate. So I think we -- I think what this circumstance has shown is we have got to come together and figure out how we deal with the debt in a responsible way, go through the budget process. We did it already once. We did cuts in spending and we generated new revenues. The president said we need to do the same thing. We need to do more targeted kinds in spending, generate more revenues, do it in a balance way. We can do that, but we need to go through the regular process in a budget committee to do it. GINGRICH: Just one thing, because I've been fascinated by this assertion. The stock market from the beginning of this fight to today hasn't moved. CICILLINE: You know why? Because they cannot believe that the Republican leaders in the Congress would be so reckless to allow the U.S. to default. They just can't believe it. And frankly, I hope they're right, because they realize to do that would be so catastrophic. SCALISE: There's only one person who can actually bring us to default, and that's Barack Obama. In fact, Barack Obama made it clear he was willing to default. We passed a bill, by the way, out of the House to take default off the table, to guarantee our country can't default. The day we passed the bill, President Obama issued a veto threat on that bill. So clearly, President Obama wants the threat of default, which is dangerous and reckless for this president. CICILLINE: In fairness, this began -- this process began because you and others in the Republican Party decided to use the debt ceiling and the threat of closing down government to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It was something which was enacted by the House, passed by the Senate, signed by the president, affirmed by the Supreme Court. Then after that, we had a presidential election which your candidate said, "I'm going to repeal it day one." The president said, "I'll defend it." He did that. And despite all of that evidence, your party said, "We're going to shut down the government and risk default unless you agree to repeal it, delay it or..." SCALISE: Barack Obama made it very clear he wanted a government shutdown. Look, on October 1, the first day of the shutdown, he had signs at the World War II memorial, which by the way, doesn't even need an opening gate, that said, "This place is closed because of the shutdown.: So he already had that set up. We didn't want a shutdown. We wanted to solve the spending problem in Washington. And look... JONES: What about Obama care? SCALISE: Obama care is one of the problems. Obama care is one of the things that's holding our economy back. Look, in Southeast Louisiana, the biggest impediment to job creation every small business talks about is the president's health- care law. It wasn't just, by the way, a partisan issue. You've got jJames Hoffa, the head of the Teamsters union, no close friend of mine, saying that it's destroying the middle-class work week. Yet, President Obama is giving waivers to 1,200 friends and members of Congress. JONES: What's terrifying me, and I know we have to go to break, is it just doesn't seem like you guys have learned anything. And I'm just -- what was all this for? You said it was about Obama care. You didn't repeal it. You didn't delay it. You didn't defund it. You couldn't even steal the health care from your congressional staffers. What was all this for? I know we have to go to break. SCALISE: Look, don't worry. President Obama gave an exemption to members of Congress and staff, you know, while he's saying everybody else, regular hard-working families, they've got to live under the law. President Obama hasn't signed up for these exchanges. In fact, people that go to the exchanges, they spent over $600 million building this Web site; doesn't even work. You can't even sign up for this product that people don't even want to buy. And yet, the president is saying this is his signature law, and he's willing to shut the government down over that. JONES: You guys haven't learned anything at all. OK. GINGRICH: We've got to come back in a little bit. Hold on, everybody. We are still waiting for the Senate to begin voting on the deal. The last 48 hours have been so wild and wooly, I think Speaker Boehner now faces a major strategic decision. I'll go through his options, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news. GINGRICH: Welcome back. We are waiting for the U.S. Senate to begin voting on the deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. A pair of congressmen are in the CROSSFIRE tonight: Democrat David Cicilline and Republican Steve Scalise. I think Speaker Boehner faces a key question tonight. If he can't rely on his party's most conservative members, the real activists, how does he govern for the next two years? If he can't get 218 Republican votes to pass something, he's going to ultimately have to get some Democrats. Can he take, should he take 180 or so Republicans and try to find enough Democrats to work with him that they could routinely pass things? It would mean accepting the permanent anger of about 50 members of his party and many outside groups, but it might enable him to run the House. And I think he's got to weigh tonight what's the best future for the House, given what happened in the last 48 hours? JONES: Yes. Well, since you're here, and you're in this weird situation, you know, you guys backed -- Boehner backed you, basically. I think Boehner really didn't want to take it this far. You guys said, "Look, let's go." He stood with you. Now tonight, he's kind of having to go away from you and go toward Democrats. Are you going to continue to back Boehner? Is this something that you're going to hold against Boehner, or do you think Boehner's your hero, because he was with up, at least up until now? SCALISE: I support the way that Speaker Boehner's handled this. It's been a very tough situation. Look, I was in that room with him and a few other of our members, where he literally was putting option after option on the table to President Obama, and President Obama just sat back and said, "I'm not even going to be willing to negotiate on anything." And so it's a tough situation when you've got a speaker saying, "Look, I'm here to negotiate." We've cast a lot of votes to pass bills to open parts of the government that the president and people in his parties would say we don't want to fund, that these people want to shut down everything. We actually cast the votes to keep those areas of government open. JONES: But quick follow-up now. I think that the speaker put on the table, this is a leadership position from him. How is he supposed to move forward? To get stuff done, he may have to move in more of a direction of working with Democrats. You don't seem to be willing to go with him in that direction. Are you going to wind up having to go against Boehner later? I mean, how does this work? How is the Tea Party thinking about this now? Boehner was with you. Basically, you guys from my point of view, took you into a ditch. He's going to take you out of that ditch. He's going to be working with Democrats. Do you turn on him? Do you stay with him, even if he is marginalizing you? SCALISE: Look, Harry Reid and President Obama brought him into this ditch. He tried to work out of it with a lot of different options. Neither of them wanted to negotiate at all. So, you know, that's where they've been. But going forward, there are a lot of things we've been able to work with Speaker Boehner on. Look at the Farm Bill where not one Democrat voted for a Farm Bill, yet we passed it with all Republican votes. Most people would have said that could never be done. So we want to tackle the spending problems. And I'll work people like Paul Ryan and others that have good plans to get these things done. CICILLINE: I think the speaker raises a really important question. I this Speaker Boehner has to make the decision, does he want to govern and be the speaker of the House or does he want to be the leader of the Republican Caucus? Because on every issue -- on the immigration bill, on the infrastructure plan, on dealing with the budget -- if he's prepared to accept a governing coalition of most of the Democrats and some group of Republicans, we can get the work done. And that's what our country needs right now. GINGRICH: Let me ask this question. Because I was here with Tip O'Neill, and you had this kind of a coalition. I was here with Jim Wright. You had that kind of coalition. I was here with Tom Foley. Here's the difference. It was historically always virtually all the Republicans and 50 or 60 Democrats. CICILLINE: Right. GINGRICH: Now do you think that Leader Pelosi will tolerate 40 or 50 Democrats voting with John Boehner? Or does he have to cut a deal with Pelosi, in which case the deal, frankly, so far to the left he probably can't cut it? CICILLINE: I think what has to happen is Speaker Boehner has to accept the notion what is right for this country is to build a governing coalition that's going to require support from the Democrats, that he cannot any longer listen to this very far right of his Congress, because they can pass bills in the House, but they're going nowhere. If we actually want to confront the issues in our country... SCALISE: Well, the far left doesn't want to pass these bills. CICILLINE: No, no, you want... SCALISE: If Obama wants to bring us from crisis to crisis and the brink of default... CICILLINE: But you just bragged about you passed a lot of things in the House, and the problem is you passed -- but nobody... (CROSSTALK) CICILLINE: It will not pass the Senate or will not be signed by the president. So you can pass stuff, but the idea is, you want to make it work for the American people. And that requires passage in the House. Passage in the Senate, same as the president. So I think it requires a working relationship between Leader Pelosi and the speaker. The leader has made it very clear, she's interested in getting things done for the American people on immigration reform, on the budget, on rebuilding our infrastructure, on making the investments in science and research. SCALISE: That's just not been the case. That's just not been. We actually passed a bill to fund the National Institute of Health, to fund cancer research. It was a bipartisan vote. The day we passed it, President Obama issued a veto threat. We passed a bill to fund FEMA. Disaster relief should not be held... (CROSSTALK) SCALISE: If we can't get an agreement, if the president doesn't want to negotiate, you're saying shut it all down unless you get everything you want? CICILLINE: No, no, we didn't shut down... SCALISE: That's not a reasonable approach. GINGRICH: The next thing I'm going to ask is a very practical matter. CICILLINE: Sure. GINGRICH: OK. It's virtually impossible, at least for me, to -- to imagine that John Boehner can cut deals with Nancy Pelosi that are acceptable to the majority of the House Republicans. It's possible to imagine you could have a bipartisan coalition that comes together on one issue at a time where you get 40, 50, 60 people. My question -- and I think Boehner has a big choice. But I also think Pelosi has a big choice. Would she tolerate parts of her caucus on an issue by issue basis, deciding to form a bipartisan working group? Or will she insist that it has to be a Boehner/Pelosi negotiation, in which case, frankly, I think you're back to where we are right now? CICILLINE: I think two things. One, I think Leader Pelosi has been an important and effective leader of our caucus. She speaks not only for herself but really for the Democrat Party in the House. I think she's been an effective advocate for our positions. And I think she has demonstrated her willingness always to work with the speaker, to build -- You know, she calls him regularly and says, "What do you need? How can we help make these votes a reality," whether it's on immigration, education funding and the like. So I think she's willing to do that. He frankly has to, as you said, come to terms with is he willing to develop a governing coalition that may not have a majority of the Republican caucus, or may not include some of the most vocal opponents within the caucus? JONES: Speaking of, you know, let me just ask this basic question. You are going to be, when this thing passes with or without you, you're going to be in budget negotiations. Who's your leader? Who is the leader of the Republican Party? It's been baffling from the outside to watch Ted Cruz act as a whip in the House, and sometimes it seems like he's the speaker. Who -- is Ted Cruz your leader? Is Boehner your leader? Who's your leader? SCALISE: Well, first of all, it was Harry Reid who tabled all of those bills in the Senate that led to the government shutdown. But if you look at the leader, John Boehner is absolutely the leader as the speaker, but in the budget negotiations, Paul Ryan is our budget chairman. I don't think there's anybody better in this town that understands how to solve real problems. And if the president wants to solve problems, he knows he can work with Paul and get that done. He hasn't yet agreed. And Barack Obama has got a real question he's going to have to answer. Does he want to be the leader of the free world and actually sit here and solve these problems with people that are of the other party? JONES: I get... SCALISE: Paul Ryan has got a really good plan. JONES: You've done a really great job of communicating that you're frustrated with the leadership of President Obama, so let's just stipulate to that. I'm trying to figure out the leadership of your party. Who can actually deliver votes for a deal that can pass the Senate? Who can do that? SCALISE: We proved we can deliver votes to pass a budget. We passed a budget every year. It took the Senate four years to pass one. They've got to figure out how to pass things, too, by the way. JONES: They passed one six months ago. SCALISE: I'm glad they passed one. JONES: And you won't meet with them. SCALISE: Look, Paul Ryan -- Paul Ryan has been talking to Patty Murray every week for the last six months. Clearly, they're very far apart. We have a divided government. JONES: Can Paul deliver the votes? Can Paul Ryan deliver the votes? SCALISE: Absolutely. JONES: On a deal that can pass the Senate? SCALISE: On a budget deal. CICILLINE: Your question really is one of the big challenges. And I think the speaker has, unfortunately, on a number of instances been unable to deliver the votes. And so when you're in some of these very difficult negotiations, there's no question Leader Pelosi delivers the votes of the Democratic Caucus. Unequivocally. Because they have confidence in her leadership. But it's a different vote. It's different policy. But we have tremendous confidence in her leadership. The problem is you need to have somebody on the other side of the table who actually can deliver what he says or she says she can deliver. Actually part of the problem. SCALISE: We actually care about the details. And the details matter. But shouldn't we solve the problems? I mean, Medicare is going bankrupt in the next few years if we don't solve it. President Obama wants to just ignore it, maybe wait till it's a crisis. Solve it now. GINGRICH: Let me ask one question on that now, because it -- having served with Carter and Reagan and Bush 1 and Clinton, I thought it was almost weird today that the president found time to meet with Miss America. But he hasn't found time to meet one-on-one with John Boehner. He hasn't found time, I think, to meet with Mitch McConnell in months. Doesn't the president have to also take a leadership role in actually working with the Congress before there's a crisis? CICILLINE: I think a fair review of the president's engagement with Congress would reveal that he has attempted on more occasions than any president I can remember to reach out to people on both sides of the aisle, particularly people on the other side of the aisle, to help craft solutions to the big challenges facing our country. And each time, he's been repudiated. So I think the president has met repeatedly... SCALISE: That doesn't match with this. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill... CICILLINE: By the way, they haven't agreed with him. They haven't agreed with his positions or been willing to do what he asked. But there's lots of conversations. JONES: Well, this is a great conversation. We want to keep it going. We want you both to stay here. Next, we're going to "Ceasefire" and we're going to try to see if there is anything that you two can actually agree on. We also are going to want you at home to weigh in on tonight's "Fireback" question: "Who won the shutdown fight?" You can reply with President Obama, Republicans or the Tea Party using #Crossfire. We're going to have the results right after this break.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I create info products, and they're a HUGE part of why I adore my life.
Most writers love what they do, and I hope you to too. Whenever I talk to other professionals (my doctor, accountant, real estate agent etc) about the writing life they're envious. They'd love the freedom to set their own hours, and create too. On the other hand, I'm never envious about what they do. 🙂
As writers, we're lucky, lucky people.
Are you still trading hours for dollars?
There's a snag, however. It's the old hours/ dollars thing. Writing professionally can become wearing if you're just exchanging your hours for dollars. Invariably, it means writing like a maniac, and constant pressure.
You know what to do: create your own products so that you have extra income streams. You can create a product in an hour or two, and sell it forever. Especially now that that Amazon's promoting the Kindle ebook store so heavily. People love their Kindles, iPads and smartphones, and they love to READ on them too.
I was talking to a former writing student this week who started writing for the Kindle platform as a ghostwriter for clients, and then began to create her own ebooks, in various niches.
She started 12 months ago. From one to two sales a day, she's now making 20 and 30 sales a day. She says: "My business is growing month by month, and I know it can only get bigger. All I need to do is get more ebooks out there."
I asked her how she feels about the writing life now. "I LOVE my life!" she said.
She's writing small ebooks, with fewer than 40 pages. She turns them out quickly, aiming for two a month. She says that she creates on the weekends, when her partner's there. He looks after their toddlers for a few hours, and she creates. She manages to get first drafts written in those hours.
I'm very proud of her, and so is her family. She told me she's aiming to sell 100 ebooks a day. And then 200…
What about you? Are you ready to do BIG things? You can, if you've got an hour or two, to create an "instant" product.
Create an instant product this weekend
* Do the preparation during the week, whenever you have a moment or two. Write an outline, do some research, create characters if you're writing a short story;
* Schedule your hours. You want some family time on the weekends, of course. So clear some time on Saturday morning, and Sunday afternoon — or whatever hours work for you. Even three to four hours are ample;
* Develop a writing process. When you have a process, you won't procrastinate;
* Publish! I'm working with a writer who has several info products on his computer that he's never published. This is a shame — publish what you have, even if you think it's "not ready." Nothing's perfect. You can edit your products at any time. Each day you delay publication is a day you're losing sales.
Will you do something BIG this weekend? Spend a few hours create info products — you'll create a new income stream. You'll gain from those few hours over and over again.
8-Hour Wins: Create and Sell Products in Just 8 Hours
Want to create your own info products over a weekend?
Create a product (ebook, report, coaching course, tutorial — anything you choose) and SELL it, within 8 hours. And do it again, and again. Build your name, build your bank account, and build your CONFIDENCE.
Learn the process to get ideas which sell: then develop a product, step by step… and sell it. Charge $2.99 (Amazon) or $129 on the Web. Information sells, if you package it so that it offers solutions. People pay for information, and entertainment. Give it to them.
Join Angela on Google+, and on Twitter: @angee
Related Posts
Latest posts by Angela Booth (see all)
- Self-Publishing And Novellas: 3 Easy Tips - July 26, 2019
- Self-Publishing? Novellas Boost Sales - July 23, 2019
- Writing Short Stories: 5 Tips You Can Use Today - July 15, 2019


text:
Date a Stewardess
and Let Love Take Flight!
Connect with gorgeous single flight attendants who are looking for love and romance with someone like you. Take your social life to new heights when you sign up for FREE now!
- Create Your Own Personal Profile
- Meet Single Flight Crew Members
- Chat, IM, Send Flirts, and More


text:
There is a lot of buzz in the press about red wine, resveratrol, and longevity. Here is the real inside story of how resveratrol, the chemical in red wine that impacts longevity, works its wonders.
Yep, I am going to talk to you about cell biochemistry. But, I promise, I will make it as simple as I can. It is a tale about genes. In particular, it is the story of a gene called SIR2 (or "Silent Information Regulator"—sounds kind of creepy, huh?)
First, a bit of history
In 2000, Lenny Guarente and three of his postdoctoral students discovered a key chemical in yeast cells—one that plays a key role in the energy metabolism. This chemical, named NAD (or Nicotine Adenine Dinucleotide) activates a gene in the yeast cells, called SIR2.
When the cell is flush with nutrients, NAD levels are low and the SIR2 gene is inactive. On the other hand, a whole raft of genes, ones that have to do with "normal functioning" of the organism, like insulin and insulin receptors, as well as reproduction, are active.
When nutrients are scarce, NAD levels go up and SIR2 is activated. It, in turn, inactivates the "normal functioning" genes. One of the many things that happens as a result of SIR2 activation is insulin level decline. This makes sense because, in conditions of nutrient scarcity, you don't need as much insulin…as too much insulin in the face of low nutrient levels could lead to a dangerously low level of blood glucose. In this state of nutrient scarcity, we also find that the gears of the aging process are slowed. This explains, at least in part, the link between caloric restriction and longevity.
Shortly after the discovery of SIR2 in yeast, the equivalent gene in mice was discovered. It was named SIRT1 (which stands for "SIR Two One"). Next, scientists discovered the enzyme sirtuin, a protein that carries out the instructions coded in SIR2/SIRT1 genes. So, now we have a feedback loop. High nutrient levels lead to low NAD levels and suppression of SIR activity. Low nutrient levels lead to high NAD levels, expression of SIR activity, and production of the enzyme, sirtuin. NAD serves another function in this biochemical pathway; it binds to the sirtuin molecule and causes its activation.
Enter Sinclair and resveratrol
In 1995, David Sinclair, an Aussie, joined Guarente's lab as a postdoctoral student. In 2003, he discovered that a substance that is present in the skin of red grapes and in red wine, resveratrol, seemed to activate SIR2 in yeast mimicking the low nutrient, low NAD status of the cell. Yeast cell longevity just about doubled after resveratrol was added to their culture mix.
Moving on to the current report, Sinclair's research group at MIT and another research group, headed by Rafael Cabo at the National Institute of Aging, reported the results everyone is talking about in the November 1st online publication of Nature.
The researchers fed mice a high-calorie diet (60% fat), causing them to become obese. Half of the mice on the high-calorie diet also received resveratrol. A third group that received a normal diet, served as a control.
Here are the results:
- The fat mice on the high-fat diet that received resveratrol ended up living significantly longer than mice on the same bad diet that did not get to eat resveratrol.
- The obese mice that got resveratrol lived as long as the control mice that were fed a normal diet and maintained a normal weight. This is an important finding because it appears that resveratrol prevented the shortening of lifespan that is ordinarily associated with obesity.
- The obese mice that did not receive resveratrol showed all the signs of metabolic syndrome like high blood sugar, high insulin levels, and enlarged livers. The obese group that received resveratrol did not develop this syndrome. Their blood sugars, insulin levels, and liver size of obese resveratrol-eating mice were indistinguishable from the normal weight, normal diet mice. Again, it looks like resveratrol prevents these obesity-related pathologies.
- Finally, it is of interest that the obese mice who did not receive resveratrol were sluggish, lost motor control, and had reduced endurance as measured by running on a treadmill. The ones receiving resveratrol were almost twice as fit by the treadmill test and were more vibrant.
Not yet ready for prime time
So, will resveratrol be a simple antidote to our current obesity and diabetes crisis? It is probably too early to tell. Some important questions remain. Here are some:
- Will resveratrol show any benefits in animals on a normal diet? Will it have an equally significant life-extending effect? Evidently, this experiment is already underway.
- Exactly what does resveratrol do inside of the cell? Does it act on the SIR gene directly or does it act on the enzyme sirtuin or does it affect both? And once sirtuin is activated, what exactly does it do? Does it act directly to "silence" some or all of the genes controlling aging, fertility, and other normal functions? The answers to these questions may one day allow scientists to tease out or even separate the control of these functions.
- Will resveratrol have the same effects in humans? Drug developers know through long experience that mice are not men. Many a drug that cured cancer in mice were either too toxic in humans or were just plain ineffective.
- If it does work in humans, what dose level is needed? The mice in the experiment received the equivalent of humans consuming about a thousand bottles of wine per day!
- So this leads to the next concern. Will effective doses of resveratrol be safe in humans? Obviously, if we try to use red wine as the vehicle for consuming resveratrol, our metabolism may be healthier but our brains will be fried!
So what is a mere mortal to do while we wait for the scientists to sort all of this out?
Here are my suggestions (the doctor is now weighing in):
- Enjoy up to a glass or two of red wine per day. But no more! Several studies have demonstrated that the maximum benefits are obtained at this level. More than that, and the negative effects of alcohol consumption, such as cirrhosis of the liver, kick in.
- You can also ingest resveratrol from non-alcoholic sources, like red grapes and grape juice. This seemed to have gotten lost in the midst of all the media hoopla about the benefits of red wine.
- There are several companies that market food supplements of resveratrol. But, caveat emptor: Supplements may vary from 100% of the stated content to 0%. The food supplement market is an unregulated "Wild West". Buying a resveratrol supplement that has hardly any resveratrol will be dangerous for your pocketbook. But, more importantly, very high amounts of resveratrol (unlikely), or, more likely, some toxic contaminants of the supplement could turn out to be hazardous to your health.
I will be writing more about the intricacies of cell life and death in future posts. I hope you will join me as I explore this vast and fascinating topic.


text:
Charity Name:
Friends of the Fairfax County Animal Shelter
CFC Number:
Cause Area:
Charity Type:
Image: Collage of dogs and cats, Friends' logo and text reading, "Together we are saving lives and finding forever home." Image of hound dog with floppy brown ears with caption and voice over: Friends of the Fairfax County Animal Shelter funds support for shelter pets beyond what the county budget can provide. Image of grey striped cat peeking through a small round doorway with caption and voice over: But only with your help. Image of small, fluffy grey and white dog with caption and voice: Each year, more than 5,000 pets come to our local shelter, as strays, surrendered by their owner, or seized by animal protection police. Video of Suzie, a medium sized, short-hair, blond and white dog in an underwater dog treadmill with glass walls. Caption and voice over: Pets like Suzie, who was found with a broken leg and the tip of an arrow in her chest. With Friends' help, Suzie is making a full recovery and enjoying the love of her new family. Image of small, fluffy, white dog, running in the grass, his rear legs assisted by a small blue and silver wheelchairs. Caption and voice over: Friends helps our shelter's special needs pets like Georgie, who is now in a loving home. Image of a medium sized, short haired, grey and white dog with minor head abrasions and a bandaged rear leg. Caption and voice over: And Finnegan, found as a stray with extensive injuries. Image of same dog resting with his head on a pillow. Caption and voice over: With help from Friends and our amazing shelter community… Image of same dog sniffing nose-to-nose with small white pug dog. Caption and voice over: …he too has found his forever home. Image of a card reading "Thank You" with a collage of a small black and white kitten. Caption and voice over: Kitten Ariel was so grateful for our help, that she sent a thank you card! Return to original collage image with voice over: Please join in our effort by selecting CFC #88219. Together, we are saving lives and finding forever homes.


text:
With the new skipper Jamie skippering the offshore rebel.
Our club is known as the off shore rabble and lucky enough we have a total of twelve Saturdays to choose from each year.
In addition there are other trips we choose to go on as well, being greedy.
So Sean Nally from a n fame is coming down with us to do the Weymouth Pollack comp at the end of march, not satisfied we have also
decided to do the following day as well.
Last year the inshore bream fishing was superb, psssst don't let TAT know or they will offer up their representation and sort out regulation for us
just like the bass and now the bream off the sussex coast. We don't want that do we? NO.
Anyway speaking to Jamie it's going to be a fab first year for him as his bookings are filling up fast, even the channel isles trips.
If anyone fancies a crack at it, and it will be a crack, go on deepsea web site and look at the Weymouth boats or leave a post and I know we can
sort something out.
The mixture of available species both inshore and off is amazing. Can't wait.


text:
— Spa Options —
Skin Care
Complimentary Facial Demo We invite you to enjoy a 30 minute facial demo by Ocean Beauty performed right here at the Body Sage Massage Therapies facility. BONUS: Purchase any Ocean Beauty Product and receive a gift card worth $20.00 off your next regular priced massage. Does not apply to co-pays. "I absolutely love the packaging… Read More Skin Care


text: [JURIST] As part of a plea deal reached in April [JURIST report], Eric Rudolph [Wikipedia profile] was sentenced Monday to life in prison without parole for his role in the 1998 bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama [Court TV backgrounder]. Rudolph has also pleaded guilty to three bombings in the Atlanta area, including an attack at the 1996 Summer Olympics. Victims of the Birmingham attack spoke out at Monday's sentencing [AP report]. AP has more.


text:
|You are in: World: Americas
Wednesday, 7 November, 2001, 19:47 GMT
US 'hopeful' anthrax scare over
Tom Ridge, the US Homeland Security Director, has told journalists he is "hopeful" the anthrax outbreak is over.
"I am hopeful, like the rest of America, that the anthrax has stopped permanently...We certainly haven't seen or detected any other sources of new anthrax," he said.
But he admitted the US authorities have so far been unable to discover who is responsible for the anthrax attacks, which have killed four people in the past month.
"We have not ruled out whether this was the act of an individual, or a collective act, whether it was a domestic source or a foreign source," Mr Ridge added.
"Hopefully one of these days we'll be able to answer both questions. Today we're not."
Three of the deaths have been traced to handling contaminated mail, but the fourth, that of a New York hospital worker, remains unexplained.
Thirteen other cases of the disease have been reported, most of them among people who handled mail addressed to media or government offices.
Mr Ridge said the investigation was being pursued "aggressively", but gave no new information.
He said the US would remain on the alert for more attacks "indefinitely".
Earlier, the US authorities said tests carried out on suspected anthrax traces in the US consulate in the Pakistani city of Lahore had proved negative.
The suspect sample was sent back to the US for testing on Monday night, but this had conclusively proved the substance was not anthrax.
Anthrax has been confirmed at three US overseas missions - in the Peruvian capital, Lima, in Vilnius, Lithuania and Yekaterinburg in Russia - since the discovery of spores in several State Department mailrooms on 29 October.
Smallpox vaccinations
Meanwhile, about 140 US health officials have been vaccinated against smallpox, amid warnings that it could also be used as a biological weapon.
Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the US had to be on its guard against possible attacks using the highly contagious smallpox virus.
Technically eradicated in 1979, the smallpox virus can easily be passed from person to person.
See also:
04 Nov 01 | Americas
Anthrax cases baffle investigators
01 Nov 01 | Americas
Anthrax kills fourth American
31 Oct 01 | Americas
Cost of anthrax attacks 'surges'
27 Oct 01 | Americas
Anthrax found in Congress offices
Internet links:
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Top Americas stories now:
Links to more Americas stories are at the foot of the page.
Links to more Americas stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy


text:
Monday, November 3
Neil Cole's "Primal Fire: Reigniting the Church with the Five Gifts of Jesus"
I found the author's treatment of 1 Timothy 3 passage to be especially thought-provoking. Cole points out, for example, that some translators assume the role of 'overseer' in 3:1 to be an 'office' and hence, "stopped translating and started teaching something that Paul did not intend." In 3:8-13 I found his suggestion compelling that, "the roles of deacon and deaconess are the fulfillment of the equipping gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11—that is, deacons and deaconesses are the mature apostles, prophets , evangelists, shepherds, and teachers who equip the saints for the work of service." He goes on to state,
"From this perspective, an elder's role is less broad in influence than that of a deacon or deaconess, and more focused on a specific spiritual family (what we would see as an oikos, which is a spiritual household of faith or a missional community). As such, the necessary abilities for the elder's role are more specifically defined, and teaching is essential to that more limited role. In contrast, perhaps deacons and deaconesses are capable of many more ministry assignments (five, to be specific) on a broader scale, only one of which would be as "teacher." That is, deacons may serve as apostles, prophets, evangelists, or shepherds."
I also resonated with the description of apostles and prophets (AP) being the START AND GO team, while evangelists, shepherds and teachers make up the STAY AND GROW team building upon the foundation set by the AP team. If you've ever wondered about what each of these five functions entail, this book does a wonderful job in spelling out how these work together and how each is needed.
The book repeatedly emphasizes something I have long believed and taught others, that each of the APEST are there to equip the saints for the work of service. They do not exist to be DOING the work themselves, but "for the EQUIPPING OF THE SAINTS for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." Since this goal has not yet been reached, there is still the ongoing need of modern apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers to be about the appointed tasks. Cole does a good job in pointing out counterfeits to the real thing.
All in all, this is an excellent and much needed read for the greater Body of Christ, especially those in church leadership roles. We need to get back into a more Biblical balance in regards to being servants first and foremost.
3 comments:
Love Neil's book! Here are some quotes from Primal Fire that impacted me! http://stevesimms.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/a-few-quotes-from-neil-coles-primal-fire/
- 8:17 AM, November 06, 2014
- Tim A said...
I have not read the book yet but have been seeing the need to reconsider the traditional thoughts that only these 5 gifts are equipping gifts. This is a key passage of those who separate believers into different classes or casts of ministry. Leaders vs followers, equippers vs doers and builders. This thinking assumes this is a limited list of gifts in this text. None of the other lists of gifts are limited or seen as a complete list. Why limit this one only to the gifts listed? If we consider all the gifts, are they not all for equipping there rest of the body to do well what they are gifted in?
There are scriptural instructions for believers to work and do ministry in every area that there is a gift regardless of whether they have that gift. Every believer is instructed to grow in mercy or giving or evangelism or teaching regardless of whether they have that gift or not. How does every believer grow in every gift ministry? Those gifted equip the rest to grow in that arena. The gift of mercy equips the evangelist grow in mercy. The gift of giving equips the gift of pastor to be a better giver. The gift of encouragement helps the teacher to grow in encouragement. The gift of leadership helps the gift of mercy grow in leading others. - And on and on.
Tradition uses the gifts to carve out compartmentalized territories for some to be in the compartment and the rest to be out of it. Such as: The gift of mercy should never teach. The gift of service should never lead, etc.
Gift = compartment seems to be very limiting and a gross contradiction of the cross pollinating and mutual equipping we see described in the scriptures. It gives believers not gifted in any gift an excuse to reject serving in areas thought to be not gifted or "enjoyed". I don't have that gift - I should not do that... Bob has that gift - let him do that.
Compartmentalization produces horrible mutuality and body building.
- 10:46 AM, December 12, 2014
- J. Guy Muse said...
Thanks for stopping by and for the comments. Interesting observations. I don't believe Neil is trying to discredit any gift. What I got out of the book is a clearer description of what the APEST gifts are about. I would encourage to pick up a copy of the book if you get a chance. I found the book quite encouraging.
- 10:59 AM, December 12, 2014


text:
Not that long ago, people only really knew Jane Lynch as one of those quirky actresses featured in those Christopher Guest movies like Best in Show, A Mighty Wind, and For Your Consideration. Years later, she became a household name playing the role of Coach Sue Sylvester in Glee. And this week in particular, she's everywhere.
Hollywood Game Night
On Tuesday, January 5, 2015, Jane Lynch began her fourth season of Hollywood Game Night on NBC. In 2013, the show began as an eight-week experiment where two contestants were teamed up with three celebrities each to play pop culture games in Jane's "living room" while a live band played in the hallway or somewhere. That first outing later firmed up the notion that the woman could host as well as she can act, and the show continues to get good ratings.
People's Choice Awards
On Wednesday, January 6, 2015, Lynch hosted the 2016 People's Choice Awards show. Lynch herself is a four-time nominee and won for Favorite TV Comedy Actress in 2011. While Jane's brassiness might not be appropriate for other award shows, she appeared to be a perfect fit for this one, as her skill for improv theater was used for good. On the heels of last month's "pageant-gate," where Steve Harvey accidentally awarded the wrong Miss Universe, Lynch took the opportunity to take shots at the Family Feud host during the broadcast.
The Huffington Post captured the event where Lynch said, "We're trying something new this year. This year, People's Choice Awards has picked one entertainer who, for whatever reason, has never won a People's Choice Award but who we believe is deserving of one. And this year, the award goes to the actor and comedian extraordinaire, star of The Odd Couple, ladies and gentlemen, Tom Lennon!" Faking shock and disbelief, Lennon accepted the award with grace and then was suddenly interrupted mid-speech by Lynch who said, "I'm sorry. I have to apologize here. First runner-up is Tom Lennon. The winner is Miss Colombia! … Listen, it's my fault, I didn't bother to come to dress rehearsal and man, I just read the card wrong."
Angel From Hell
Tonight, Thursday, January 7, 2015, Jane Lynch starred in her new comedy, Angel From Hell, and the reviews have been mixed, with headlines that include: "CBS' 'Angel From Hell' is Beyond Salvation" (Los Angeles Times), "Angel From Hell is Not Exactly Divine" (Variety), and "'Angel From Hell' is No Heavenly Trip" (USA Today). While the show is not exactly a new version of Touched By an Angel, not all of the reviews have been bad, and even those that are, they still say that watching the show would not be a complete waste of time:
"Well, I could tell you, or you could just watch 'Angel From Hell,' because it is Jane Lynch after all, and she's always worth watching," says Mary McNamara from The Los Angeles Times.
Amber Dowling from The Wrap rather liked the show's pilot episode.
"It's a perfect vehicle for Lynch's quick dialogue and delivery, as popularized by Sue Sylvester on 'Glee.' But whereas Sue was a crass character with few redeeming qualities, Lynch's softness is allowed to shine through more often as Amy, rendering her a less two-dimensional character than we've seen in the past. It's an important distinction to make, given Lynch's natural ability to overpower any scene she's in."
Still, Dowling fears that the wacky sitcom could have a short shelf life.
More Jane to Come
And if you still aren't burned out by watching Jane Lynch on the small screen, you can look forward to DVRing her appearing on ABC's The Chew on Wednesday, January 13 where she will share some her opinion on "Must Have Morning Meal Makeovers." (So now she's a chef too?)
So why is Jane more popular than ever? For starters, she is totally likeable. Sure, she can be snarky, but she is never mean. Lynch has a personality that can make others feel like they know her, when in reality they don't. She has no trouble making fun of herself and doesn't come across as a diva.
Ever since her first role as a candle in third grade, Lynch has proven that she has a natural talent to make people laugh. But Lynch can seriously act too. Her take as Julia Child's sister, Dorothy McWilliams, in 2009's Julie and Julia, almost stole the show.
In addition to her current work, Lynch has five other projects in the works including the upcoming Christopher Guest movie, Mascots, making a complete circle.
[Photo by Mike Windle/Getty Images]


text:
Many, many years ago, my cousin told me she made udon from homemade dashi. When I asked her about the taste, she said it added more depth to her broth and raved about how delicious it was. Dashi is a simple fish stock frequently used to cook any number of dishes like miso soup, namasu, oden, and katsudon. Dashi is a foundation, just like any other stock.
I grew up with instant dashi, which comes from a packet, in granule form. It never occurred to me to make it from scratch, so I was intrigued by my cousin's revelation. Could it make that much of a difference? Her comment stuck with me over the years, but I had no reason to make it from scratch…
Until I realized how easy dashi is to make! With only 3 ingredients—one of which is water—there is no reason not to make it at home. Instant dashi is only a little more convenient than homemade and often contains unwanted ingredients like MSG.
Compared to making other types of stock, this is a cinch. You just have to measure the dry ingredients and into the pot they go. I like to double the recipe and freeze a portion of it in plastic bags or containers, usually in 1 or 2-cup increments.
How does the taste compare? You'll have to make it, incorporate it into a recipe, and judge for yourself.
Basic Dashi
Makes about 3 ½ cups (850ml)
2 pieces of kombu, about 5 in (12–13 cm) each
0.7 oz (20g) katsuobushi
4.25 cups (1000ml) water
Wipe the kombu with a damp towel. Add it to a large pot with the water and turn the heat to high. If any impurities rise to the surface, quickly remove with a small strainer or paper towel. When small bubbles appear and the water is about to come to the surface, remove the kombu. Let the water come to a boil, then add the katsuobushi. Turn the heat off immediately. Lightly press the tips of your chopsticks into the katsuobushi in a few places, then let sit.
Let the katsuobushi fully sink to the bottom of the pot. Do not stir or agitate, as this will cloud the dashi. Place a strainer in a larger bowl and line it with a paper towel. Carefully pour the dashi through the strainer and into the bowl. Fold the paper towel over into a ball and press lightly to squeeze some of the remaining liquid out.
Adapted from 和食の基本.


text:
Application to Anoka Tech
If you prefer to submit a paper application, download and complete the PDF application form and send it to Anoka Technical College, 1355 West Highway 10, Anoka, MN 55303 Attention: Admissions.
Note: Students applying to the Practical Nursing program must submit a paper application and proof of prerequisites as one package to Admissions.
Graduation Application Used to apply for graduation and grant priority registration for students nearing graduation.
Find all Financial Aid forms here.


text:
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
McCain's Response to Obama's Speech
Tonight, John McCain published this response to Barack Obama's speech in Denver accepting the Democrats' nomination for president. The speech was "misleading" and "fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama." The speech's top six false claims are listed with proof of their falsity.
Obama's campaign is form over substance. And any underlying substance that it does have is glossed over so that his over-the-top liberalism doesn't shock the American electorate.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:31 PM 1 comments
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Pot Calls Kettle Black
Today in Denver, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to GOP presidential candidate John McCain as "kindly old Doc McCain" and accused him of attempting to apply an "18th Century Solution" to the "21st Century problem" of dependence on foreign oil. The Hill accurately described this as "a thinly veiled reference" to McCain's age.
Now, don't get me wrong, McCain's age is a legitimate concern. He's 71. That fact has me very, very interested in his choice of a running mate. But I think that its a bit out of place for 68-year-old Harry Reid to be the one playing the age card for the Democrats.
Maybe Reid is the only Democrat who doesn't remember what happened when folks questioned Ronald Reagan's ability to serve at the age of 73.
In his comments, Reid compared John McCain's (and most Republicans') call for more domestic oil drilling to a snake-oil sales pitch. Reid thinks that "the simple fact is that the promise of more oil isn't part of the solution, it's part of the problem."
No, Senator Reid, the simple fact is that the more oil America gets for itself by drilling within our own territory the less oil we will need to import. Another simple fact is that the more oil we have, the lower the price will be. The laws of supply and demand aren't snake oil.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:24 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Could you vote for a candidate who opposed a ban on infanticide?
. . . this question needs to be posed to anybody who is still thinking of voting for Barack Obama.
Andrew McCarthy wrote a powerful piece in National Review on then-State Senator Obama's pointed opposition to "Born Alive" legislation that stood to protect babies who were born living and breathing after failed attempts to abort them. (Read it here.)
That legislation came in response to the testimony of a nurse who described holding one such child in a closet waiting for this struggling human being to die. That same nurse also testified that one in five children aborted by early induction - with the plan that their underdeveloped bodies would not survive the trauma of birth - actually did survive birth but were simply discarded anyway and left to die.
I am sickened by the nurse's accounts - and shocked by Obama's opposition to a law to protect living, breathing, human beings - outside the womb.
So, seriously, ask any Obama supporter you know if they really want to vote for a man who supported infanticide.
Update . . . here's the link to a 2006 column on the subject from the nurse referenced above.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:15 PM 0 comments
The Commercial Obama Doesn't Want You to See
Barack Obama is outraged at a new advertisement being run by the American Issues Project. According to the Associated Press story, the Obama campaign has "warned" station managers and sought intervention from the Justice Department to prevent you and me from seeing it.
That was enough to pique my interest. The one minute spot criticizes Obama's association with William Ayers, a founder of the radical group The Weather Underground, which conducted terrorist activities in the 1960's including bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon.
Isn't a presidential candidate's association with a known and unrepentant terrorist isn't fair game, I'm not sure what is.
Since St. Louis stations may not be brave enough to run the ad - you may have to link here to see for yourself. Take a look. And, if you don't believe it, check out the documentation supporting the ad's veracity.
If Barack Obama doesn't want you to see this ad -
Click here to see it for yourself - or here for the documentation of the ad's truth.
I think that it is worth asking
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:13 PM 1 comments
Labels: Media, Presidential Politics
Monday, August 25, 2008
Joe Biden - The Pro-Choice "Catholic"
I'm not Catholic and I don't even play one on t.v. but I think that my Catholic friends would agree that my position on abortion is closer to the Vatican's than many prominent Catholic Democrat politicians.
My friend (and the guy who guest-hosts this blog when I'm away) The Tim Man has posted an excellent piece on the conflict between V.P.-nominee-to-be Joe Biden's Pro-Choice positions and his so-called Catholic faith. It is worth the read - link here.
Suffice it to say . . . the two don't mesh. Biden has sold out his faith (and possibly something else) for personal political gain within the Democratic Party.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:20 PM 1 comments
Communist Sportsmanship
Angel Matos of Cuba was disqualified from his bronze medal taekwondo match in the Beijing Olympics. He responded by kicking the referee in the mouth. (View photo progression here.) Matos and his coach have been banned from the Olympics for life.
Obviously Matos' actions crossed the line. Everybody would agree to that, right?
Not so fast. If you're a communist dictator (possibly retired), you stand in "total solidarity" with these thugs. As reported today at Breitbart, Fidel Castro issued an essay published by Cuba's state media expressing that solidarity and claiming that his country's athletes had been cheated throughout the games. This, of course, justifies a kick in the mouth.
If only somebody would have kicked Castro in the mouth a few dozen years ago the world would be a better place.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:37 PM 0 comments
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Little Bits About Biden
This weekend, Barack Obama selected Joe Biden to be his running mate . . . and Republicans cheered. Biden's a guy who has been running for president for decades and never garnered much support from anywhere. Even better, he's been honest and told the world that Obama is not ready for the presidency. "The presidency," he said, "is not something that lends itself to on the job training."
The GOP is also thrilled to have a verbose "gaffe machine" on the Democrats' ticket:
Biden showed his sensitivity to immigrants by saying that in his home state of Delaware "you can not go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."
Biden proudly claims that he could run well in the South because his state "was a slave state."
And, last but not least, Biden described Obama as "the first mainstream African-American candidate who's articulate and bright and clean and a nice-lookin' guy."
I'm surprised that I'm saying this but . . . John McCain's got a chance.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:53 PM 1 comments
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Poverty in St. Louis - but no change in leadership
St. Louis plays a role in a commentary posted by Glenn Beck today at CNN.com. (Many thanks to regular reader Dameon for alerting me to Beck's commentary.) Hit the link here to read the entire piece - it is well worth it - but here is the gist of it . . .
America's cities are becoming increasingly impoverished. Nearly one third of the residents of Detroit and Buffalo live beneath the poverty line. Those two cities have the highest percentage of people living in poverty but St. Louis isn't too far down the list at No. 6.
And despite the state of our cities, Democrats who year after year, decade after decade, offer the same old tried and failed "solutions" to poverty keep getting elected to big city halls. Detroit hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo hasn't since 1954. And St. Louis hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1949. 1949!
As Beck puts it, "if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens."
Would it be too much to ask for "change" and new leadership in St. Louis (and the country's other big cities) sometime this century?
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:41 PM 4 comments
Labels: Local Politics, National News
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Thank You President Bush
The American beach volleyball team of Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Treanor defeated the Chinese team of Jie Wang and Jia Tian 2-0 to complete a perfect Olympic tournament and win their second consecutive gold medal.
Interviewed immediately afterward, Walsh asked if she could say something, then looked straight at the camera and said, "Mr. President, thank you for your inspiration. Thank you for all you do."
And I thought that everyone hated George Bush. That's what the media and the Democrats keep telling me.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:09 PM 7 comments
Labels: Media, National News, Presidential Politics
McCain Takes The Lead!
Doing his best impression of American swimmer Jason Lezak, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has surged TWELVE points in the latest Reuters/Zogby poll, coming from 7 points down in July to lead Barack Obama by 5.
Keep up the good work Senator McCain! And don't blow your momentum by naming a "moderate" as your running mate.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 12:25 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Do Nothing Democrat Congress
Today's Wall Street Journal lashes out at this session of the United States Congress. So far, "our" representatives in Washington have passed fewer bills than any prior Congress in twenty years (apparently they don't keep records back further than that).
Given who is running Congress - the Democrats - I'm not at all disappointed that these folks aren't accomplishing much. But what must their constituencies think of them?
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 1:36 PM 0 comments
Labels: National Politics
The Ice Age is Coming
In spite of the "consensus" that the earth is warming, a scientist from the University of Mexico is now predicting that due to a decrease in solar activity, temperatures are actually going to drop in about ten years and the planet will experience a "little ice age" for a period of 60-80 years. That scientist, Velasco Herrera, said that predictions of global warming coming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are wrong because their mathematical models are flawed. Those models don't account for natural disasters, like volcanoes, or solar activity. (Link to story here.)
The scientific wheels are falling off the global warming bus - yet our politicians are still taking us all on the ride.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 1:21 PM 0 comments
Labels: Science
Monday, August 18, 2008
Obama Bias at the Washington Post
In a shocking development the Washington Post has admitted its own pro-Barack Obama bias. Ombudsman Deborah Howell noted yesterday that since June 4, Obama has had a 3 to 1 advantage in front page stories. He also leads McCain 142-96 in total stories. "The disparity is so wide," Howell wrote, "that it doesn't look good."
No, it doesn't. But what would you expect from Pravda on the Potomac?
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:11 PM 0 comments
Labels: Media, Presidential Politics
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Pro-"Choice" V.P. for McCain --- Just Say No
Tom Ridge, the former GOP governor of Pennsylvania, seems to want to be John McCain's running mate. Today on Fox News Sunday (as reported here by the Associated Press), Ridge stated his opinion that Republicans would accept a pro-abortion vice presidential candidate like Ridge. "At the end of the day," he said, "I think the Republican Party will be comfortable with whatever choice John [McCain] makes."
Ridge is wrong. Very wrong.
John McCain is 71 years old. If elected, he would be the oldest man to take office as President of the United States. The possibility of his selected V.P. taking over the presidency is significant - so significant that Ridge's assurances that any vice president would defer to the president's opinion is insufficient.
Because of the very real possibility that McCain's vice president could assume the presidency, McCain cannot name a pro-"choice" running mate. Not without turning off a huge chunk of the Republican voting base (me included) and giving the election to Barack Obama anyway.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:19 PM 4 comments
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Barack Obama is No Harry Truman
During his presidency, Harry Truman had a sign on his desk carrying the motto: "The Buck Stops Here." The sign, of course, symbolized that the chain of command went no further. Truman explained in his farewell address that "the President - whoever he is - has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job."
And that's the job that Barack Obama is running for. But in a televised interview today, Rev. Rick Warren asked Obama at what point an unborn child gets "human rights." Obama passed the buck stating that "whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity . . . is above my pay grade."
With all due respect, Senator Obama, there is no "pay grade" above the presidency. And if you are elected to that office and there is a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court during your term the buck is destined to stop with you.
Obama knows that, of course, but played the "I don't know" card because he was speaking to a group of Pro-Life evangelical Christians. He was and is trying to fudge the truth about his pro-abortion position enough to fool some of them into voting for him in November. Don't fall for it.
John McCain, asked the same question at the same event, chose to answer it. He said that a baby's human rights began "at the moment of conception."
If you're Pro-Life and the abortion issue matters to you, the buck stops with each of you in the voting booth this November. John McCain (whatever his faults) is the only choice you have.
(FYI - the photo above is actually the sign from President Truman's desk. The photo comes from this entry at the Harry S. Truman Library & Museum's website, which tells a bit more about the sign, if anyone is interested.)
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:58 PM 0 comments
Friday, August 15, 2008
Howard Dean playing the race card - badly
Howard Dean (you all remember the scream) is now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Today, he called the Republican Party the "white" party reasoning that "if you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the Republican party." (Listen here.)
Dean's play of the race card seems off base to me. Apparently he is not aware that Colin Powell is not white . . . Condoleezza Rice is not white . . . Clarence Thomas is not white. All three seem more successful than any minority Democrat since Thurgood Marshall.
Marshall, of course, was the last African-American Democrat to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court where Thomas now serves. Thomas, a Republican, was appointed by another member of the "white" party, George H.W. Bush. Democrat Bill Clinton, by the way, appointed two of the nine current justices and, last I checked, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are both white.
Powell and Rice, arguably, are more "successful" than any other African-Americans in history. As Secretary of State, Powell was and Rice now is fourth in line to the presidency. Since there has never been a minority President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, or President pro tempore of the Senate, and never before a black Secretary of State, these two Republicans rose higher than any minority Democrat ever did. And one of them is "even" a woman.
I also find it a bit ironic in this context that the white man directly ahead of Condoleezza Rice in the order of presidential succession is Senator Robert Byrd is a former Ku Klux Klan member, recruiter, and "Exalted Cyclops." But Byrd doesn't belong to the "white" party . . . he's a Democrat.
Powell, Rice, and Thomas are not the only minority Republicans who have achieved great success. They are simply three great examples to refute Howard Dean's latest stupid comments.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:16 PM 0 comments
Labels: National Politics, Race
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Soviet (Freudian Slip?) Update
Well, the Red Army now controls one third of the "sovereign" nation of Georgia. Russian tanks remain on the move and now threaten Georgia's second largest city.
And, Russian state radio - either reverting to old Soviet habits or perhaps learning from the American left - is blaming Dick Cheney for starting the war in South Ossetia. The Republican Party, led by Cheney, this Pravda-esque report claims, needs this war to stop Barack Obama from being elected president. (I don't think Tom Clancy or even Dan Brown could have come up with a plot that crazy.) No possible explanation for why the Russians fell for this obvious Cheney trap is proffered.
Blaming Cheney may just seem silly but that "silly" report contains a possibly ominous clue. A political scientist close to Russian Prime Minister a.k.a. Dictator Vladimir Putin is also claiming that the U.S. is "now engineering an armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia."
Georgia and Ukraine are both former republics of the Soviet Union. But the Russian bear is seen as a threat in Eastern Europe too. Their recent aggression has increased Polish fears of their old oppressors and pushed a long-stalled agreement to position an American missile defense system in Poland over the top. The Russians have reacted angrily, but so far limited that reaction to words.
The old cold war seems to be ramping back up these days. And the temperature seems to be rising steadily.
Does anybody really think that Barack Obama has the experience to handle a situation like this?
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:46 PM 2 comments
Labels: International, Presidential Politics
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Dr. Aafia Siddique - captured terrorist or just another victim of the evil Bush administration?
Alex Mayer at stltoday.com's The Platform wrote today about an ABC News story on the capture of Al Qaeda terrorist suspect and FBI most wanted woman Aafia Siddique. This M.I.T. and Brandeis University-educated woman was captured and arrested last month in Afghanistan. Before she could be questioned by Amercian soldiers and F.B.I. agents there she grabbed a soldier's weapon and began shooting. At the time, she was screaming "Allah Akbar" and shouting that she wanted to kill Americans. In addition, at the time of her arrest, Siddique was in possession of documents relating to weapons of mass destruction, maps of New York City and target lists, jars of chemicals, and a thumb drive containing e-mails between terrorist cells.
Nonetheless, Mayer reports, Siddique "has a legion of human-rights and Islamic activists who have rallied to her cause and who insist that she is an innocent victim."
Wake up and smell the fundamentalist-extremist coffee folks. The western world has enemies and this woman certainly appears to be one of them.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:25 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Steelman should endorse Hulshof - and now!
One week ago today, Kenny Hulshof won the Republican nomination for governor - defeating Sarah Steelman. Since then, Steelman has been silent. And it is starting to be noticed. See, for example, Chad Livengood's article in today's Springfield News-Leader.
The Missouri Republican Party needs to present a united front or Jay Nixon will be the next governor of the state.
MO GOP Executive Director Jared Craighead is quoted by Livengood saying that the state party doesn't "need to put on some sort of show" and that the candidates don't need to "hold hands and say we're united."
Craighead may be right about the need for a touchy-feely spectacle but Steelman needs to say something. Her supporters have to back Hulshof in November for him to have a chance. She should point out that her positions are much more closely aligned with Hulshof's than Nixon's and convince folks to get out an vote against Nixon - who would be an absolute disaster for the state.
Sarah Steelman should quit sulking and do her duty. The sooner the better.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:53 PM 0 comments
Monday, August 11, 2008
Obama's plan to buy votes from seniors falls flat
I've not met many tax cuts that I didn't like - but I have to point out Barack Obama's blatant attempt to buy the votes of senior citizens . . . even though that attempt is a dud.
In an Associated Press story, Andrew Taylor analyzes Barack Obama's plan to exempt seniors earning less than $50,000 a year from paying any federal income tax. Tax experts, think tanks, and even the AARP are critical of the plan. This tax break would, according to AARP, "only partly offset additional taxes that Obama would impose on older adults through higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains."
According to the experts, most of the seniors who could use some financial help are already paying no income tax - so this proposal wouldn't help them. But lots of retirees with "substantial assets" who don't earn over $50,000 because they don't need that much income anymore would get the largess.
But "cutting" taxes for seniors sounds good in a sound bite. And who looks at details anymore? Obama and the Democrats are hoping that nobody will realize that the money that he wants to put in their front pockets is coming out of their own back pockets - likely with a "small" transaction fee kept in Washington.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:26 PM 0 comments
Labels: Presidential Politics, Taxes
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Lonely Franken a typical Democrat . . . promises everything - but has no idea the cost
Comedian Al Franken is a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota. (I daresay this is one candidate less qualified for the office he's seeking than our friend Brock Olivo was for Congress.) His campaign hit Drudge Report today because he had a glorious campaign stop where one - yes one - person showed up to hear him speak in a roundtable on veterans' issues.
That makes the story funny in a laugh-at-Al Franken sort of way.
But the story tells a more valuable lesson about Democrats (and all too many Republicans) running for office. They'll promise anybody anything for a vote but have no idea how to implement it.
The story Drudge linked is from the St. Cloud Times (full story here) and reports: "Franken said he would work to guarantee every veteran health care for life by making full VA health care funding an untouchable entitlement in the budget, increasing funding for mental health treatment for veterans, and increasing pay and benefits for military personnel and families." But, now here's the good part, "he said he did not know how much the program would cost, or how he would pay for it."
Typical liberalism . . . promise everything to everyone with no concept of the cost. I think Franken is being just a bit dishonest in his ignorance, though. I think he knows how he'd pay for this . . . more taxes from taken from you and me. After all, he is a liberal Democrat and to them the American people are bottomless pit of revenue. And it really is the government's money anyway.
Always be on the lookout for promises of more federal money and more federal programs - the money has to come from somewhere.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:14 PM 0 comments
Labels: National Politics, Taxes
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Bill Clinton Speaks Out on Edwards Scandal
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:08 PM 0 comments
Labels: Humor, National News
Friday, August 8, 2008
Return of the Evil Empire?
In 1983, Ronald Reagan declared the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics an Evil Empire.
In 1991, that empire dissolved.
Today, Russia - the dominant force in the old U.S.S.R. - launched an invasion of South Ossetia, a disputed region in the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
Is the old Evil Empire making a comeback?
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:27 AM 4 comments
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Illinois' New Fundraiser
In a shocking development, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich told the truth.
He announced a plan to raise revenue by installing speed cameras on Interstate Highways throughout Illinois. The money grab is blatant and not even sugar-coated with claims to improve highway safety.
See Rod, it's not so hard to tell the truth.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:59 PM 0 comments
Labels: National News, Traffic Cameras
Censorship at Random House - Publisher of The Da Vinci Code doesn't want to offend Muslims
Random House has "postponed indefinitely" publication of The Jewel of Medina, a novel by Sherry Jones, which was due out on August 12. According to Reuters, the book "traces the life of A'isha from her engagement to Mohammed, when she was six, until the prophet's death."
Though the author claims to have "written respectfully about Islam and Mohammed," the publisher felt that the novel "might be offensive to some in the Muslim community" and pulled it. Random House also felt that the novel "could incite acts of violence."
Offending Muslims is verboten at Random House . . . but offending Catholics isn't. Random House, you see, published The Da Vinci Code. (Doubleday is the named publisher - but that's a division of Random House.)
I'm not Catholic and I don't even play one on television. I actually enjoyed The Da Vinci Code quite a lot. I don't really understand the offense taken either - it's just fiction everybody, not history after all - but, again, I'm not Catholic.
A large number of Catholics did find The Da Vinci Code offensive but that didn't keep and shouldn't have kept it from being published.
But the same goes here . . . even if Muslims find The Jewel of Medina offensive, that shouldn't keep it from being published. There should be no room for such a double standard.
Shame on Random House.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:12 PM 3 comments
Labels: Culture, First Amendment, Political Correctness
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Commission claims babies harm the economy
Australia's Productivity Commission (clearly not a reproductivity commission) has issued a report urging parents not to have more than two children. Kids, you see, don't work and don't pay taxes. They also seem to be causing mommies to stay home to care for them and keeping them from being "productive" citizens. By choosing to stay at home, these selfish women are "depressing the labour supply and reducing the taxation base." (Link to story.)
This story is a ridiculous example of egg-head bureaucrats with misplaced priorities. Children aren't economic resources. They're people. And parents don't choose to have children because of the financial benefit. In fact, they welcome children in spite of their significant costs.
It is also ridiculous to value only work outside the home. Mothers (or fathers) who choose to stay at home to care for their own children are providing significant value to those children and to society - whether or not that value shows up on a tax return.
Did the commission consider the economic effect of all the goods and services purchased for children? What about the money spent to keep them entertained? Fed? Clothed? Diapered? What about people buying new houses or moving to bigger apartments to have room for more kids? I doubt that any of that was considered. It doesn't fit the template.
The template seems these days that human beings are bad. We're destructive of nature and destroying the planet. The fewer of us - the better.
I have a suggestion for how people who think that there are too many people on the planet can have a direct impact on solving that "problem" themselves. But I think I'll keep that to myself.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:56 AM 3 comments
Labels: Culture, International
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Hulshof Declares Victory
The election was too close for Kenny Hulshof's comfort but he's defeated Sarah Steelman and earned the Republican nomination for governor. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Hulshof declared victory less than an hour ago. At this moment, the Secretary of State's official web-site is showing Hulshof leading by over 18,000 votes with just 16 precincts unreported.
Take tonight to celebrate Kenny. But set your sights on Jay Nixon tomorrow.
And Sarah, take tonight to be angry or despondent, whatever you feel like. But, for the sake of the state, please throw your support to Kenny tomorrow and help him defeat Nixon in November.
And take heart Republicans, Hulshof or Steelman garnered over 60,000 more votes today than Jay Nixon did. Victory in November is possible . . . but only if the GOP unites behind its candidate.
(By the way, if you're interested in any other Missouri election results, those too can be found at the Secretary of State's web-site . . . just hit this link.)
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:31 PM 2 comments
What's most predictable?
Jason Isringhausen blowing a save in the ninth?
A weather report from the Tamm Avenue overpass during a winter storm?
Or . . .
Dr. Ken Warren appearing on St. Louis television on election night?
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:12 PM 0 comments
Labels: Media
The Return of Ivan Drago
Today, it has been reported that the International Olympic Committee suspended seven Russian athletes and accused the "formerly" communist nation of "systematic doping."
The more things change . . . the more they stay the same.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 12:17 PM 0 comments
The Blogger's New Toy
Missouri had a tax holiday this past weekend and this blogger took advantage and purchased a new Apple Macbook. Admittedly, the purchase was not necessary but does allow me to take advantage of occasional downtimes in my days and lunchtimes for blog purposes. Free Wi-Fi makes me happy. I just finished a sandwich (Subway - Spicy Italian) while browsing the web and can tell you all about it instantly. This toy may cause my regular nightly postings to be more scattered throughout the day. And I may get more sleep at night.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 12:05 PM 0 comments
Monday, August 4, 2008
Widespread Support for Hulshof
Yesterday, I noted my support for Kenny Hulshof in tomorrow's Republican primary for governor. Just in case I can't convince you to support him, maybe the numerous endorsements from around the state will help you make up your mind . . .
In addition to earning "the support of every editorial board with which he and Sarah Steelman have visited," Kenny Hulshof has also earned the support of Senator Kit Bond, Congressman Roy Blunt, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, and Missouri Right to Life.
Kenny Hulshof is the right choice for Missouri.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:00 PM 0 comments
Sunday, August 3, 2008
I'm Voting for Hulshof on Tuesday
There are two good candidates on the Republican primary ballot for governor this year. Sarah Steelman is a political bulldog with a take-no-prisoners approach to campaigning. She deserves credit for the job she's done as Missouri's Treasurer. I believe that her position on ethanol mandates is correct, and her opponent's position is not. On the other hand, Steelman wrongly opposed tort reform when serving in the Missouri Senate. Nonetheless, she is a low-tax, pro-life conservative and would make a tremendous governor.
But I'm voting for Kenny Hulshof on Tuesday. Hulshof is a popular and accomplished Congressman from a diverse district. He's done a great job in Washington and deserves credit for that. I disagree with his position on ethanol but that is a trifle - since the mandate only kicks in when ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. My disagreement with him on that issue is less severe than my disagreement with Steelman on tort reform. Further, like Steelman, Hulshof is a low-tax, pro-life conservative. And I think that he would make an even better governor than she would.
These two candidates agree with each other much than they disagree. But Steelman started throwing punches early in the campaign. Her shots at a fellow Republican and fellow conservative soured me to her candidacy. She comes across as a typical politician - one willing to say or do anything, including throwing another good candidate under the bus - to get ahead.
Most importantly, listening throughout the campaign season to both candidates, Hulshof seems to be better prepared and better able to lead Missouri. He's simply better qualified.
I could understand a vote for Sarah Steelman for governor. And if she wins the nomination on Tuesday, I would have no difficulty voting for her in November. But on Tuesday, Kenny Hulshof has my vote and I hope that he gets yours too.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 11:08 PM 0 comments
Nuts On Parade Update - Not so many nuts paraded
Thanks to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, fewer nuts (and other private parts) were on display than expected on Saturday night as the World Naked Bicycle Ride hit St. Louis. The police had promised to enforce a city ordinance on indecent and lewd conduct. And according to the Associated Press story, officers "were on hand to ensure that riders wore the bare minimum, which included thongs, pasties, loin cloths, bathing suits and even body painting."
And though the AP reported hundreds of participants in this misguided protest, that appears inflated. The Political Fix blog on stltoday.com claimed there were "more than 1oo mostly-naked bikers," though with "gawkers, the crowed was easily larger than 300." The Belleville News-Democrat reported "dozens" of bikers.
With titillating aspect of this event curtailed by the police and a relatively small crowd appearing, this protest event really turned out to be a dud. My apologies to all for writing about it.
It does serve as a good reminder, though, that there are at least dozens (News-Democrat) and possibly hundreds of really unintelligent people out there who actually believe that a mindless protest makes a difference. Watch out for them. And when you see them, tell them about the wonders of California and New York. Maybe they'll move to be with their own kind.
Posted by St. Louis Conservative at 10:24 PM 0 comments
Labels: Local News
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)