Not that I’m a big Rudy fan, but this is one of the (few) reasons that I’m glad to no longer be in California.
California is one of the most blessed places on earth, in terms of climate and gorgeous scenery. It’s too bad that it was ruined by all the nutty (recent) Californians.
Re: Harry Reid & Co matching Rush’s E-Bay take for charity, more than a few readers have suggested the easiest way for the Dem Senators to match the funds would be for Hillary to arrange for some itinerant in Chinatown to “bundle” a quick four mil.
There was a World War II charity campaign called “Bundles for Britain”. Senator Clinton needs to launch “Bundles for Harry”.
The real point, of course, is that Rush is donating his own money. The entire Democrat philosophy, though, is to do charity with other peoples’ money.
[Saturday morning update]
Harry Reid and the Letter of Doom.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee disbands.
…90210?
At least for now. As expected, NASA has pulled the plug on their COTS contract, as a result of their inability to hit their funding milestones. Clark Lindsey has a link roundup.
I expect to find a lot more about what’s going on, and their prospects for getting back to focusing on the suborbital business, in New Mexico next week.
It was a little weird seeing Mark Whittington link to his spaghetti sauce recipe today, because this is very similar to my own, which I just happened to have made last night for the first time in months. The only difference is that I add a general Italian seasoning, lemon juice, some honey, and mushrooms. I also use pureed and whole plum tomatoes (canned) in addition to a can of sauce and a can of paste. And I use turkey Italian sausage, hot not sweet.
It’s also a good base sauce for lasagna.
[Afternoon update]
As a commenter notes, another key difference in mine is that I use fresh minced garlic, not powdered. Several cloves.
[One more update]
I also forgot bay leaves. Whole. And rosemary, fresh from the garden, if possible. We used to grow it in California (in fact, one of the residence hotels I stayed at in El Segundo last year had it growing on the hillside), but I’m not sure it does well in the Florida heat.
[Saturday afternoon update]
I just noticed that Mark writes that the sauce isn’t good for someone who is dieting. I’m not sure why he thinks that–it’s an excellent sauce from that standpoint–lots of protein, vegetables (in the form of onions, peppers, tomatoes) and not even a lot of fat if one has drained it off (I use olive oil to sautee things). Atkins would probably cheer it. The problem with it is not the sauce, but the pasta, which is a high-glycemic carbohydrate. I’d at least recommend whole-wheat…
As someone who lived in LA for a quarter of a century and knows a lot of writers (and not writers) there, including Rob Long, I found this piece hilarious. I hope you do as well.
Christopher Hitchens provides his thoughts on the subject, and some reviews of books about it.
I don’t think that this analysis is right:
Bowers theorizes: “[E]very single candidate has seen their numbers drop from the time when their candidacy was first announced or first rumored. After the announcement, people learn more about candidates and media criticism grows harsher. That might actually explain Clinton’s rise better than anything else, since she is so well known and opinions on her are so fixed that she had less to fear from the inevitable drop-off. In other words, that people have fixed opinions on her has actually been an asset, rather than a hindrance, to her campaign. … Clinton, by contrast, is a rock who has been through the meat grinder several times in the past. Things were not going to get worse for her, but they were going to get worse for everyone else.”
First of all, Hillary has never been through a meat grinder. At worst, she’s been scraped over a dull cheese grater, relative to what could have been done had the press been doing its job in the nineties. Also, her opponents aren’t going to bring up her sordid past, because as Democrats they were complicit throughout in covering it up, and completely accepted the corruption of the Clintons as the price for political power (the straw that broke the back of my support for Democrats for my lifetime, or at least until a new generation comes along that renounces the behavior of their forebears). And the Republicans and other foes of a Hillary candidacy (like me) are going to keep their powder dry until she is actually nominated, and lay down the most withering fire in the campaign, not over a year before the election.
One other point. Even if she had “been through a meat grinder,” that was then, and this is now, and there are a whole lot of voters who are unaware of the events of over a decade ago, because they were young and not paying much attention, or paying attention to only the salacious aspects, not the criminality and corruption. Now that young people get so much more information from the Internet, and the traditional media gatekeepers who protected the Clintons in the nineties have lost so much of their power, I suspect that we are going to be reintroduced to both of the real Clintons in the coming year, via people like the “Slick Grope Vets for Truth.”
I don’t think that this analysis is right:
Bowers theorizes: “[E]very single candidate has seen their numbers drop from the time when their candidacy was first announced or first rumored. After the announcement, people learn more about candidates and media criticism grows harsher. That might actually explain Clinton’s rise better than anything else, since she is so well known and opinions on her are so fixed that she had less to fear from the inevitable drop-off. In other words, that people have fixed opinions on her has actually been an asset, rather than a hindrance, to her campaign. … Clinton, by contrast, is a rock who has been through the meat grinder several times in the past. Things were not going to get worse for her, but they were going to get worse for everyone else.”
First of all, Hillary has never been through a meat grinder. At worst, she’s been scraped over a dull cheese grater, relative to what could have been done had the press been doing its job in the nineties. Also, her opponents aren’t going to bring up her sordid past, because as Democrats they were complicit throughout in covering it up, and completely accepted the corruption of the Clintons as the price for political power (the straw that broke the back of my support for Democrats for my lifetime, or at least until a new generation comes along that renounces the behavior of their forebears). And the Republicans and other foes of a Hillary candidacy (like me) are going to keep their powder dry until she is actually nominated, and lay down the most withering fire in the campaign, not over a year before the election.
One other point. Even if she had “been through a meat grinder,” that was then, and this is now, and there are a whole lot of voters who are unaware of the events of over a decade ago, because they were young and not paying much attention, or paying attention to only the salacious aspects, not the criminality and corruption. Now that young people get so much more information from the Internet, and the traditional media gatekeepers who protected the Clintons in the nineties have lost so much of their power, I suspect that we are going to be reintroduced to both of the real Clintons in the coming year, via people like the “Slick Grope Vets for Truth.”