daredevil muffin-y genius ([info]monanotlisa) wrote,
@ 2008-04-02 12:47:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:food, politics, recipe, us politics, wank

Links
Who says reading the flist isn't educational?

- [info]jwaneeta links to the thing we have all been waiting for: BREAD WANK.

Hilarious, isn't it? Then again, the only time I ever got close to a vocal argument with [info]witchsis, and also the only time family members raised their voices and stormed out of the room in a huff after our teenage years was when we we were in the kitchen together, baking or cooking: Srs bznss, indeed! It's fascinating to see so many people feeling so strongly about their recipes, methods, and ingredients--sure, yes, it's food, I'm a foodie, and all of us need that more than music or shows on tv...but still. Is it in part because we've grown so used to Doing It This Way (And No Other), since childhood if our parents taught us or since the eureka! moment at the stove if we're self-taught and proud of that?


- [info]fishsanwitt links to a few articles about John McCain. I confess I don't know half as much about him as I know about the Democratic candidates, and that isn't the most extensive knowledge ever either, but I know just enough to be vaguely confused about friends of mine who tell me they consider him a bright politician and could imagine voting for him--Germans and US-Americans alike. And no, not talking about Republican/CDU-FDP voters: I mean the usual (US-)liberal, moderate crowd.

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy."
Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You’ve stumped me."
Read more here.

([info]livredor, one element of this will interest you greatly...if not that many others, because seriously, who cares about boring, difficult things like science and fact-finding?)

John McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system, according to spending reports filed last week by the campaign.

The senator from Arizona has spent $58.4 million on his Republican primary effort. Those who have committed to public financing can spend no more than $54 million on their primary bid.

McCain's lawyers contend that the spending cap no longer applies. The senator was certified to enter the matching-funds program last year when he was starved for cash. But once he started to win, he decided to hold off. On Feb. 6, after his Super Tuesday victories, he wrote to the Federal Election Commission to announce he would withdraw. His lawyers said that gave him freedom to spend as much as he wanted.

- See the Boston Globe and the Washington Post.

(Sidenote: I do not nor will I ever, in a political context care about extra-marital affairs per se...but I do care about hypocrisy, lies, and deception.)

(Post a new comment)


[info]ladycat777
2008-04-02 01:10 pm UTC (link)
The thing with McCain is that there's the McCain-that-was -- circa 2000-ish -- when he was talking all the right moderate things. I would've loved to have him instead of George Bush, just because he a) actually had (has?) a brain, b) while he might have a temper, he isn't that ridiculously stubborn, and c) he seemed on the more moderate side. I seem to recall him being in favor of sex education in all it's forms, not just abstinence.

But that's what was. What is is very different. In 2004, McCain realized that he was going to have to get in bed with the religious right (whatever the hell that means, anymore) in order to win a Republican majority. He was never comfortable with it (Daily Show has a fantastic skit where they show Bush speaking to an assembly using a hymn or prayer or something I didn't recognize in his speech, to rile up the audience, then cuts to McCain trying to do the same thing and failing; Stewart claimed he didn't have the right code), and they certainly don't love him back, but discomfort aside, he did start saying things like "abstinence-only" and other things that frankly scare the crap out of me.

So there's a dilemma. Do we believe that once McCain is no longer shackled by the Bush/Cheney/Rove republican party, he'll revert to the man he was (seemed to be?) eight years ago? I would love to, because temper aside, the McCain of 2000 was one I could at least respect, whether or not I always agreed with him. However, I don't think that's the case. McCain has made a lot of deals with the devil over the past 8 years to retain any kind of face and prominence in his party and I think that's just put too much strain on him. I hope like hell I'm wrong, particularly if he wins -- but for me, the best example comes down to his handling of our inability to define torture (can I just say, that whole thing makes me cry; god, my country, what you've become). McCain is adamantly against torture, which makes sense given he's a Vietnam Vet who was a POW for a while and tortured himself. He's also aware, like most military men, that it doesn't work. It just doesn't. Even if you do get some kind of truth -- and usually, you do -- it's never all that reliable. So he was pretty vocal against Bush and his 'we don't torture, except in the way that i'm playing a semantic game because I'm the devil'.

At least, until it was clear that no one else in his party would back him, he couldn't rally enough support with the dems, and I suspect there was a very quiet closed door conversation with McCain, Rove, and the head of the Republican Party telling him to stfu already, if he wants to be able to run in '08. Deals were probably made, I've no idea what, but he very suddenly went mum on the torture issue for a while, and when he did start talking about it again, it was in support of Bush's idiocy.

So. Can he be who he was, eight years ago? Probably not. But the memory of who he was is pretty strong with a lot of liberal/democrats/whatever and it makes things tougher to decide.

Um, hi, rambling much?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 01:26 pm UTC (link)
But that's what was. What is is very different.

*nod*

I personally don't care if politicians change their views, as long as that is based on facts, reason, and thought processes in the right (i.e. not bat-shit crazy; I'll agree fiscal matters especially can be handled in different ways) direction. But McCain seems to have done everything but this.

In 2004, McCain realized that he was going to have to get in bed with the religious right (whatever the hell that means, anymore) in order to win a Republican majority. [...] he did start saying things like "abstinence-only" and other things that frankly scare the crap out of me. [...] Do we believe that once McCain is no longer shackled by the Bush/Cheney/Rove republican party

What makes me scratch my head is this very idea, actually: There is absolutely no way in hell that he will free himself from these shackles--it is not possible to switch out the whole system, every little crook in every position: I'm not just talking about the Cabinet or leading politicians but the classic administration (as opposed to the government part of the executive).

In a country where the *total replacement* of the de facto ruling caste of executive and judicative was strongly desired and proclaimed as the goal, it didn't work, not even a little. We Germans only realised that pretty late, and the factor was time and good will more than PR actions with figureheads only: You cannot, even if you want to, gut the structure that holds you up.

McCain (or any other leader in that position) depends on the machine running, and replacing cogs takes effort, wisdom, and supervision. Even if he wanted to (and I think he has no interest in replacing more than some key people the public, too, wants to see gone: very few), he just can't if he wants to function as a president.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ladycat777
2008-04-02 01:35 pm UTC (link)
There is absolutely no way in hell that he will free himself from these shackles--it is not possible to switch out the whole system,

Well, that's the thing. He's not switching out the whole system, not at all. He's switching out an ideology. Which is, technically, possible because if you look at the switch from Clinton's presidency to Bush's, that's exactly what happened.

Now, I have no idea of McCain's potential success for a variety of reasons, the first and foremost being that Bush has damaged the system of being the president, from prestige to the actual laws, and I don't know if McCain is the person to try to fix that or even if he wants to. But the concept of exchanging one ideology for another -- that's what the US style of government actually does.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 02:06 pm UTC (link)
He's switching out an ideology. Which is, technically, possible because if you look at the switch from Clinton's presidency to Bush's, that's exactly what happened.

Not the same thing at all, though--no matter what the country or exact system, cross-party switches will always clean it out much better--it's why I really, really wanted the SPD (Social Democracts) in North-Rhine Westphalia to be kicked out even though I vote for them on the Federal level all the time. But after ruling the State for countless years and years and years? About damn time.

This does not, of course, get rid of all dubious elements, people and beliefs, as I said, but at least something happens, some inherently necessary switching occurs.

McCain does not need to change in a meaningful way now, does he, especially not if he comes into power on fundamentalist, racist, and sexist votes (which, if he wins, is certainly what will have happened). And from what I see, severely doubt he wants to. (Oh, not on a personal level; he may very well curse the fundamentalists as much as we do. But I care not for what he thinks in his chamber, just as I didn't care whom Clinton-the-guy had oral sex with.)

You're right that actual ideology changes affect the whole structure, absolutely. But if he becomes president, I predict right here and right now that very little will change regarding the whole and all elements of the ideology in place. Power, corrupt, etc. pp.; far stronger and better people than this politician have cozily and lazily accepted might and not cared for what was right.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ladycat777
2008-04-02 02:13 pm UTC (link)
Okay, I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I don't actually disagree that McCain probably won't change anything at all: as distasteful as I suspect he found it at first, he's made his bed and I don't foresee him trying to change the sheets this far in. His current actions support that, too, as he's basically put himself forward as Bush-lite. Which, ew.

But you prefaced your post by saying you've seen a lot of people on your flist, a lot of them self-identifying as US libs/dems/whatever, showing cautious support for McCain and that's all I was talking to, this weird dichotomy he has between what he was then, what he is now, and what that might mean for his presidency, should he become one.

Because of who he was, a lot of people -- including me -- see the potential for him to be a lot better than Bush was and to actual fix some of the things that man has trashed. But it's just potential, based on things that may no longer have any political sway, but are still hard to ignore. I liked McCain. Hell, in a lot of ways, I still do.

But potential and actual are really different. I don't disagree with the actual, just that there was, and still might be, that potential for something different.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 02:23 pm UTC (link)
Ah, I see. And I thank you for clarifying and stopping my rants. & ;-)

I don't know his personality well enough for that; I cannot discount such a potential based on the past--I've seen him quoted talking about gay rights way back when, and that didn't raise my hackles, as it seemed fairly moderate.

Just from what I have recently read about him in newspapers (mine included) and online news sources, on top of my educational knowledge about the US system of government and my life experience regarding politics and politicians, I myself consider that a hopeful theory only that reality will dash all too quickly.

/.02€

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ladycat777
2008-04-02 02:28 pm UTC (link)
Okay, do you think I'm trying to be pro-McCain, or convince you to like him? I'm really not sure where you're going with this.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 02:36 pm UTC (link)
No, not at all; sorry for expressing myself unclearly.

I think you're explaining to me why Americans of liberal backgrounds have more hope and see potential in McCain; it's just that precisely because I lack any personal affection and (relatively; I know parts of the flist will disagree) positive memories of his political choices as a State Rep and a Senator for the State of Arizona, I can only rely on the factors I mentioned, and only on his choices right now as they reach me via media (which God knows may be wrong; I'm still reeling over the Wright thing, which was severely misrepresented).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ladycat777
2008-04-02 02:40 pm UTC (link)
Ah, okay. Because... yeah, I don't disagree with your assessment. Just because I have nostalgia doesn't mean I'm voting for him. I suspect most people who share this nostalgia -- and who knows how many do; this is just my theory as to why there's a general 'maybe' sense in a lot of dems -- aren't going to vote for him, either.

All it really means is, on a scale of one-to-Bush, I don't think McCain is the child of the anti-christ.

But for me? Me, I'm an Obama-girl :D

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 02:52 pm UTC (link)
All it really means is, on a scale of one-to-Bush, I don't think McCain is the child of the anti-christ.

Heh. I can see that and sign that.

(Obama girl here too.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]isiscolo
2008-04-02 02:39 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, what she said.

The thing is, the party system is so strong here that it's good to cultivate a reputation with the voters as a maverick, but it's also impossible to pass any legislation unless you play nice with them that brung you. Here in Colorado our recently-retired (4 years ago) Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell was elected as a Dem and switched parties shortly thereafter. He did his best to uphold the image of the totally moderate long-haired guy who had a lot in common with both parties, but in reality he voted with the GOP most of the time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ladycat777
2008-04-02 02:45 pm UTC (link)
the party system is so strong here that it's good to cultivate a reputation with the voters as a maverick, but it's also impossible to pass any legislation unless you play nice with them that brung you.

*nodnodnod* Yeah, exactly. McCain of 8 years ago had (at least, it seemed to me) a lot less ties to specific parts of his party. Now? Now, even if he wanted to change his spots, I think the henna has turned into actual ink. They ain't coming off.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 02:46 pm UTC (link)
it's also impossible to pass any legislation unless you play nice with them that brung you.

Isn't that the case in most places? & :-) Admittedly, my most direct insights into this pertain to local politics where I was an interested spectator for quite a while, during my late teens; this must be much worse a problem in constituencies with absolute majorities--more balanced parliaments would allow for more flexibility, cross-party voting or even alliances, especially in multi-party systems.

Here in Colorado our recently-retired (4 years ago) Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell was elected as a Dem and switched parties shortly thereafter. He did his best to uphold the image of the totally moderate long-haired guy who had a lot in common with both parties, but in reality he voted with the GOP most of the time.

Yeah--selling yourself and actual voting processes don't often align; that's not a Republican problem only, of course.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]athena25
2008-04-02 01:14 pm UTC (link)
Everyone knows, in their heart-of-hearts that their recipie for Whatever is the "correct" one, the Holy Grail of Muffins or the Platonic Ideal of Jam. Usually this is based on some form of "tradition" ranging from neolithic excavations of cookery implements or how Mum Did It.

I will hold my hand up and say that I am just as guilty of this as anyone else, but there's foodyness and there's just plain rudeness. I know that my chilli is the best chilli in the land but I'm not about to be mean about anyone else's, or I may never get to eat it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 01:54 pm UTC (link)
the Holy Grail of Muffins or the Platonic Ideal of Jam. Usually this is based on some form of "tradition" ranging from neolithic excavations of cookery implements or how Mum Did It. /span>

Hah! Absolutely, yes.

But that's more about how we frame and explain our belief in the sublime perfection of our very own muffins, jams, and chillis, isn't it? The underlying motive seems much more emotional, maybe even primal. & ;-)

I know that my chilli is the best chilli in the land but I'm not about to be mean about anyone else's, or I may never get to eat it.

Good (and sensible) thinking!

I snark (read: am mean) about Christmas Cookies Certain Other People Bake every year, but then again, I have no interest in eating them and really don't because I personally find that their taste & consistency make the baby Jesus in the manger cry. But I do confine that private mockery to my own lj and don't troll lj communities or any other fora, nor do I tell these other people that and why I think their baked goods, dishes, or recipes, are lacking.

That said, if friends actually solicit my opinion? I'll kindly ask back if they want an honest answer, and in case of an affirmative response, for it, just as I'd expect them to do. In your case, that's always been easy and pleasant 'cause I've never eaten anything you prepared that didn't taste great. & :-)

I guess I'm an elitist here as much as I am in other areas of life: Some people are more talented and/or practised than others in the kitchen (and I don't think I am a spectacular cook at all; I'm merely a decent-enough baker), and while individual taste must be taken into account, it's not just "all subjective." Some things are, absolutely, and I think methods and tools especially may vary (I like trying out simpler, quicker ways all the time), but as for ingredients especially, there will always be an objective difference, no matter if and how people perceive that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]isiscolo
2008-04-02 02:44 pm UTC (link)
Um. Yeah. I am staying far away from that breadwank because honestly, to a large extent I agree with the UR DOIN IT WRONG rude guy - the sugar and eggwash and the technique (and wtf microwaving?) really do make it not genuinely French bread (although I would certainly not say it's "not bread" - that's silly!) and I would feel honor-bound to point that out.

But I'd do it more politely, by giving my own recipe and explaining the differences, perhaps, and mentioning the kind of results one would get with the different methods, and naturally some people perhaps prefer squishier bread and so authentic French bread isn't really what they want.

(And I'd probably still cause wank. So, stepping away from the keyboard... :-)

Edited at 2008-04-02 02:44 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 02:50 pm UTC (link)
Hee! As someone who was just being my elitist foodie self in my tl;dr response to Athena, I can only nod--microwaving is clearly frowned upon, and sugar isn't what I'd ever put in this kind of bread.

But bread it is, still. Just not as pure as you and I wish it to be. & ;-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 02:57 pm UTC (link)
...wish it to be in this case, I mean. I embrace the wide variety of breads worldwide, even though I myself may only favour a few (thin-sliced 100% whole-wheat rye, mmh, genuine Ciabatta, freshly-baked Hefestuten, OMG!1!!!).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 03:02 pm UTC (link)
Also, I just realise you are most likely a fellow appreciater...tress! of Less Squishy Bread!

I now want a bread icon. & :-/ Maybe I can take a picture of my next lunch (of the aforementioned rye bread slices, lightly toasted, with French goat's cheese).



(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]isiscolo
2008-04-02 10:38 pm UTC (link)
Oh, yes. In fact today we finished off the multigrain loaf - we have an awesome bakery in town called simply "Bread" - and it's unsquishable and delicious. The thing is, because it's so dense with so much stuff in it, you can slice it really thin, so I usually do. While I was off at [info]bitchinparty my husband, apparently, thought it was normal bread and made a sandwich with normal-thickness slices - and couldn't finish it!

I actually find Ciabatta a little too squishy for my taste. I love the Pain Campagne that Bread makes (I used to make it myself but they do a fine job!) and also their sesame semolina, which is a sturdy yellowish bread that makes amazing French toast.

I used to bake bread a lot (and always did on the boat) but with a great bakery nearby I don't any more - although as prices have risen ($5/loaf, WTF?!) I might have to again! Also, they don't make a rye, and coarse whole wheat rye is SO GOOD. (I have Bernard Clayton's Breads of France book, which is AWESOME. And, er, lots of the recipes include things other than the sacred four ingredients - but Pain Ordinaire, of course, does not.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]jwaneeta
2008-04-02 06:41 pm UTC (link)
- jwaneeta links to the thing we have all been waiting for: BREAD WANK.

It's so... elemental, isn't it? The staff of life itself, and the undying compulsion to wank on the internets made one.

As for McCain, he's just another Republican simp who might have started life as a man, but who's sold his soul for a crack at power. If he thinks he can diddle around with that demonic machine now and yet be free of it in the oval office, he's a fool.

Edited at 2008-04-02 06:42 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-04-02 07:11 pm UTC (link)
As for McCain, he's just another Republican simp who might have started life as a man, but who's sold his soul for a crack at power. If he thinks he can diddle around with that demonic machine now and yet be free of it in the oval office, he's a fool.

You summed up my side of the discussion with Ladycat in two (slightly more, uh, inflammatory) sentences! \o/

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]thisficklemob
2008-04-03 06:32 pm UTC (link)
That bread wank was hilarious. Especially the commenter's insistence on yeast as an ingredient in bread. Some people, when they say "bread", mean pita or other flatbread... but what do they know, they're only from the region where grain was first cultivated. :p

John McCain is a tool, and Democrats who think otherwise have been snowed by the "moderate" "maverick" BS fed to us by the media. I think some of them are bluffing on what they'll do if their favored candidate doesn't get the nomination. We have time to work on them, at least. Maybe show them this.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…