Friends

Fireworks of the now!!

Best way to spend American Independence day

Moved fireworks viewing location. DO NOT WANT. :o(

Fireworks viewing spot of the now. So hot! I can has cabana boy with umbrella?

For Mr. Madison - Danity Kane!!! (does u has a first aid kit handy?)

Michael Jackson's 'Gotta Be Startin' Somethin' video...wtf??

Spotted: 3 hot, hung dudes in the bathroom side by side - menage-hot!! XOXO

Bar of the now - Graffitis in Stevens Point!

Here we are with a theme Friday: FOOD!  Here we share recipes and pictures of things we make in the kitchen, mostly from scratch.  So, if you're throwing some tater tots in the oven for a picnic or grabbing premade burger patties...this isn't the place for you.

We're starting simple today since this one ingredient can be used in a lot of different ways.  Simple, plain Ranch Salad Dressing.

1/2 cup nonfat plain yogurt OR 1/3 cup nonfat Greek style yogurt
1/3 cup lowfat buttermilk
3 tablespoons mayonnaise
1 1/2 teaspoons lemon juice
1 teaspoon Dijoon mustard
1/2 teaspoon onion powder
1/4 teaspoon garlic powder
1 tablespoon finely chopped fresh chives
Salt to taste

If using plain yogurt, place it in a strainer lined with a paper towel.
Place strainer over a bowl. Let the yogurt drain and thicken for 20 minutes.
In a medium bowl, combine the strained or Greek-style yogurt and the rest of the ingredients.
Add salt to taste.

* Note 1: I'm not a photographer.  Therefore, the pictures for this feature may not be the best.
* Note 2: I found this recipe on line.  It is not an original concoction.

But I need more votes! Please vote with multiple e-mails :)

( Read more... )

Oh how politicians love to pander for a stinking vote.  By now, we've all heard the presumptive Democratic nominee's speech about expanding the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.  And we're read the incorrect AP story regarding new provisions from the office.  And we've seen the video of the actual speech and what Obama actually did say.

(For the record, President Bush would allow religious organizations to hire and fire based on religious beliefs while Senator Obama would restrict that rule to organizations who do not receive tax payer money.) 

Now, Obama would also support the application of anti-gay discrimination hiring laws.  It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?  Why should a federally funded-even if in part-program be able to discriminate based on beliefs or orientation?

But all this begs a question: why?  A program that has come under attack from the very people who worked inside it.  A program which clearly crosses the separation of church and state.  A program destined to fail as long as the senator keeps to these provisions.  Churches recoil in horror at the mere thought of two men getting married, let alone marrying them inside the church proper.  They are terrified the gays are going to begin banging down the doors to get in for a ceremony.  What in the world makes Mr. Obama think any substantial percentage of them are going to go along for this particular ride?

They won't.  Churches, by and large, want to be autonomous from the rest of the world.  (As they should, by the way.)  Unless, of course, their viewpoint is being infringed, at which time the government should step in and protect them.  They're the ones leading the anti-gay marriage fight.  They're the ones wanting to tell women how to live their lives.  They want to be injected back into the school and direct policy there because they, evidently, know what is right.

Which leads to a bigger problem, of course.  If Obama is elected in November and if he expands the program, what happens to the separation of church and state?  This concept originated with Thomas Jefferson way back in 1802.  The Supreme Court has upheld it at various times in history.  If the White House (part of the government, last time I checked) creates an organization based on faith (read: religion), had federal money pay for this program in some way, shape or form and has this organization help people, where is the separation? 

If I shouldfind myself out of work, out of money and out on the street, would I still be able to go to a religious charity which gets money from the government, wear every piece of FLAMING GAY clothing I might still own and not be treated any differently from anyone else?  Is there going to be an impartial government observer at every charity or church making sure this doesn't happen?  Senator, this is needlessly expanding the federal government's role in our everyday lives, not helping people.  Want to actually have charities work?  The government provides no funding.  It is done, rather, through local food drives and donations, volunteers and businesses who might want to help. 

You yourself said it in the speech.  Grass roots organizations are better at this type of thing than government ever could be.  Of course they are.  They're smaller, and, by necessity, better with money because they have so very little of it.  Does a millionaire necessarily worry about the price of a gallon of milk?  $2.50, $2.99, $3.19...what's a .69 difference for someone with a six figure bank account?  But look at the regular working class person.  A .69 change in the price of a food staple adds up over the course of a month.  It's a change Mom and Pop will notice as if slowly affects what else they can do (or feel comfortable with doing) with their money.   

It should be noted here there are safeguards in place designed to make sure the charities and churches don't discriminate, but who are we kidding?  To ask shoe-string organizations to keep separate checkbooks and/or savings accounts to make sure federal money doesn't get put into a pot from which hiring (based on religion) is done is a pipe dream.  As in, not going to happen.  As in, lip service to an idea designed to placate the people who would oppose it.

Is there any real expectation money is going to divided and used for its intended purpose (or not for restricted purposes)?  What churches and church goers do, by and large, is preach and prostylize and try to convert.  It is in their very nature.  So by saying federal money can't be used for these things is like giving wine to an alcoholic with the proviso it is used for cooking, not drinking.  They won't be able to help themselves.  We all know it.  Whether we want to admit it or not is something completely different. 

Mr. Obama, coupled with last week's FISA vote and now this, don't you feel like you're biting the hand that feeds you?  Don't get me wrong: reaching out to new voters is a good thing, but not at the expense of your old ones.  You can not and should not leave the people who voted for you in the primaries and will vote for you in the general election out to dry.  And that's exactly what this is: it's pandering of the worst kind to a traditionally Republican voting block.  Is it any wonder the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives came into being under President Bush in 2001 and not a single president before him had created it?  Why do you insist on moving closer to this particular nutbag-and, by extension, John McCain-when it is not good for you politically? 

Why is it you now support the FISA bill with retroactive immunity for companies who illegally spied on American citizens?  Just because Bush did it does not make it right or legal or even moral.  Not in the name of keeping America safe.  Not in the name of stopping terrorism.  American presidents have kept this country safe from all manner of terrorism and violence without infringing on the rights of American citizens.  That's the truth.  President Bush put incompetent people in charge of crucial government organizations before and after 9/11, disregarded any and all advice and found the World Trade Center collapsed on him.  That's the truth.  Going to a judge, getting a warrant and then wiretapping conversations is the non-partisan way to do it.  That's the truth.

The silver lining here is that lawsuits could be brought against the telecoms, perhaps an olive branch to the left wing supporters he knows he has pissed off.  Maybe that's what he's holding out for.

Regardless, senator, moving toward the center isn't going to make the race-baiting, fact-creating monkeys at Fox News love you.  It's not going to make the people who insist you are a Muslim vote for you.  It's not going to change the complexion of your skin.  No, sir.  Both of these moves make you look unfocused and wishy-washy, not to mention paint you as a flip-flopper.  You do understand that, right?  All in the name of a few extra votes, senator?  Honestly?  I have to believe you're smarter than that.  For every more centrist, more Republican idea you come up with, the more chance you stand of hemorrhaging Democratic voters.  Is that really what you want?

Okay, so I'm vain enough to Google my entire name once a week or so, just to see who might be talking about me behind my back.  Usually, there's a shit load of links to IMDb and DVDTown...all to be expected.  I was bitched about last summer with my review of Ratatouille and then again late last year with giving a "synopsis" review of National Treasure: Book of Secrets. 

Mind you, none of these people decided to contact me directly or comment on the review at DVDTown at the time. 

However, in today's Google search, I find a brand new entry under my name.

Ready for it?

Over at AVS Forum, there is a discussion about your favorite HD [high definition] reviewer.

Somehow, I rated a mention...as least favorite reviewer...all based on my Hancock review.  My name and accompanying information has since been taken down, but here's a transcript:

This doesn't really count for HD, but I do have a new least favorite reviewer - Jason P. Vargo from DVDtown.  If anyone's interested, check out this review for Hancock.

http://www.dvdtown.com/news/theatrical-review-of-hancock/5673

I obviously have not seen the movie yet, so I can't say whether or not I like it, but I think this guy missed the point by a mile.  He complains that Hancock uses naughty language that is hurtful and inappropriate for no reason.  Umm, isn't he supposed to be a jerk???

I wonder what these liberal d-bags would think if they reviewed an older film from before the time of political correctness, like Blazing Saddles.   I'm sure Jason Vargo would think that those town people are very mean for calling that African American sheriff a mean name:rolleyes:  UGH!!!

Of course, I didn't save my response and since this was an off-topic conversation, it was all deleted. 

Still, it's nice to know someone is reading and that I'm a liberal douchebag. 

So sue me.  We all have our types and those types can change in an instant.  Someone new catches our fancy, we latch on.  Then an even newer someone strolls by and we become infatuated.  And so on.  From the classic last week (James Dean), we jump into a classic in the making, courtesy of Colin Hanks, seen most publicly earlier this year in Untraceable.  I know he'll float at least one person's boat here.  Anyone else?

( Saving Friends Pages One Friend At A time )

Mad Bat Men see a Brown with a particular Vantage Point.

This Week on DVD and Blu-Ray July 1, 2008

Originally posted on themovierambler.vox.com

dosnt
heal everything
neither does space