OT: fighting for freedom

[Zubivka]

Don't take this too seriously (or personally, Zoob).

I hope that this time I did not appear overly serious, even if I don't have Walden's talent. Also, I guess that the Froonchmon in duty gets to appear more uptight in such issue, whatever the bells and whistles he'll shake... Note that the most shocked by the issue is not French but a true, rooted Luxemburgerin, and it will give you a glimpse of European approach...
This said and signed, I really take all of above as a good-humoured thread, and wrote most I posted(*) tongue-in-cheek

* Except the bit about democracies.
Here, I can only partly agree with you, Jim. Agree with what can be seen, do not with what can be done. The democracy as described by Sir W. Churchill was that of the odd British system of his time anyway.
All of contemporary democracies, though to various extents, are perverted too. Not by inheired lordship and queens, but by a mechanism of outbidding by advertising/hype/disinformation [circle one] i.e. money, where should be a debate of ideas.
This distortion of democracy has been known ever since Athens as ploutocracy. We're all in it up to the ears, and governed by ploutocrats. The few mavericks which get through are immediately labelled "populists" (see Brazil, Venezuela). It's not fate, it's structural. Fatum can't be altered, Constitutions--and more precisely, their election and fundings regulations--can.

[Celtoid]

There are so many brain-dead people about these days that it seems a virus of some sort is spreading across the nation. Hey, let's give up all the Enlightenment ideas we got from the French while we are at it. Get rid of the French staff system we use in the armed forces, half of our language, much of the art and music heritage and all the best food. French fries are not french and are really Belgian, and I never saw anyone in France eat French toast for breakfast. Close up all the MacDonalds restaurants in France and bring the boys home (please). Give the Louisianna territory back. Hey, lets put all the Francophiles, Francophones and Frankincense in detention now. Target anyone who is named Frank or acts frank...my name is Jean-Michel Simoneau, I am now a Freedom-American I suppose, well, eat me.

[herbivore12]

Yes, I agree with Jim. This is democracy in action.

[lots of thoughtful stuff snipped]

The political
track record of intellectuals in the last
century is appalling. The idiots saved us.

While I agree with much of what Jim posted here, I'm still going to try to vote for the smart guys, whenever possible. . .

I don't think much should be made of these misguided congressmembers' propaganda move; they look a bit foolish, our European friends get to roll their eyes at the event, and people will still be eating deep-fried taters. However, I do wish our representatives would spend a little more time on the issues on which they presumably won election (say, solving social problems, improving education, and so on) than on gestures like this one. If I were a member, I'd feel sort of obligated to work on the big matters.

Which means I probably wouldn't be re-elected. Oy.

You know, we could honor more than just the French with re-named cuisine, if we're going to recognize all the dissenting nations. How about Liberty Chicken Salad in honor of the Chinese? We could re-name other things for other dissenting states, too: we can play Frontier Roulette with Russia, and train Vigilant Shepherds to protect our homes.

It's a good thing we're re-naming ethnic food, and not striking it from our menus altogether. We'd be some pawrful hongry 'mericans.

[jim stone]

Permit me two more comments:

First, Churchill describes how the seeds of WWII were
planted at the punitive Treaty of Versailles, and he
lays the blame largely on democracy. In the past the
treaty would have been framed by professional
diplomats from all sides who would speak to each
other quite frankly and frame something workable.
But this time the governments were answerable
to the masses of people, who were looking over the
diplomat's shoulders, as it were, and the
people wanted vengeance. We do pay a substantial
price for democracy, in fact.

Second, Jim Mc was quite apt in pointing out
that the Republican party tries to get votes
in part by posturing toward 'patriots,' rednecks,
even racists.

By contrast, the left wing in America sometimes tries to
get votes by posturing in the direction of
elitists, people who believe that those on the other
side of the issues are their moral, and especially,
their intellectual, inferiors. For such people,
the model of a statesperson is the intellectual,
the articulate, highly educated, very bright
and idealistic indiividual--Jimmy Carter,
Woodrow Wilson. They ridicule as stupid
politicians who don't fit the model--who would
never wash as intellectuals, college professors,
etc. Ronald Reagan was a butt of such
ridicule.

I think there is a real difficulty here, because
people who are very good at wielding power
often aren't intellectuals.
The intelligence of the general, the football
coach, the person who has an almost inchoate
feeling for what happens when economiic,
political, and military forces are opposed,
isn't on the map for left wingers.
Being very good with ideas isn't the same thing.

I was involved in the nuclear deterrence and
disarmament debates in the 80s, and I watched
amazed as the bumpkins and idiots slowly
forced the Soviet Union to end its
nuclear buildup in Europe, and then
brought about deep cuts in the offensive
weaponry on both sides. Finally George Bush,
Sr. made still deeper unilateral cuts in our
own nuclear arsenal, because 'we don't
need these weapons anymore.' Meanwhile
the intellectuals, the left-wingers and the professors advocated
wonderfully articulated policies that might well have resulted
in a nuclear war--I believe the Soviet Union would
still be there, if they had had their way.

The people who ought to lead may not
spell so well, they may seem bumbling
and inarticulate, they may say and
do some innocuously dumb things ('freedom fries'!!!!). I
wouldn't move too quickly to the conclusion
that they are not the people we need. Best

[jim_mc]

Jim, you're right about many things. The football coach is much more suited to lead us into battle than the ethics professor. It's all about focus. Jimmy Carter, arguably the most intelligent and ethical U.S. president of the modern era, was a failure as president. He didn't have the narrowness of focus to solve the problems most Americans thought were most pressing at the time. Reagan zeroed in on fixing the Soviet's wagon and strengthening the economy, and whether you agreed with his methods or not, he succeeded. Bush the elder, well, he was never too clear on what he was trying to accomplish and I think that's probably what cost him re-election. Clinton, despite his ethical shortcomings, came into office with the promise of spreading some of the Reagan era wealth down to the middle class, focused in on that and delivered. This Bush clearly has the ability to focus. He's practically undistractable from his ideas about the current situation. Did you see that in the press conference the other night? The question will become whether or not the cause he has chosen to focus in on will be a good one. I'd prefer he turned this energy on the economic situation.

[TubeDude]

Just say no to "F" fries.

[chas]

Get rid of the French staff system we use in the armed forces, half of our language, much of the art and music heritage and all the best food.

All the best food? Not in my opinion. Give me Indian, Thai, Mexican, Indonesian, Chinese, many American types (Cajun, BBQ, Tex-Mex), and even some ENGLISH food over just about anything French. In fact, just about anything over French food for me.

I'm sitting down to a good American dinner tonight -- fajitas. It's the first time I've fired up the barby in probably three months. I can't wait. Here's a recipe:

about a pound/half kilo of boneless chicken breast or flank/skirt steak (portabella mushrooms work too)
a few tbsp/a few tens of ml lime juice
a couple of tsp/10 ml or so crushed or minced chili peppers
a few tsp/10 ml or so Worcestershire
some vinegar if your chilis aren't pickeled

Marinate the chicken in the stuff overnight. It's a good idea to pound and score the chicken. The marinade should just about cover the meat; add more if necessary. (oh, and beef probably doesn't need to be marinated overnight, an hour or so usually works)

Grill over medium heat for a total of 20 minutes, turning three times. Ladle some of the marinade onto the meat as it cooks. (beef can be cooked less if you like it rare)

Meanwhile, cut an onion and bell pepper into strips. Heat a griddle, and, when the meat has about 5 minutes left, cook these in a little oil.

Have some finely diced tomato, shredded lettuce, grated cheese, sour cream/yogurt, salsa, chilis and whatever other garnishes you like handy.

Cut the meat into fine strips, and put meat, veggies, and garnishes on a warm flour tortilla. Wrap up and enjoy.

I'll be happy to try any French recipes people want to post (I don't cook with cream, though).

[Walden]

Give the Louisianna territory back.

If the Louisiana purhase is returned to France, which includes the present lands of the Cherokee Nation, will the Cherokee people be restored their original homeland?

[Zubivka]

Woostershire sauce in fajitas?
Why? Out of Nuoc-mam?
Well I guess, yes, you can call that American diner food (though I think higher of American tables)
Call it Liberty Roll, and it will go down smooth with Victory Gin.

But don't brag you'd prefer English cuisine to ours! It's like advocating war, but afar from the battlefield. Won't you hear a veteran of English cuisine? I survived Vietnam, but nearly fell from a steak-and-kidney non-cuty pie

[Nanohedron]

Jeez, I suppose I'll have to drop such terms as "elan" and "corps de rechange" from my usage now. And I thought they made me sound so dapper and brilliantly cosmopolitan...ah, me...whence rapprochement?

Hmm...can't figure out how to access the character map here at work; as ever, please instert mentally the appropriate accents.

Oh, yeah. That's right. I forgot. No need for accents if I've gone patriotically correct, right?

Seriously, I find it troubling that the Elected Ones make no pretense about wasting my tax money on pushing dreck like that. I'm all for patriotism, and I am a proud American -until innefectual jingoism makes me cringe from embarrasment. If people should suggest that my love of country is corrupt because I still obdurately say 'French toast', I will mock them.

*frenchtoastfrenchtoastfrenchtoastfrenchtoast*

There. I feel better now.

N

[Rando7]

Remember that about half of the world's population is of less than average intelligence. Those that live in the U.S. are entitled to their vote, or even to their chance to run for office. Courting portions of that voting bloc is an easy (if distasteful and somewhat sleazy) way of winning some elections.

Actually I think if you define average as within one standard deviation of the mean then 68% or so of the population is of average intelligence. As far as this french fry thing goes it's silly symbolism, like finding a multi-colored bunch of kids to stand behind you when you sign a bill, or Al Gore deciding to have a touch football game, or Trent Lott wearing an idiotic cowboy hat, etc, etc. In the big scheme of things it means next to nothing.

[jim stone]

Yes, Carter is an extraordinary man, the best ex-president
in our history I think. But he seemed ill-suited to be
president; didn't know how to make things happen,
wasn't a political animal. I noticed that
here was a fellow who wanted to give liberals what
they wanted, and they hated him the more he tried.

He appointed a board of feminists to advise him
on women's issues, headed by Bella Abzug, I believe,
which spent its time blasting him. He made human rights
a top priority and was ridiculed by liberals--it was all
a joke, there was no human rights policy, they said.
Then when Reagan won, they howled with outrage.
I realized then that liberals will hate you whether or
not you give them what they want, so politically
you might as well try to please other people who
won't hate you for trying.

Ronald Reagan was a nuclear pacifist. He had a deep
personal horror of Mutually Assured Destruction. One
of his first acts as president was to retarget our nukes
away from population centers. He said: 'There has to
be a better way of staying out of war than for the leader
of one nation calling up the leader of another and
saying 'We'll murder millions of innocent people on
your side if you murder millions of people on ours.''
He said that the human spirit could not survive
under such circumstances. He meant it.

The Soviets had built
so many new long-range missiles--a four to one superiority,
with 30 foot accuracy-
spread in a band across Central
Asia, that there was a danger that they could take
out our land based stuff at home without damaging our
cities terribly--which would leave our submarines
and intermediate range missiles in Europe to
strike back. But would we use them? If we did
our cities would be blown off the face of the
earth. So the idea of a first strike wasn't so impossible
to a Soviet leader in a desperate internal power struggle,
the Falklands scenario. Time for us to build more
offensive long range missiles, so that the Soviets
couldn't get them all.

But Reagan refused--he couldn't stand the arms race
anymore. He wanted to move to defense, to put up
an umbrella that would shoot down incoming missiles,
and to give the technology to the Soviets. Then nuclear
weapons would be obsolete, we wouldn't have our gun
pressed to the head of Soviet children anymore.
For this he earned the undying enmity of the peace
movement, and the ridicule of intellectuals.

The only
people who took it seriously were the Soviets,
and it scared them silly, because they could't
afford it. Their strategy had been to build
political strength through building up offensive nuclear
forces--it was leaving them impoverished,
andnow it couldn't work. There had to be
a better way, a new generation of leaders
came to the fore to find it, led by Gorbachev.

This was one of the wisest and most decent
things we ever did. Reagan saw in his
bumbling inchoate way that somehow
this was the thing that would break
the Soviet Union without causing a
war--that in this economic, political
andmilitary mix, this was the thing
they couldn't do. A more clever
man probably wouldn't have seen it.
And when the new Soviet leadership
emerged he embraced it.

It was interesting being an American
in those days, especially abroad;
you should have heard the things
people said about us then!

In the late 70s the Soviets moved
200 SS20s into eastern europe, with
10 warheads each. Carter, at the desperate
request of Germany, began deploying
Pershing intermediate missiles in
Western Europe. Reagan continued this,
saying, 'We'll take them out. Just take
out the SS20s, and well go back to where
we were in 1978.'

There were human chains across
Western Germany protesting this
American 'aggression'--a pretext
by Ronald Ray-Gun to attack the
Soviet Union, bringing the world
to the brink of nuclear war! Vigils and sit ins at missile
sites in England, the peace movement
fighting tooth and nail to keep the
Russian missiles in place; and we doggedly,
kept deploying the Pershing
missiles, saying to the Soviets: 'Our missiles
are closer to you than yours are to us;
we'll take them out. Just take out the
SS20s...' Then the Soviets took out
the SS20s and we took out the Pershing
missiles.

The Soviets were trying to break up
Nato, you see; they had conventional
forces able to overun Germany. The
only thing that could stop them was
intermediate nuclear missiles. The
overwhelming Soviet nuclear build-up made
them irresistible. The idea was to force
Germany out of Nato--the instability
that would have resulted, under those
circumstances, might well have led
to war which would have gone nuclear.

If people abroad ridicule us, well, maybe
they're right. But I don't take the fact
that we're standing alone to indicate
that we're in the wrong. We've done
this sort of thing before, and I daresay
we all of us would have been french fries
by now if we hadn't. Peace

[Turner]

Ok change the name of French Fries today....tomorrow return the Statue of Liberty...a gift from the French govenment. You can replce it with a big statue of Ronald Ray-gun or President Bush.

[chas]

Woostershire sauce in fajitas?
Why? Out of Nuoc-mam?

Yep, I'm totally out of Nuoc-mam. Is it some sort of Vietnamese soy sauce? (Actually, I use soy sauce in the marinade, and not always Worcestershire, whatever's at hand.)

But don't brag you'd prefer English cuisine to ours! It's like advocating war, but afar from the battlefield. Won't you hear a veteran of English cuisine? I survived Vietnam, but nearly fell from a steak-and-kidney non-cuty pie

I did say some English food. I accidently ate some liver and onions once that wasn't clearly labeled. OTOH, it doesn't get much better than rib roast and Yorkshire pudding.

[Turner]

Theres nothing wrong with English food Zub mate.

In fact apparently if your unable to eat a fully cooked English breakfast in the morning (complete with Black pudding) then your not much of a man!!

As for yorkshire puddings, when i was a kid we would eat them first with the Sunday roast, then after with Jam or cream...for pudding! :adminok:

All washed down with a cuppa.

Saying that, iam not sure if iam man enough to eat frogs legs, or snails!:boggle: