Some interesting doings, while my wife and daughter are away, today. I promised her that I would not lunge, leap, fall, or break parts of my body, so instead I have been a) reading the web, b) making a copy of an NCIS video so that I can watch it later, when time permits (don't worry, thought police; I'll delete it; these things are massive), and c) baking cupcakes.
The cupcakes first. Sorry, no pictures; the camera is off with the family at a color guard competition. I had mentioned wanting to make some, but to make some large ones, and it was suggested that instead of a normal muffin tin, I use a custard dish. Who knew that's what those things were called? We just call them 'the glass bowls! That worked pretty well, though testing is still going on. What I did was to bake six in a muffin tin, then take about the same amount of batter as one muffin cup and put it in the custard dish. What I got was a muffin that was twice as wide, and about three quarters as high, as those in the muffin tins. Not bad! There's still a goodly amount of batter left, so the next try will be to take two or possibly three times the normal amount and try that. And hey, if I have to eat these experiments until I get it right, well....
Joe Nocera wrote a really interesting article for the New York Times on the subject of bankers and bonuses, talking about the spanking they got for what appears to most of us (though apparently not them) as continued greed in the face of financial disaster. I particularly liked this part, where he quotes an author who's also not too fond of Wall Street:
(W)ords like “off-balance-sheet vehicles” and “mortgage-backed securities” don’t have much meaning for most of us. What we understand is greed — which, ultimately, is what Mr. Smick was talking about as well. For most Americans, big bonuses and corporate jets and office remodelings become a kind of stand-in for the real sins of the bankers. They signify what people hate about Wall Street.
That being, their ability to blend avarice, arrogance, and ego in one nasty package.
Another article of interest was this one from the TechPresident web site where a commenter suggests that the President's Organizing for America initiative, wherein he asks people to drum up support for his policies and actions, will and should fail. Right off the bat, I thought Something Barack's doing should FAIL? The hell with that idea! But, in fairness (dogmatic Republicans and intense conservatives might have a little problem with that concept, but mainstream Democrats and liberals should get it just fine), I read the article. It says that an organization which exists to generate support of the President's policies is not worth having, and should instead be turned to the direct support of an existing organization. I don't agree with that. I think it's entirely reasonable to have such an organization that exists for that purpose, so long as it doesn't assume automatic blind support a la Limbaugh's Dittoheads. But reasoned, informed, active support from an involved citizenry? Not professional vote-getters, agitators, blowhards, or lobbyists, but actual people? Nothing better.
Could a blogger who's a blowhard be called a bloghard? Sounds so much like blackguard, I kind of like it....
No comments:
Post a Comment