Just a short fluff piece of what I cooked, I'll be doing this every Sunday. Something just to let everyone know, I love to cook. Today was Asian style chicken breasts. The biggest reason I cooked this dish was the opportunity to use ginger, I love the stuff. So basically what we need:
4 Chicken breasts, preferably no bones
3 Tablespoons of Soy Sauce
2 Tablespoons of Honey
3 Tablespoons of Garlic, minced
3 Tablespoons of Ginger, minced
3 Tablespoons of Onion (red or yellow), minced
1-2 Teaspoons of dried crushed peppers
Combine all the ingredients in a freezer sized bag and let marinate for at least 4 hours. Put into a large baking dish and cover. Cook for one hour in oven at 425 degrees Fahrenheit.
I served this with jasmine rice and steamed green beans, didn't eat them fuck vegetables, but I make them for a complete meal.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
What did I cook today?
Friday, August 6, 2010
08/06/10 Everything happens for a reason rant
Everything happens for a reason
A simple and hollow statement. It is a cheap statement and a vain attempt from the agent to award himself that he said something the equivalent of chin up and stiff upper lip old chap to another while the other is going through some type of crisis. Everyone has heard it, it is a pejorative of non sentimentality and ignorance of human social interaction, it does not offer any condolences or reflection for the other party. It is also a suggestion which states that one must not worry or be too distraught, because they had no choice, and will have no choice, the option of freedom has been removed, and that the future has been cast and each person must play their part without pause or question. So in short it is an empty statement that we must all avoid and let go extinct.
Everything happens for a reason. Events do not happen for a reason, but they do happen as a result of reason and also choices made by an agent or, and in most cases, the collision of multiple choices by multiple agents. Primary causal relations with the utmost perfection in accounting. Events happen as a natural result of previous choices made by an agent and all other agents in the same environment, taking into account all possible decisions that each agent could actually make and would make according to their physiology, biology, and psychology.
Everything happens for a reason. This statement exposes another flaw in the fact that it suggests that there is no freedom to the future, the future has already been selected and preordained. It suggests that the current events are necessary for the future. It eliminates all possibility of free will, of any choice in the matter or in the events to come. The speaking agent may not, and more than likely does not, know what the determined future is, but is assured there is one. Instead of accepting the collision of choices that culminated in the other agent’s tragedy. If anything, the only future that the statement can be assured in making is that everything will continue happening to an agent for a reason, positive or negative, until they are dead, and after they are dead everything happened to an agent to lead to their demise.
Everything happens for a reason. The grandest injustice of this statement is that it intends to exempt the targeted agent from any serious and honest introspection. It is meant to glibly shush any grief without offering any advice or consolation for the injured agent. It also directs the hurt agent from introspection and looking back to understand what decisions that the agent made and their consequences, both positive and negative, that they can be held accountable for, and what choices and consequences of other agents impacted them. An agent can only be responsible for the choices that they make as best in their environment according to the environment and other agents in it, naturally assessing what those other agents may or may not do based upon their history, psychology, biology, and physiology.
Essentially it means that everything happens for a reason means nothing from the agent that speaks it to another aggrieved agent. The statement attempts to provide hope in stating that there is a future as a result of the equation of causality, but it implies that there is no free will or choice in what the future is. It suggests that a review of the events is unnecessary even in the case and situation that it would assist the aggrieved agent in recovery and understanding how events fell into place. So in closing do not use this phrase as it inherently does not provide comfort, and only subtly implies insult for the targeted agent.
A simple and hollow statement. It is a cheap statement and a vain attempt from the agent to award himself that he said something the equivalent of chin up and stiff upper lip old chap to another while the other is going through some type of crisis. Everyone has heard it, it is a pejorative of non sentimentality and ignorance of human social interaction, it does not offer any condolences or reflection for the other party. It is also a suggestion which states that one must not worry or be too distraught, because they had no choice, and will have no choice, the option of freedom has been removed, and that the future has been cast and each person must play their part without pause or question. So in short it is an empty statement that we must all avoid and let go extinct.
Everything happens for a reason. Events do not happen for a reason, but they do happen as a result of reason and also choices made by an agent or, and in most cases, the collision of multiple choices by multiple agents. Primary causal relations with the utmost perfection in accounting. Events happen as a natural result of previous choices made by an agent and all other agents in the same environment, taking into account all possible decisions that each agent could actually make and would make according to their physiology, biology, and psychology.
Everything happens for a reason. This statement exposes another flaw in the fact that it suggests that there is no freedom to the future, the future has already been selected and preordained. It suggests that the current events are necessary for the future. It eliminates all possibility of free will, of any choice in the matter or in the events to come. The speaking agent may not, and more than likely does not, know what the determined future is, but is assured there is one. Instead of accepting the collision of choices that culminated in the other agent’s tragedy. If anything, the only future that the statement can be assured in making is that everything will continue happening to an agent for a reason, positive or negative, until they are dead, and after they are dead everything happened to an agent to lead to their demise.
Everything happens for a reason. The grandest injustice of this statement is that it intends to exempt the targeted agent from any serious and honest introspection. It is meant to glibly shush any grief without offering any advice or consolation for the injured agent. It also directs the hurt agent from introspection and looking back to understand what decisions that the agent made and their consequences, both positive and negative, that they can be held accountable for, and what choices and consequences of other agents impacted them. An agent can only be responsible for the choices that they make as best in their environment according to the environment and other agents in it, naturally assessing what those other agents may or may not do based upon their history, psychology, biology, and physiology.
Essentially it means that everything happens for a reason means nothing from the agent that speaks it to another aggrieved agent. The statement attempts to provide hope in stating that there is a future as a result of the equation of causality, but it implies that there is no free will or choice in what the future is. It suggests that a review of the events is unnecessary even in the case and situation that it would assist the aggrieved agent in recovery and understanding how events fell into place. So in closing do not use this phrase as it inherently does not provide comfort, and only subtly implies insult for the targeted agent.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
H.R. 4614 06/02
Or I thought we at least tried to learn from the mistakes and failures of other countries. H.R. 4614, or the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010, rolls back personal security and privacy from state police agencies. Another step towards the judiciary program the UK had, which it gave up after being determined to be too intrusive of UK citizens’ rights to privacy.
If you are not familiar with this act understand what has been voted through the House, 357 votes to 34, is not going to make us at home any more secure from criminals. What it affords police agencies, license and without warrant, is that when a suspect is arrested for at least one serious offense that the suspect’s DNA will be taken, by force if necessary, and added to the national database. The stress though is on being arrested, and not convicted. The case and argument has been made that as a convicted felon has forfeited certain rights, but this legislation inverses the nature of innocent until proven guilty.
The reason from Representative Harry Teague,
“We should allow law enforcement to use all the technology available to them...to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals, and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets.”
Unfortunately he doesn’t mention that these tools are effective at eliminating suspects, which does not need a database to begin with. Advocates for these databases lie and mislead information about false positives, typically due to the amount of information stored (generally thirteen loci). The reason for the false positives is the sheer amount of people kept on catalogue and the number of samples being run against it will generate false positives. Men in the UK have suffered prison terms because these advocates parrot the odds of multiple millions to one.
So what is the incentive for your state and local police agency to use these gifts, there is an expense to this right? Other than more power and control of course, but money, federal funding to the tune of $75 million to fund state and local law enforcement agencies. Not only that but states that choose not to participate will lose five percent federal funding. And of course it does not take an economist to understand in the current financial environment, for state governments they can use the additional law enforcement funds and most states cannot survive losing federal funds without serious cuts to other civil services.
This new legislation is not a radical step to violate our protected privacy and security rights, but a gradual slide our rights have been sloping down. Starting with the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, H.R. 4640. This act required that DNA samples to be taken from anyone convicted of or put on probation for certain serious crimes. Appeals that this violated both Fourth and Fifth Amendments were denied and the act was held as constitutional. In 2006 H.R. 3402, Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, set the precedent that any federal police agency may collect DNA samples from an individual arrested but not yet convicted. Finally we come to May 2009, a federal judge in California, Magistrate Gregory Hollows, concluded that state agencies did not commit any unreasonable search or seizure by taking DNA samples of felony arrestees.
And as we have seen already, the government is at war with our constitutional rights and protections. Over the last fifteen years it has taken inches away at our privacy and eroded probable and reasonable protections. At a point we must stop sending congress people to D.C. that are not interested in protecting our civil freedoms and liberties.
If you are not familiar with this act understand what has been voted through the House, 357 votes to 34, is not going to make us at home any more secure from criminals. What it affords police agencies, license and without warrant, is that when a suspect is arrested for at least one serious offense that the suspect’s DNA will be taken, by force if necessary, and added to the national database. The stress though is on being arrested, and not convicted. The case and argument has been made that as a convicted felon has forfeited certain rights, but this legislation inverses the nature of innocent until proven guilty.
The reason from Representative Harry Teague,
“We should allow law enforcement to use all the technology available to them...to reduce expensive and unjust false convictions, bring closure to victims by solving cold cases, better identify criminals, and keep those who commit violent crime from walking the streets.”
Unfortunately he doesn’t mention that these tools are effective at eliminating suspects, which does not need a database to begin with. Advocates for these databases lie and mislead information about false positives, typically due to the amount of information stored (generally thirteen loci). The reason for the false positives is the sheer amount of people kept on catalogue and the number of samples being run against it will generate false positives. Men in the UK have suffered prison terms because these advocates parrot the odds of multiple millions to one.
So what is the incentive for your state and local police agency to use these gifts, there is an expense to this right? Other than more power and control of course, but money, federal funding to the tune of $75 million to fund state and local law enforcement agencies. Not only that but states that choose not to participate will lose five percent federal funding. And of course it does not take an economist to understand in the current financial environment, for state governments they can use the additional law enforcement funds and most states cannot survive losing federal funds without serious cuts to other civil services.
This new legislation is not a radical step to violate our protected privacy and security rights, but a gradual slide our rights have been sloping down. Starting with the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, H.R. 4640. This act required that DNA samples to be taken from anyone convicted of or put on probation for certain serious crimes. Appeals that this violated both Fourth and Fifth Amendments were denied and the act was held as constitutional. In 2006 H.R. 3402, Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, set the precedent that any federal police agency may collect DNA samples from an individual arrested but not yet convicted. Finally we come to May 2009, a federal judge in California, Magistrate Gregory Hollows, concluded that state agencies did not commit any unreasonable search or seizure by taking DNA samples of felony arrestees.
And as we have seen already, the government is at war with our constitutional rights and protections. Over the last fifteen years it has taken inches away at our privacy and eroded probable and reasonable protections. At a point we must stop sending congress people to D.C. that are not interested in protecting our civil freedoms and liberties.
Friday, May 7, 2010
05/05 News
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Repeal the US PATRIOT Act or bring in more oversight and checks and balances. Fortunately some of the worst articles have sunset or expired, but through re-authorizations, in 2005 and 2006, has kept it alive still. The precedents suspends many liberties and freedoms we assume when dealing with law enforcement agencies and are crimes against our rights bestowed on us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It is not so far fetched, if when dealing with local law enforcement there is reasonable suspicion of terrorism, flags are immediately sent up to the FBI. After this point an American citizen cannot immediately depend on habeas corpus; the difference hinging on the terms of reasonable and probable. Reasonable is subjective and relies upon who is looking at what. Probable is grounded in reality and evidence.
This has roots, in May 2004 Steve Kurtz was held for 22 hours in custody without charge and without access to legal counsel. What caused this? Unfortunately, Mr. Kurtz’s spouse had expired of a heart attack and he reported this to the local police, standard procedure. The responding officers saw biological equipment and Petri dishes inside the residence, with this as a suspicion reported it to the FBI. And instead of starting an investigation, which would have alerted their office that Mr. Kurtz is an artist specializing in the biological sector, Mr. Kurtz was apprehended, his house condemned as a possible health risk, and impounded computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment to be analyzed. All because of reasonable suspicion of bioterrorism, but not probable.
There was no evidence of course and he couldn’t be charged with bioterrorism, but, vindictive, he and his consultant were charged with mail fraud and wire fraud, in July 2004. Mr. Kurtz was released from these charges on April 21, 2008 because Judge Richard Arcara ruled it, “insufficient on its face”.
The point to this is that at no point was there probable cause and/or suspicion, and certainly n cause to torment a person’s life for four years.
The handlers of the government reins have changed in this time, but their policies have not. In February 2010 the current administration determined that as citizens we cannot expect reasonable privacy where we are or have been in relation to our cell phone and usage.
It is warrant less for law enforcement agencies to get this information from a cell phone provider and the user does not have to be notified of it. So what this means is we are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, wherever we go or online is open to the government. They do not have to prove probable cause or suspicion for need of this information, just that they need and want it.
Again, we need to take control of the government and limit its scope into our lives, we definitely need change as it was professed back in 2007. We in fact need broad sweeping social change, but from what we have received so far, I personally don’t see that we will be getting that.
Repeal the US PATRIOT Act or bring in more oversight and checks and balances. Fortunately some of the worst articles have sunset or expired, but through re-authorizations, in 2005 and 2006, has kept it alive still. The precedents suspends many liberties and freedoms we assume when dealing with law enforcement agencies and are crimes against our rights bestowed on us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It is not so far fetched, if when dealing with local law enforcement there is reasonable suspicion of terrorism, flags are immediately sent up to the FBI. After this point an American citizen cannot immediately depend on habeas corpus; the difference hinging on the terms of reasonable and probable. Reasonable is subjective and relies upon who is looking at what. Probable is grounded in reality and evidence.
This has roots, in May 2004 Steve Kurtz was held for 22 hours in custody without charge and without access to legal counsel. What caused this? Unfortunately, Mr. Kurtz’s spouse had expired of a heart attack and he reported this to the local police, standard procedure. The responding officers saw biological equipment and Petri dishes inside the residence, with this as a suspicion reported it to the FBI. And instead of starting an investigation, which would have alerted their office that Mr. Kurtz is an artist specializing in the biological sector, Mr. Kurtz was apprehended, his house condemned as a possible health risk, and impounded computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment to be analyzed. All because of reasonable suspicion of bioterrorism, but not probable.
There was no evidence of course and he couldn’t be charged with bioterrorism, but, vindictive, he and his consultant were charged with mail fraud and wire fraud, in July 2004. Mr. Kurtz was released from these charges on April 21, 2008 because Judge Richard Arcara ruled it, “insufficient on its face”.
The point to this is that at no point was there probable cause and/or suspicion, and certainly n cause to torment a person’s life for four years.
The handlers of the government reins have changed in this time, but their policies have not. In February 2010 the current administration determined that as citizens we cannot expect reasonable privacy where we are or have been in relation to our cell phone and usage.
It is warrant less for law enforcement agencies to get this information from a cell phone provider and the user does not have to be notified of it. So what this means is we are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, wherever we go or online is open to the government. They do not have to prove probable cause or suspicion for need of this information, just that they need and want it.
Again, we need to take control of the government and limit its scope into our lives, we definitely need change as it was professed back in 2007. We in fact need broad sweeping social change, but from what we have received so far, I personally don’t see that we will be getting that.
Monday, May 3, 2010
News 05/03/10
At this point you should be familiar with this http://www.payvand.com/news/10/apr/1293.html. On April 30, Iran won a seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. This was not after intense debate or objection from the United States or any other Western Nation. Silence from us, and Iran acclaimed this seat was all that was necessary. Iran will begin the four year term in 2011 under the mission “to evaluate progress on gender equality, identify challenges, set global standards and formulate concrete policies to promote gender equality and advancement of women worldwide.” Are we asking this all from Iran? A country that still metes out extreme violence for minor violation of the hijab, and endorses religious leaders that make proclamations of seismic activity, we are not alone in our cynicism.
Incensed by this mockery of poor decision and inaction? Good, but keep in mind that the United Nations CSW is compromised of a total of forty-five members. And while most are moving progressively still further to the first world, some are still dealing with extreme violence targeting women, rape, and human sex traffic. Iran will still be at the bottom as the worst on this list as they are also on human rights.
To Iran this is not about the rights of its own people but a political play. It adds credentials for propaganda and as well as to promote an anti human rights agenda.
This is about human rights, the rights that we share together both men and women. In the United States we recently stripped the rights of one group through the vehicle of government. This is not equitable to the travesty of the Middle East, but it is patently horrific of the majority to restrict the rights of a group on whim in the land of the free.
What ties both together is the ridiculous notions of theism. These credulous belief systems poison the well, a proven majority must consider what is appropriate for everyone according to their religion first. Unfortunate for the minority and unfortunate for reality. The government is not the vehicle of the people, but the vehicle of the majority, and in these cases used to dictate what the minority is allowed to do, regardless of non-difference.
Not only are these non-difference between humans, they are a non-point to progression. Government is not the answer, the changing hands of who is the majority and the power that follows illustrates that there is no consistency in it.
Incensed by this mockery of poor decision and inaction? Good, but keep in mind that the United Nations CSW is compromised of a total of forty-five members. And while most are moving progressively still further to the first world, some are still dealing with extreme violence targeting women, rape, and human sex traffic. Iran will still be at the bottom as the worst on this list as they are also on human rights.
To Iran this is not about the rights of its own people but a political play. It adds credentials for propaganda and as well as to promote an anti human rights agenda.
This is about human rights, the rights that we share together both men and women. In the United States we recently stripped the rights of one group through the vehicle of government. This is not equitable to the travesty of the Middle East, but it is patently horrific of the majority to restrict the rights of a group on whim in the land of the free.
What ties both together is the ridiculous notions of theism. These credulous belief systems poison the well, a proven majority must consider what is appropriate for everyone according to their religion first. Unfortunate for the minority and unfortunate for reality. The government is not the vehicle of the people, but the vehicle of the majority, and in these cases used to dictate what the minority is allowed to do, regardless of non-difference.
Not only are these non-difference between humans, they are a non-point to progression. Government is not the answer, the changing hands of who is the majority and the power that follows illustrates that there is no consistency in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
