The list is hilarious-
The 'three little sentences' that Homer argues will get you through life.
1: 'Cover for me.'
2: 'Good idea, boss.'
3: 'It was like that when I got here.'
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
By the beard of Zeus!
Pa. Eatery Offers New 15-Pound Burger
CLEARFIELD, Pa. (AP) - The burger war is growing. Literally. Denny's Beer Barrel Pub, which lost its crown as the home of the world's biggest burger earlier this year, is now offering a new burger that weighs a whopping 15 pounds.Dubbed the Beer Barrel Belly Buster, the burger comes with 10.5 pounds of ground beef, 25 slices of cheese, a head of lettuce, three tomatoes, two onions, a cup-and-a-half each of mayonnaise, relish, ketchup, mustard and banana peppers - and a bun.It costs $30."It can feed a family of 10," said Denny Liegey Sr., the restaurant's owner.Denny's Beer Barrel Pub had offered a 6-pound burger - with 5 pounds of toppings.In February, a 100-pound female college student became the first to eat the burger within the three-hour time limit. Kate Stelnick, of Princeton, N.J., was awarded a special certificate, a T-shirt and other prizes and Leigey picked up the $23.95 tab for the burger.One month later, the Clinton Station Diner in Clinton, N.J., introduced a 12.5-pound burger dubbed Zeus.So Liegey responded, and the Belly Buster was born.Over the weekend, four men took the challenge, but couldn't get through the entire burger. They opted for doggie bags, instead."It's a little too much for me to handle," said Steve Hepburn, of Clearfield. "It's like trying to eat half a cow."
CLEARFIELD, Pa. (AP) - The burger war is growing. Literally. Denny's Beer Barrel Pub, which lost its crown as the home of the world's biggest burger earlier this year, is now offering a new burger that weighs a whopping 15 pounds.Dubbed the Beer Barrel Belly Buster, the burger comes with 10.5 pounds of ground beef, 25 slices of cheese, a head of lettuce, three tomatoes, two onions, a cup-and-a-half each of mayonnaise, relish, ketchup, mustard and banana peppers - and a bun.It costs $30."It can feed a family of 10," said Denny Liegey Sr., the restaurant's owner.Denny's Beer Barrel Pub had offered a 6-pound burger - with 5 pounds of toppings.In February, a 100-pound female college student became the first to eat the burger within the three-hour time limit. Kate Stelnick, of Princeton, N.J., was awarded a special certificate, a T-shirt and other prizes and Leigey picked up the $23.95 tab for the burger.One month later, the Clinton Station Diner in Clinton, N.J., introduced a 12.5-pound burger dubbed Zeus.So Liegey responded, and the Belly Buster was born.Over the weekend, four men took the challenge, but couldn't get through the entire burger. They opted for doggie bags, instead."It's a little too much for me to handle," said Steve Hepburn, of Clearfield. "It's like trying to eat half a cow."
Argument by Metephor
The left may lack substantive heft, but it's not short on figures of speech.
by Paul Mirengoff
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY professor Alex Hinton has warned that our government's prosecution of the war on terror may be causing us to resemble the Khmer Rouge, the genocidal gang that once ran Cambodia. In a piece titled "Lessons from killing fields of Cambodia--30 years on," published in the Christian Science Monitor last month, Hinton concluded that "the Khmer Rouge teach us difficult lessons about ourselves and the world in which we live." The chief lesson, according to Hinton, is that we risk heading down "their path to evil" through our conduct "right now in the war on terror." Hinton's piece, of little consequence in its own right, represents a specimen of the left's use of the war on terror to deconstruct American values.
To negate Hinton's bizarre analogy, one need only recall the history of Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror. Hinton, without irony, does this himself. The Cambodian government, he notes, collectivized production and consumption, forced essentially its "entire population" into backbreaking and unceasing labor, abolished freedom of worship, cut off contact between its citizens and the outside world, attempted to control what the public "ate and did every day," and--oh yes--caused the death of more than 1.7 million of the country's 8 million inhabitants.
Inasmuch as the U.S. government has done none of the above, in what respect does Hinton think we are coming to resemble the Cambodian mass murderers? Well, for one thing we are not always politically correct. Hinton notes that most of us have
"used euphemisms and stereotypes, followed instructions better questioned, succumbed to peer pressure, disparaged others, and become desensitized to the suffering of others." Not only that, but we have "turned a blind eye to what our government should not be doing." Specifically (and this is the only specific Hinton supplies) our government has engaged in torture, as did the Khmer Rouge. But we have we hardly turned a "blind eye" to this. The disgraceful conduct at Abu Ghraib was widely condemned; indeed, our government began investigating the matter even before it came to light. Where's the Cambodian analog? More fundamentally, it would be obscene to compare the actions at Abu Ghraib with genocide. In fact, Hinton presents no evidence that our government has intentionally killed even one foreign terrorist in our custody, much less 1.7 million of its citizens.
If Hinton had really been interested in finding a current version of the Khmer Rouge, or a regime of a different sort that engaged in genocide, he would have looked no further than the Taliban's Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq. But then he would have had to acknowledge that the United States has toppled both of these monstrous regimes and has held free elections for the liberated citizens of both countries. Hinton prefers to turn a blind eye to these accomplishments.
Unfortunately, Hinton's piece is symptomatic of a disturbing trend in leftist thinking. For a while now, the left has been fond of argument by creative metaphor--Zionism equals racism; pornography equals sex discrimination or even rape; and, more recently, Bush equals Hitler. In this way, a controversial phenomenon is equated with one that everyone agrees is bad. Leftists in the academy particularly favor this show-stopper approach, since they are used to having their theories evaluated not for their objective validity (a hopelessly passé concept), but rather for their creativity.
by Paul Mirengoff
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY professor Alex Hinton has warned that our government's prosecution of the war on terror may be causing us to resemble the Khmer Rouge, the genocidal gang that once ran Cambodia. In a piece titled "Lessons from killing fields of Cambodia--30 years on," published in the Christian Science Monitor last month, Hinton concluded that "the Khmer Rouge teach us difficult lessons about ourselves and the world in which we live." The chief lesson, according to Hinton, is that we risk heading down "their path to evil" through our conduct "right now in the war on terror." Hinton's piece, of little consequence in its own right, represents a specimen of the left's use of the war on terror to deconstruct American values.
To negate Hinton's bizarre analogy, one need only recall the history of Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror. Hinton, without irony, does this himself. The Cambodian government, he notes, collectivized production and consumption, forced essentially its "entire population" into backbreaking and unceasing labor, abolished freedom of worship, cut off contact between its citizens and the outside world, attempted to control what the public "ate and did every day," and--oh yes--caused the death of more than 1.7 million of the country's 8 million inhabitants.
Inasmuch as the U.S. government has done none of the above, in what respect does Hinton think we are coming to resemble the Cambodian mass murderers? Well, for one thing we are not always politically correct. Hinton notes that most of us have
"used euphemisms and stereotypes, followed instructions better questioned, succumbed to peer pressure, disparaged others, and become desensitized to the suffering of others." Not only that, but we have "turned a blind eye to what our government should not be doing." Specifically (and this is the only specific Hinton supplies) our government has engaged in torture, as did the Khmer Rouge. But we have we hardly turned a "blind eye" to this. The disgraceful conduct at Abu Ghraib was widely condemned; indeed, our government began investigating the matter even before it came to light. Where's the Cambodian analog? More fundamentally, it would be obscene to compare the actions at Abu Ghraib with genocide. In fact, Hinton presents no evidence that our government has intentionally killed even one foreign terrorist in our custody, much less 1.7 million of its citizens.
If Hinton had really been interested in finding a current version of the Khmer Rouge, or a regime of a different sort that engaged in genocide, he would have looked no further than the Taliban's Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq. But then he would have had to acknowledge that the United States has toppled both of these monstrous regimes and has held free elections for the liberated citizens of both countries. Hinton prefers to turn a blind eye to these accomplishments.
Unfortunately, Hinton's piece is symptomatic of a disturbing trend in leftist thinking. For a while now, the left has been fond of argument by creative metaphor--Zionism equals racism; pornography equals sex discrimination or even rape; and, more recently, Bush equals Hitler. In this way, a controversial phenomenon is equated with one that everyone agrees is bad. Leftists in the academy particularly favor this show-stopper approach, since they are used to having their theories evaluated not for their objective validity (a hopelessly passé concept), but rather for their creativity.
No mention of the Pahlke/Zerzan act of 1995
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a court of appeals decision holding that the Solomon Act is unconstitutional. The Solomon Act cuts off federal funding to schools that inhibit or bar military recruiting. A group of law schools argued that threat of losing federal funds effectively forces them to support, accommodate and even endorse discrimination against gays and lesbians in violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. Orin Kerr predicts that the Supreme Court will reverse and that the vote won't be close.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
On Francisco Franco
On Francisco Franco written by Charles Few Americans know much about Francisco Franco, leader of the winning side in the Spanish C...
