3 lb. pork tenderloin use size that fits your feasters
4 Tbsp. mandarin oranges
4 Tbsp. cherry preserves
2 Tbsp. Barbeque Sauce I prefer a sweet and smokey sauce
½ Cup water
Slice tenderloin in the center, the long way, about ¾ of the way through. Put mandarin oranges in center and drizzle barbeque sauce on oranges. Fasten together with toothpicks.
Rub tenderloin with your favorite red meat/pork rub.
Grill for 10 minutes a side on medium high
Transfer to baking dish. Spoon cherry preserves on top of tenderloin
Add water to baking dish. Cover and bake at 350 deg until tenderloin reaches 150 deg in the uncut center.
12 Servings
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
No Bias Here
Is it just me or do the most successful bloggers act more and more like the commercial side of the MSM? Are they spending more and more of their time quoting each other and humping their own and each others latest book/appearance/personal exposure event? Good thing I’m not jealous. –grin-
Huge, huge, enormous difference is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of energetic bloggers yapping at their heels and one or two get elevated every single day, and often by the 'newMSM' folks. And if the MSM acted more like Michelle - Glenn - Hugh - Ed - and the Powerline menage and less like the NYT we would all be so much more informed. Aggressive is fine, cocky is fine, passion is both fine and encouraged, undiluted arrogance and self-promotion wears on one.
NYT Public Editor: “I can’t see any bias here.”
Public: “Mmmm buddy, it’s tattooed on your forehead.”
NYT Public Editor: “And can I see my forehead?! I cannot. Ergo, ipso facto, I can’t see any bias here.”
Famous Blogger1: "I will be appearing at 6:17:26 tonight on one of those networks I routinely blast. Filling in for me will be Hugh, whose book is an enormous hit as long as blog ponderers keep reading it. Filling in for Hugh will be Ann who oddly enough also has a book that you can buy here //link//, and guess what? Glenn will be on the show too, speaking about his other web site so guest blogging for Glenn will be Ed who is such a gifted speaker (sign him up here //link//) and Ed's blog often highlights the skills of Bryan who does such wonderful work with Michelle, buy their books here //link//."
But I guess pub is where you find it, buy it, or can put it, and blogging sure don't pay the Sarge nuttin', so God bless them. I'll just start skipping through their commercials too.
Huge, huge, enormous difference is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of energetic bloggers yapping at their heels and one or two get elevated every single day, and often by the 'newMSM' folks. And if the MSM acted more like Michelle - Glenn - Hugh - Ed - and the Powerline menage and less like the NYT we would all be so much more informed. Aggressive is fine, cocky is fine, passion is both fine and encouraged, undiluted arrogance and self-promotion wears on one.
NYT Public Editor: “I can’t see any bias here.”
Public: “Mmmm buddy, it’s tattooed on your forehead.”
NYT Public Editor: “And can I see my forehead?! I cannot. Ergo, ipso facto, I can’t see any bias here.”
Famous Blogger1: "I will be appearing at 6:17:26 tonight on one of those networks I routinely blast. Filling in for me will be Hugh, whose book is an enormous hit as long as blog ponderers keep reading it. Filling in for Hugh will be Ann who oddly enough also has a book that you can buy here //link//, and guess what? Glenn will be on the show too, speaking about his other web site so guest blogging for Glenn will be Ed who is such a gifted speaker (sign him up here //link//) and Ed's blog often highlights the skills of Bryan who does such wonderful work with Michelle, buy their books here //link//."
But I guess pub is where you find it, buy it, or can put it, and blogging sure don't pay the Sarge nuttin', so God bless them. I'll just start skipping through their commercials too.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Anti-Aging: It Ain't All Wunnerful
“Approach with caution!”
Okay, I’ll be the adverse advocate (the Sarge ain’t the Devils pal) on anti-aging and it’s benefits.
First, let me state that I agree with Glenn Reynolds that anti-aging resources are rapidly approaching, probably faster than most of us can imagine. And yes, I want myself, my wife, and my kids to live long and prosper (HT Cdr. Spock). But somebody needs to ring a little bell about what that brings with it.
Family: are you ready to live close to a family with 11 living generations? Consider any problems that exist in your family circle and multiply them by 4 or 6.
Retirement: if you were lucky or unfortunate enough to retire in your 50’s, and the great leaps in anti-aging treatment that are now being quietly discussed actually do come to pass in the next 10 – 15 years, whatcha’ going to do? Can you stretch your savings? More importantly, will your employer have second thoughts on how long they are willing to pay? How tough will it be to get a job when you’re 106?
Employment: if you are the heir apparent for a promotion, to take over the family business, or just hoping for a merit raise, do you expect everything to remain the same when people work for 85 – 100 years? John Ringo writes an exceptional military SF series about humans who need to regenerate veterans to help fight an almost unstoppable enemy, and the humorous but tragic need to deal with multiple returning generals and admirals. What will you do with 6 generations of previous senior managers claiming the only cubicle with a window view?
Birth control: no matter what your thoughts or religious convictions are regarding population management in the micro or macro perspectives, rethink them.
Actuarially supported industries: they’re gone, bruddah. Got stock in any insurance companies?
There are plenty more issues that will be analyzed by much smarter folks than the Sarge. But kick the lid off this mental trash can, it’s starting to smell like reality, troop.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Tommy
by Rudyard Kipling – a man who understood soldiers
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"; But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside"; But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide, The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap; An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints: Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind," But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind, There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"; But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside"; But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide, The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap; An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints: Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind," But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind, There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Red, Red Wine
I was high-browing over at Professor Bainbridge’s blog; he is a smart fella, who also happens to be a wine lover and expert on the subject.
I like wine too. I like red wine. The kind of red wine I like is – well, you know that stuff that’s left over after the dirty footed women stomp the grapes? Then they take the pressure hose and wash all that out. That efflux gets fed to horses as part of a healthy breakfast. After that, that’s the kind of wine I like. If it costs more than $5 to fill up a water cooler bottle it’s over my head, brother.
But you know what? When I serve this post-plonk mess to my wine loving friends they love it! Of course, I’m always careful to put out a couple of $8.99 bottles first, but by the third glass they could care less.
Got some class, but it’s llllloooohhhooooowwwwwwwww class.
I like wine too. I like red wine. The kind of red wine I like is – well, you know that stuff that’s left over after the dirty footed women stomp the grapes? Then they take the pressure hose and wash all that out. That efflux gets fed to horses as part of a healthy breakfast. After that, that’s the kind of wine I like. If it costs more than $5 to fill up a water cooler bottle it’s over my head, brother.
But you know what? When I serve this post-plonk mess to my wine loving friends they love it! Of course, I’m always careful to put out a couple of $8.99 bottles first, but by the third glass they could care less.
Got some class, but it’s llllloooohhhooooowwwwwwwww class.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
And if ID and Evolution are the same process?
There are new lines being drawn in sand regarding Intelligent Design and Evolution. The emotion of the debaters runs high, and sometimes appears to block their ability to think. So let us try to just think.
First, what are the questions? There are many but I’ll keep it to six:
There are thousands and thousands of simultaneous physical interactions required for a human body to get through a day. Did these evolve over a long, long period of time?
If the answer to Question 1 is ‘Yes’, are there fossilized remains that show the steady progress from the earliest stages of physical development to the current state? (if the answer is ‘no’, well, argument over)
Where are the artifacts kept of the poor ancestors whose body only performed a few hundred interactions? Where are the ones with only one eye? May I see the skeletal remains of the pre-humans who only had two toes on each foot? Do we have a fossil trail of the females who had a significantly less sophisticated and efficient reproductive capability?
Any set of answers can be used to support either side because they are both based on faith.
There certainly is evidence of evolutionary changes among humans over the relatively few years we have documented. There are also gaps in the evolutionary trail that get steadily larger as we go back further in time. The enormous missing piece is the beginning. The first mother as currently posited would look very different than your own, but we would probably recognize her as human. Where are her ancestors?
The Creationists generally believe that the Creator put our ancestors here essentially as they are today, and most accept the evidence that we have continued to develop and improve our physical and mental efficiencies.
So we have two general camps who ask (and in some cases demand) that their theories be taught in schools. Both are based on faith.
The Evolutionary camp points to the available evidence supporting their argument and demands that the students have faith in the scientists who will eventually discover more of the evidence missing today.
The ID camp points to that fact that their theory answers all the questions, but demands that the students accept as an article of faith that there is a Creator who begat all of this.
Just thinking about it, it appears that the students must either have faith in scientists who have only provided a small percentage of the evidence, or have faith in a Creator whose proclaimed works reveal an enormous body of evidence, but provides no physical evidence of her/his corporeal existence.
Just thinking about it, might the Creator still be in the process of creating, and could evolution be a tool that enhances the miracle of Creation?
Just thinking about it, might it be slightly arrogant to proclaim that you and those who believe as you do are right, and everyone else is wrong?
Just thinking about it, would it be okay to teach the students that these are questions essential to human existence and they should learn as much about both theories as possible, so they might take their wonder and apply it to answering the great questions?
Just thinking about it, could it be possible that all paths might lead to the Creator when they are followed by a good man or woman, and while the general precepts of “good” are carved in many stones, the precise definition is only known at the end of the path?
Pay attention while on the path, and hold great hope for eternity.
First, what are the questions? There are many but I’ll keep it to six:
There are thousands and thousands of simultaneous physical interactions required for a human body to get through a day. Did these evolve over a long, long period of time?
If the answer to Question 1 is ‘Yes’, are there fossilized remains that show the steady progress from the earliest stages of physical development to the current state? (if the answer is ‘no’, well, argument over)
Where are the artifacts kept of the poor ancestors whose body only performed a few hundred interactions? Where are the ones with only one eye? May I see the skeletal remains of the pre-humans who only had two toes on each foot? Do we have a fossil trail of the females who had a significantly less sophisticated and efficient reproductive capability?
Any set of answers can be used to support either side because they are both based on faith.
There certainly is evidence of evolutionary changes among humans over the relatively few years we have documented. There are also gaps in the evolutionary trail that get steadily larger as we go back further in time. The enormous missing piece is the beginning. The first mother as currently posited would look very different than your own, but we would probably recognize her as human. Where are her ancestors?
The Creationists generally believe that the Creator put our ancestors here essentially as they are today, and most accept the evidence that we have continued to develop and improve our physical and mental efficiencies.
So we have two general camps who ask (and in some cases demand) that their theories be taught in schools. Both are based on faith.
The Evolutionary camp points to the available evidence supporting their argument and demands that the students have faith in the scientists who will eventually discover more of the evidence missing today.
The ID camp points to that fact that their theory answers all the questions, but demands that the students accept as an article of faith that there is a Creator who begat all of this.
Just thinking about it, it appears that the students must either have faith in scientists who have only provided a small percentage of the evidence, or have faith in a Creator whose proclaimed works reveal an enormous body of evidence, but provides no physical evidence of her/his corporeal existence.
Just thinking about it, might the Creator still be in the process of creating, and could evolution be a tool that enhances the miracle of Creation?
Just thinking about it, might it be slightly arrogant to proclaim that you and those who believe as you do are right, and everyone else is wrong?
Just thinking about it, would it be okay to teach the students that these are questions essential to human existence and they should learn as much about both theories as possible, so they might take their wonder and apply it to answering the great questions?
Just thinking about it, could it be possible that all paths might lead to the Creator when they are followed by a good man or woman, and while the general precepts of “good” are carved in many stones, the precise definition is only known at the end of the path?
Pay attention while on the path, and hold great hope for eternity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
