dubyaD40.com - Wally's Wild Life

Wally's Wild Life


Dick Cheney's Chinese New Year Menu - Welcome to the Year of the Pig posted by Wally 7:34 AM To celebrate the occasion, and to welcome in the Year of the Pig an an appropriate and honorable manner, we've put together a vice-presidential New Years Day menu specifically with Dick Cheney in mind. Hors d'ourves: Pork rinds with bacon buttermilk ranch dipping sauce Appetizer Pork Rhumaki (bacon wrapped liver with water chestnuts, pan fried in bacon grease) Entree 5 pounds of pork butt 1 lb pork sausage 1 lb bacon 1 lb colby cheese (shredded) hollandaise sauce Slice open pork but and stuff with sausage. Wrap the whole thing in bacon. Deep fry in lard. Smother with hollandaise sauce and top with cheese. Serve with french fries (deep fried in lard, of course) smothered in sausage gravy. Dessert Torte Varazdin 1 cup butter (room temperature) 1 cup sugar 7 ounces semi sweet chocolate (melted) 6 eggs (separated) 1 cup flour sifted chocolate curls to decorate for the filling 1 cup heavy cream, lightly whipped 1 3/4 cups canned chestnut puree 1/2 cup sugar for the topping 10 tablespoons unsalted butter 1 1/4 cups confectioners sugar, sifted 4 ounces semi=sweet chocolate, melted 1) Preheat oven to 350F. Grease and line the bottom and sides of an 8-9 inch round cake pan. Cream the butter and sugar together in a bowl until pale and fluffy. Stir in the melted chocolate and egg yolks. Fold the flour carefully into the chocolate mixture. 2) In a greasefree bowl, whisk the egg whites until stiff. Add a spoonful of the egg white to the chocolate mixture to loosen it, then carefully fold in the remainder. Spoon the cake mixture into the prepared pan. 3) Bake the cake for 45-50 minutes or until firm to the touch and a skewer inserted into the middle comes out clean. Cool on a wire rack. When cold, peel off the lining paper and slice the cake in half horizontally. 4) Meanwhile, gently combine the filling ingredients in a bowl. Sandwich the two cake halves together firmly with the chestnut filling. 5) In a mixing bowl, cream together the butter and sugar for the topping before stirring in the melted chocolate. Using a dampened knife, spread the chocolate topping on the sides and top of the cake. Decorate with chocolate curls before serving. Beverage Pour him a Red Bull and Vodka to wash it all down with. And maybe a Shot of Wild Turkey as an apertif. On Edit Now that I look at that dessert, it looks mighty tasty. Fat filled and heart attack inducing or not, that looks way too good for the evil one. Keep the dessert to enjoy yourself, and toss Cheney some bacon strips and pork rinds. And don't forget to hide the defibrillator. Special thanks to Mrs. Wally and Chescher (my chef friend) for help with the "cardiac special" recipes. Permalink :: 2 comments :: Post a Comment

Bush's State of the Union Address..... Nothing new to see here posted by Wally 8:59 AM As expected, Bush's state of the union was just the same old song and dance, performed before a different, less friendly audience. Sure, there was a slightly less arrogant, slightly more conciliatory tone to the speech - pretending to "reach across the aisle" to the Democrats, who have him by the balls and can put the squeeze on any time they decide to, but it was a pretty thinly veiled charade. Just new make-up on the same old pig. Mrs. Wally helped me keep track of the SOTU Drinking Game score (which wasn't easy, after the first 15 minutes or so). As expected, he talked about (in no particular order) cutting taxes, medical liability reform, healthcare (private insurance), immigration, cutting the deficit and balancing the budget (oh how we laughed and laughed at that one), oil and energy (nukes and ethanol), "no children left behind" (school vouchers), and of course terrorism, terrorists, terror, and the war on terror. He mentioned terror at least 17 times, and Iraq at least 33 times. Iran popped up only 5 times, but he wisely avoided trying to pronounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Of course there was the obligatory smattering of "freedom" and "liberty" dropped in. So far, nothing new. Even his "new plan" for Iraq isn't new. He asked for more time - asking us to have patience to give his "new plan" a chance to work. Hey George - news flash - you already tried this "new plan" a year ago, when troop levels were 20,000 higher than they are right now. We all saw how well it worked. We gave your "new plan" a chance, and it failed. Nice try though. I'm sure 28% of the people watching think it's a nice idea. Then again, those are the same 28% that have trouble tying their shoes or going out in public unsupervised. The same 28% who failed to notice that he only mentioned 9/11 twice, and completely avoided Saddam, Osama, and Katrina. There were a couple of eye-brow-raising moments. For instance, when talking about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, he mentioned solar, wind, hybrids and (gasp) "global climate change". He actually said "global climate change" - as if he believes it's real. Holy crap, did the earth just shift a little? Not likely. Just empty words spilling out of his mouth like chunks of pretzel after a successful Heimlich maneuver. Words that will never be backed up by action or financing. Then he went on to talk about nukyooolar power and ethanol (Mrs. Wally said "we know what Halliburton's new businesses are"), and about raising auto fuel economy standards, suggesting a weaker version of what the Democrats have been trying to push through for 10 years. The only other thing of note was that he didn't have any major fuck ups. They must have had his medications figured out just right. Sure there was the usual slurring throughout the speech, but very few blatant mispronounciations or newly invented words, and very little of the "hula jaw" or other strange ticks, smirks, or giggling while talking about people being murdered that we're used to seeing. His speechwriters were apparently careful not to include too many big words - words like "diplomacy", or "statesmanship", or "Katrina", "Louisiana" or "Mississippi". Jim Webb didn't have such limitations in his rebuttal. Short, simple, to the point, he didn't go off on needless tangents. He didn't rattle off a laundry list of every issue of any importance whatsover. He didn't fall into the usual Democratic habit of over-analysing the issues, boring the listener with minutiae. He made his points by sticking to a few important issues - the economy as seen by the working class, the war in Iraq, and of course a dig on Katrina - and Bush's utter failure to handle the crisis, or to even mention it in his speech. I also liked the veiled threat at the very end - essentially saying we want to work with you to get things done George, but don't fuck with us, or we'll cut you off at the knees. According to the Wally household scoring system, it was Jim Webb 2, G.W. Bush 0. Transcripts of State of the Union and Democratic Response Videos of State of the Union and Democratic Response can be seen at CSPAN Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment

There's no way anyone could have anticipated Increased Violence In Iraq After Saddam's Sentencing posted by Wally 11:40 AM Or that Bush would use the Sentencing as a Political Ploy But, of course, both happened. Saddam's sentencing was "coincidentally" scheduled for two days before the midterm elections, with the GOP on the ropes from massively fucking up the governing of the country for the past 6 years. That wouldn't possibly have been timed as a political game to try to influence the election, would it? Bush wouldn't stoop so low, would he? Hell yeah he would. There is no slimy pit of sewage the Republicans wouldn't gladly swim through to try to retain power. Richard Palk, a professor of international law at Princeton University, said: "It should come as no surprise that the final verdict in the trial seems timed to coincide with the midterm elections. The US government should be ashamed to have debased international justice by orchestrating every phase of his trial to divert domestic opinion in this country from the dismal failure of its Iraq policy." Congressman Tom Lantos, the senior Democrat on the International Relations Committee, said the verdict "must not distract Americans from the more pressing issue, the need for a change in the direction of our country's policy toward Iraq, both the conduct of the war effort and our pathetic, corruption-stained attempt at reconstruction." Congressman Tom Lantos, the senior Democrat on the International Relations Committee, said the verdict "must not distract Americans from the more pressing issue, the need for a change in the direction of our country's policy toward Iraq, both the conduct of the war effort and our pathetic, corruption-stained attempt at reconstruction." LINK Regardless of what Americans going to the polls tomorrow think, Europe, being a civilized, truly "pro-life", non-death penalty community immediately called for the death sentence to be commuted. European governments and human rights organisations reacted with deep unease to the death penalty handed down to Saddam Hussein yesterday, amid doubts about the fairness of the trial and fears that the sentence could trigger further sectarian bloodshed in Iraq. LINK They're right. "Far from healing Iraqi divisions, this trial has deepened them." Rather than quelling the violence in the region, will only fan the flames of civil war and is "likely to spark 'brutal rise in attacks'". The only thing keeping Baghdad from exploding in the wake of his verdict is the curfew imposed. But this trial, and this verdict, just like this war, were never about creating peace and stability and democracy in Iraq or the middle east. These things were never about saving Iraqi lives from the evil dictator who we put into power and armed with wmd's. They were never about anything at all, except brainwashing small minded, frightened, and trusting people into voting for Republicans so they could win elections and cling to more and more power. It worked in the past. Let's make damn sure it doesn't work tomorrow. Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment

Burning the Constitution to Protect the Flag posted by Wally 9:22 AM Congress should protect our Freedoms, not our symbols. Now that they've solved all the other pressing problems in the country, the Senate is about to begin debate, again, on a flag desecration amendment. This is sort of a biennial event - every election year it rears its ugly and unnecessary head. Problem is, this time it might actually pass. While we at dubyaD40.com respect and revere our flag, we see it as a symbol of something much much greater - a symbol of a whole myriad of Freedoms that we have kind of gotten used to. We find the irony almost overwhelming in diminishing the freedom of expression by protecting the ultimate symbol of the freedom of expression. The Bill of Rights is the envy of freedom lovers everywhere. It has not changed one whit in the more than two centuries since it was written. Now Congress wants to amend it to shrink the protection it provides for unpopular political expression. The issue is a proposal to authorize Congress to prohibit desecration of the American flag. (snip) Do they think they're more patriotic than Gen. Colin Powell, the former secretary of state? He said in opposing a flag desecration amendment, "The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous." Marine Col. John Glenn the astronaut and former U.S. senator? He said, "To say that we should restrict the type of speech or expression that would outrage a majority of listeners or move them to violence is to say that we will tolerate only those kinds of expression that the majority agrees with, or at least does not disagree with too much. That would do nothing less than gut the First Amendment." LINK To those who say that making it a crime to desecrate the flag would do little to restrict our freedoms, let me point out some the other nations that have such laws: China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq (before we shocked and awed them), etc. Nice company we'd be keeping. To those who say "since so few people do it, hardly anyone would be impacted" I say, exactly. What's the point? The point is, it's all politics. They're threatening to diminish the Bill of Rights in order to score political points in an election year. They're selling your rights for a few votes. They are dancing on our most sacred of documents, shouting about how patriotic they are by protecting our flag. Even Republicans are apalled by this politicking at the expense of our Constitution. "The House and Senate floor is about substantive work for the nation, and I think campaigns ought to be kept in the streets where they belong," said former House Republican Leader Dick Armey of Texas. "Frist seems to be going about 80 percent politics and 20 percent policy, though I would be hard pressed to find what that 20 percent is." Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the second-ranking Republican leader in the Senate said "Protecting the First Amendment takes precedence. I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don't think it needs to be altered. LINK" What they don't see, or what they are hoping that we don't see, is that they are defacing our Constitution to save the flag. You know what I have to say about that? Arrest this man! ON further review, I found this interesting little tidbit. According to U.S. Legal Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8: "(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." Permalink :: 1 comments :: Post a Comment

A Thief in the Night posted by Wally 11:39 AM Our fearless leader, the most powerful man in the world, the tough-talking, cowboy strutting, bold and decisive President of the U.S. crept into and out of Iraq like a thief in the night yesterday, without telling anyone. The Iraqi Prime Minister was only given a five-minute warning before the meeting with Bush. So much for being the leader of a sovereign nation. But with poll numbers barely above freezing, Bush apparently felt it was time for another "Mission Accomplished" moment, dropping in on an official visit to boost morale and show that he means business in setting up Iraq as a free and self-governed nation. Only problem, it's hard to impress people with your commitment to them when nobody knows you're there, when you have to sneak in and out afraid to show your face in public. You could hardly call the trip a state visit. Unannounced, Air Force One touched down at an airport closed by American edict, the President was whisked away on American equipment, American guns ready to blaze, to an American village in the center of the capital, secured by American soldiers, who closed bridges and barricaded streets. LINK In other words, he invaded Iraqi airspace unannounced, took over a large contingent of the Iraqi security force (i.e. our troops), sauntered in and out of the country with less warning than if he was flying into Des Moines (he's have to alert air traffic control for that), just so he could talk up their new sovereign government. I assume that I'm not the only one who sees the irony in this. While this was a big surprise to almost everyone, it was not a complete surprise visit. In fact, this trip had been in the works for a month. Knowing that a good photo-op is better than a good policy, Bush had been very secretly planning this for some time. The planning began after Bush directed his staff that he wanted to travel to Baghdad as soon as new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki filled the final positions in his government. With that completed last Thursday, the wheels were set in motion for the trip to take place. Apart from Cheney, the only Cabinet members notified in advance were Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. LINK Is our fearless leader really that paranoid that he has to take this many precautions to keep people from knowing about an official state visit? Is this the actions of a leader, or a coward? Is he really that afraid of the "free and democratically elected government" he set up in Iraq? How can he be that afraid, and still proclaim how great things are going over there? Does anybody still believe him? Apparently, according to this article, the Iraqis don't. The Sunnis see it as a political stunt, and even the Shia know what the trip is really all about. "This visit carries a lot of meanings, but this visit means nothing to the Iraqi street. There will never be any benefits from such a visit and the only one to benefit from this visit is Bush himself and his troops here, not the Iraqi people," said Hassan al-Robaie, a lawmaker loyal to al-Sadr Our President - sneaking in and out like a burglar. Kinda makes you proud, doesn't it? Permalink :: 0 comments :: Post a Comment