This Sunday, some idiot intentionally let their entire flock of exotic birds escape into a San Jose neighborhood. Our parrot rescue (mickaboo.com) went down there to try to recapture the birds before they starved or were taken by hawks.

I called KTVU about the story and they sent a out news crew. This is the local coverage, but we just learned that CNN Headline News is re-running the story. http://www.ktvu.com/video/22781207/index.h...

So far, we've recaptured two birds and lost one to a hawk . Hopefully, we'll have more safely inside cages by this evening.

Repost from a few months ago. Thought it might be useful today.


1980...1984...1988...1994...2000...2004. We never seem to learn.

Every time a weak, center-right Democrat loses an election we hear the same things over and over: "lesser of two evils", "purity police", "you're probably happy we lost", etc, etc, etc. And every time, we go right back to the same losing strategy.

Take 2000 for example. Sure, you can blame the Florida felon's list or the butterfly ballot. You can even continue to blame Ralph Nader and the few people who voted their conscience. But none of those things cost us as many votes as an anemic, middle-of-the-road candidate and his sanctimonious tool of a running mate. Gore's come a long way in 9 years, but in 2000 he wasn't exactly a progressive crusader. Failure to learn this lesson led directly to the Kerry candidacy of 2004 and another close, steal-able election against the worst president in history.

I thought after 2006 and 2008 we had finally figured it out: you run attractive candidates that excite the base and you win elections. You don't even have to excite them that much -- Democrats and Democratic values have always held the true majority in this country -- you just need to give them a reason to come out and vote.

But here we are again. We've lost two races with unpopular candidates: one, a corporate pirate and another who tried to out-teabag his opponent. And here come the posts begging us to "not lose heart" or to "hold our nose and vote" -- just as if the last 30 years of national politics never happened.

It's not going to work. It's never worked. If we keep nominating weak candidates, if our national leaders keep running to the right under some vague smokescreen of "bipartisanship", then Democrats will lose. And if, somehow, Republicans manage to field even crappier candidates than we do (see 1992), *we* -- as in "We The People" -- still lose.

I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I do know that this continual reliance on weak, incremental change and candidates just a little less appalling than their opponents is a proven failure. Even if we manage to eek out a few victories, we've already seen how one committed, radical Republican can undo decades of Democratic incrementalism.

It's time we stopped settling for less.

Glioblastoma multiforme, the most common form of the disease. He's got about 9 months left.

He'd been having headaches for about 6 weeks, getting progressively worse, but he waited to see a doctor until his Medicare kicked it at his 65th birthday. Not that seeing a doctor earlier would have done that much for him ... maybe bought him an extra month or two.

We knew it was bad when he went in for surgery, so the results weren't surprising. But what really got to me as the surgeon stood there explaining it to us was the number of times he said, "We don't know."

This is the most common form of brain cancer -- the thing that took Teddy Kennedy -- and one of the most prominent neurologists in the world could only wave his hands as he explained how little they knew about this disease, and how futile the so-called "treatment" would be.

What he also said was that, in the past 30 years -- while we've had bank bailouts and peso bailouts and S&L bailouts -- the sum total of research into this disease has managed to improve the prognosis by ... about two months.

To me, this is the heart of the debate we're having right now. It's not just about health coverage or financial reform or war escalation. It's about moving the priorities of this country away from firehosing money at the wealthy and back to helping make people's lives better. I realize aggressive brain cancer is a tough problem to solve, but we should solve it. We should unapologetically commit our lives, fortunes and sacred honor to eliminating this disease.

But instead, we continue funneling our resources toward war, greed and profit for the few. Our biggest innovation in the last 3 decades has been to export this twisted philosophy to the rest of the world. And we're finally starting to see the effects at home as the rot of corruption begins to eat our society from the inside.

In 2010, in America, my friend deserves better than being told, "you're going to be dead in 9 months and we really don't understand why." We all do. But until we eliminate our own metastasizing greed, I doubt much will change in the next 30 years.

1980...1984...1988...1994...2000...2004. We never seem to learn.

Every time a weak, center-right Democrat loses an election we hear the same things over and over: "lesser of two evils", "purity police", "you're probably happy we lost", etc, etc, etc. And every time, we go right back to the same losing strategy.

Take 2000 for example. Sure, you can blame the Florida felon's list or the butterfly ballot. You can even continue to blame Ralph Nader and the few people who voted their conscience. But none of those things cost us as many votes as an anemic, middle-of-the-road candidate and his sanctimonious tool of a running mate. Gore's come a long way in 9 years, but in 2000 he wasn't exactly a progressive crusader. Failure to learn this lesson led directly to the Kerry candidacy of 2004 and another close, steal-able election against the worst president in history.

I thought after 2006 and 2008 we had finally figured it out: you run attractive candidates that excite the base and you win elections. You don't even have to excite them that much -- Democrats and Democratic values have always held the true majority in this country -- you just need to give them a reason to come out and vote.

But here we are again. We've lost two races with unpopular candidates: one, a corporate pirate and another who tried to out-teabag his opponent. And here come the posts begging us to "not lose heart" or to "hold our nose and vote" -- just as if the last 30 years of national politics never happened.

It's not going to work. It's never worked. If we keep nominating weak candidates, if our national leaders keep running to the right under some vague smokescreen of "bipartisanship", then Democrats will lose. And if, somehow, Republicans manage to field even crappier candidates than we do (see 1992), *we* -- as in "We The People" -- still lose.

I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I do know that this continual reliance on weak, incremental change and candidates just a little less appalling than their opponents is a proven failure. Even if we manage to eek out a few victories, we've already seen how one committed, radical Republican can undo decades of Democratic incrementalism.

It's time we stopped settling for less.

Which is why this Congress and this administration will never allow a vote on Single Payer.

Medicare for All is simple, easy to explain and absolutely impossible to refute with any rational argument. An honest, good-faith Single Payer bill would have a hard time *not* passing Congress, unless some Dems wanted to go on the record as voting against the clear interests of their constituencies. If we'd actually had an extended debate on the subject, you'd have seen an outpouring of support from the progressive base that would make the 9/12 protests look like a .. um.. tea party.

Right now, with a new, popular president and a peaking of the disgust with Republicans and health insurance companies, we had a rare opportunity to enact something truly transformative for this country. That's why everyone in D.C. has worked so hard to keep this debate "off the table."


At this point it's probably too late to get real healthcare reform, but we should not forget this lesson. Next year, when Obama and Geithner and Summers put forward their weak, Wall-Street-coddling, guaranteed-to-crash-again financial reform, we need to be prepared. We need to have alternative legislation ready and we need to demand an honest debate and an up-or-down vote.

No more of this "it won't pass Congress" B.S. Even a losing vote on real reform is a win, as it will determine -- clearly and on-the-record -- who's with us and who's against us.

but good feelings for me.

Yeah, i slam the guy pretty hard (usually on domestic issues), but THIS is the kind of thing I worked for and donated for and voted for: a President who can, on occasion, make us all feel proud.

Congrats, Mr. President. And next year? Could you go for the economics prize?

Way back in January, Paul Krugman posted a self-described "wonkish" column on his back-of-the-envelope calculations on the upcoming stimulus. He ends with this somewhat gloomy paragraph:


As it turns out, Krugman's guess on the unemployment numbers was a bit low (the result of him intentionally choosing optimistic parameters for his inputs), but he certainly knows his Republicans. Check out what Mitch McConnell had to say on Tuesday:



What Krugman missed (and should have seen coming even in January) was Harry Reid bobbling along behind McConnell, nodding his head at every word.



Maybe we should just declare war on ourselves. Congress would give us as much money as we needed -- and it's not like we have any troops left to do the actual fighting...

Meet Anza and Gnocchi. Both are male and of different (but closely-related) species. They've been pair-bonded (birdie life partners) for a year now. They feed each other, groom each other and insist on sharing a sleep cage. If one has to go away for a vet visit, both of them spend their entire time doing loud "contact calls" until they're reunited.




Now meet Clipper and Pixley. These two wild girls come from the San Francisco flock (as does Anza) and they are inseparable. Clipper had a neurological parasite that left her disabled and she relies on Pixley for a lot of her care. It's Pixley who checks out all new food, toys and perches, and she often brings tastes back to Clipper before helping her over to the food dish. Even though Pixley is the smaller bird, she never hesitates to put her body in between Clipper and any bird (or human) who might seem the least bit threatening.



Just like Anza and Gnocchi, they show all the signs of a permanent pair bond: mutual grooming, food sharing and close sleeping arrangements.


Out of 14 parrots that we've fostered, we've seen 4 pair bonds develop. Three were same-sex and the only heterosexual bond was more of a parent-child relationship between a medium-sized conure and a tiny lovebird.

Anyone who has kept a parrot flock knows this. The birds are almost oblivious to gender when it comes to pairing up for life. Since it's impossible to determine the sex of these birds by sight, I wonder how many of the observed "male/female" pairs in the wild are actually same-sex couples.

Is this what they mean by Polly-Amory?

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 15, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
James S. Brady Briefing Room


Q Tony, American deaths in Iraq have reached 2,500. Is there any response or reaction from the President on that?


MR. SNOW: It's a number




And every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something.




The President would like the war to be over now.




Everybody would like the war to be over now.




And the one thing that we saw in Iraq this week is further testimony to the quality of the men and the women who are doing that,




and the dedication and determination




to try to ensure that the people of Iraq really do live in a free, effective democracy of their own creation and design.

Fresh Peach Ice Cream

This also works GREAT for both strawberries and blueberries, producing a very intense fruit flavor. For blueberries, add a healthy pinch of cinnamon and use a potato masher to press them lightly into the sugar in order to get the juices flowing.

Both the cooked peaches and the custard mixture must be cooled to 40 degrees before you churn them. Since they are fine in the refrigerator overnight, you may want to prepare them the day before you plan to churn and serve the ice cream. You’ll get the very best results from using in-season, fully ripened peaches, but in a pinch, you can substitute 2 cups IQF (individually quick frozen) sliced peaches and replace the vodka with peach-flavored liqueur. The ice cream is at its peak when eaten within four hours of churning, although covered, it will keep in the freezer for up to two days.

Makes about 1 quart

3	medium-size ripe peaches , peeled, pitted, and 
        cut into 1/2-inch pieces (about 2 cups)
1/2	teaspoon lemon juice from 1 lemon
        pinch table salt 
1	cup granulated sugar 
6	tablespoons granulated sugar 
1 1/4	cups whole milk 
1 1/3	cups heavy cream 
6	large egg yolks 
1	teaspoon vanilla extract 
2	tablespoons vodka 

1. Stir peaches, lemon juice, a pinch salt, and 1/2 cup sugar in medium-size nonreactive saucepan to combine; let stand until a pool of syrupy liquid accumulates and peaches soften slightly, 1 to 1 1/2 hours.

2. Position sieve over medium bowl set in an ice-water bath; set aside. Heat milk, cream, and 1/2 cup sugar in medium-size heavy saucepan over medium heat, stirring occasionally, until steam appears, 5 to 6 minutes. Turn off heat. Meanwhile, whisk yolks and remaining 6 tablespoons sugar in medium bowl until pale yellow. Stir half the warmed milk mixture into beaten yolk mixture until just blended. Return milk-yolk mixture to saucepan of remaining warmed milk mixture. Heat milk-yolk mixture over medium-low heat, stirring constantly with wooden spoon until steam appears, foam subsides, and mixture just begins to thicken (see illustrations below) or instant-read thermometer registers 172 degrees (mixture must not boil or eggs will curdle). Remove from heat, and following step 3 in illustration, immediately strain custard into prepared bowl. Cool custard mixture to room temperature, stir in vanilla, then cover and refrigerate until instant-read thermometer registers 40 degrees, at least 2 and up to 24 hours.

3. Meanwhile, heat softened peaches and their liquid, stirring occasionally, over medium-high heat until peaches are tender and flesh has broken down, 3 to 4 minutes. Transfer to bowl, stir in vodka, and refrigerate until cold, at least 4 and up to 24 hours.

4. Strain chilled peaches, reserving liquid. Stir reserved peach liquid into chilled custard mixture; pour into ice cream machine canister and churn, following manufacturer’s instructions, until mixture is frozen and resembles soft-serve ice cream, 25 to 30 minutes. Add peaches; continue to churn until combined, about 30 seconds longer. Transfer ice cream to airtight container. Freeze until firm, about 2 hours.




STEP BY STEP: Step By Step to Smooth Custard

1. During the early stages of cooking, there is a thin layer of foam on top of the custard.


2. When steam begins to rise from the custard and the foam has almost totally subsided, it is near 180 degrees.


3. Remove the custard from the heat and pour it through a fine sieve into a bowl placed over an ice-water bath.



From Cook's Illustrated, my favorite food site on the web. It's a pay site, but for $20/year, you get access to every issue they've ever published.

Apr 1st, 2008

Clinton campaign buoyed by new numbers

RALEIGH, SC -- The Clinton campaign today cited new numbers for pledged delegate and popular vote counts that they believe will have a significant impact on the race for the Democratic nomination.

"We're very encouraged by the new numbers we're seeing," said Clinton chief strategist and pollster Mark Penn. "Especially promising are threeve and sixen, but elevion, hundrety and twillion have some real potential for helping us win the popular vote."

"The finance committee has been using numbers like this for months and they're very happy with the results," said Penn. Penn, whose salary is reported to be florpteen kajillion dollars a month, dismissed more "traditional" numbers as having a strong anti-Clinton bias.

Penn said that many of the new numbers will only function in large primary states (excluding Illinois, Virginia or Texas) while others are specifically tailored for counting angry white women over 60.


Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn,
shown here cleaning his fingers after
pulling out the latest polling numbers.

Experts agree that this is a natural extension for the Clintons, who are already considered pioneers in the area of political parsing and word redefinition.

"What Bill did for the word 'is', Hillary is doing for 'more' and 'less' and 'zero chance whatsoever'," said Penn, pointing to a new tracking poll in which Senator Clinton was leading boogeda-boogeda-boogeda to SCREEEEEE.

March 26th, 4:45 pm
Hillary Clinton called on to explain 60-year association with herself

Candidate's ties to controversial politician may spell trouble for campaign


SCRANTON, PA - Following several questionable "misstatements" about her trip to Bosnia, Hillary Clinton is once again being asked to justify her continuing affiliation with her campaign's most controversial figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Many supporters and political commentators are starting to wonder aloud why Senator Clinton has continued this relationship when it seems to be the source of so many of her problems.

"This is not just some random confidante," said Clinton expert and close friend Richard Mellon Scaife. "It's no secret that Hillary Clinton is probably the most important person in Hillary Clinton's life. There really is no one else that even comes close. She should have expected that she would come under increased scrutiny, especially when she's been causing this many problems for Hillary's presidential campaign."

For her part, Senator Clinton addressed concerns in a press conference today. "I fully reject and denounce any offensive statements that may have been made," said the candidate. "But honestly, is it really fair that I be held accountable for everything said by me over 35 years of public life?"

She continued: "Did I know of my tendency to make untruthful statements in the past? Yes, I did. But so far, no one has been able to prove that I was even present when those things were said."


Hillary Rodham Clinton (left) attempting to distance herself from
controversial statements made by Hillary Rodham Clinton (right).

Clinton confidant James Carville was less than sympathetic. "She's a Judas!" screeched Carville. "After all the things Hillary has done for herself over the years, I can't believe she would betray herself in such a cowardly and unprofessional manner."

Aides contend that Clinton has been trying to cut ties with herself for years. They point to her heavy use of consultants, her forced speeches and manufactured tears as examples of recent attempts to develop a more acceptable persona. They are also quick to point out how unlikely it is that Hillary Clinton will play more than a token role in any upcoming Hillary Clinton administration.

March 17th, 2008. 12:18 pm
Troubling questions emerge about Obama campaign staff

Candidate admits several more advisors "may not be Martin Luther King, Jr."


The Barack Obama campaign said today that they were looking into new allegations that several of the candidate's campaign advisors were not, in fact, Martin Luther King, Jr. This new scandal, coming so close on the heals of My-Retired-Pastor-is-not-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-gate could spell serious trouble for Obama's bid to be Black President of the United States.

"In earlier campaigns, only the candidate was expected to be Dr. King," said Black Spokesperson Jesse Jackson. Jackson, whose own 1988 campaign for Black President collapsed amid rumors that he, himself, was not Martin Luther King, Jr., said the new requirements that a candidate's staff, family and acquaintances consist of no one but the slain civil rights leader may be difficult to overcome.

Senator Obama addressed the issue himself in a phone interview this morning. "I assure you that we take these charges very seriously," he said. "If anyone on my staff or advisory board can be shown to not be Martin Luther King, Jr., they will no longer be a part of my campaign."

Obama did not say whether he would reject or denounce such staffers. He did, however, vehemently deny rumors that he had ever laughed at a black comedian who was not Bill Cosby or listened to any black musician who was not Hootie and/or the Blowfish.


Retired Pastor Jeremiah Wright, left, shown here next to a
photograph of revered civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.,
whom Rev. Wright is not.

Hillary Clinton's campaign responded with a brief statement by Chief Campaign Strategist, Mark Penn. "Enough with the math and the insurmountable leads," said Penn. "The Democratic party cannot afford to nominate a candidate for Black President who the white voters of Pennsylvania are not comfortable with."

Penn took care to downplay charges of race-baiting on the part of the Clinton campaign. "This has nothing to do with race. The people of the United State of Pennsylvania will happily support a black candidate, as long as he and all his friends, family and associates are absolutely above reproach in everything they do or say."

Penn ended his statement without taking questions, citing a previous commitment to lead the weekly Atrocity Glossing seminar at Blackwater USA.

Actually, pie is pretty hard...

I make mine one batch at a time. It tastes way better than Heinz and lasts forever in the fridge:

1 6 oz can tomato paste
1/2 cup light corn syrup
1/4 cup white vinegar
1/4 cup cider vinegar
1/4 cup water
1 tablespoon light brown sugar
1 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon onion powder
1/4 tsp garlic powder
1/8 tsp ground cloves

Just stir everything together and bring to a boil over medium heat. Simmer for 30 minutes, stirring often. Let it cool and then funnel it into a mason jar or glass milk jug.

If you don't want to deal with all the whole and ground spices, you can substitute a spice mix called ras el hanout. Add a couple tablespoons to the tomato paste and make sure you fry it just a little before pouring in the wine.

For those who don't happen to have a jar of preserved lemons sitting in your pantry, you can make a pretty good facsimile by peeling the zest from 2 or 3 lemons (leave the white stuff) and simmering it for about 15 minutes in a strong brine made of salt, lemon juice and a bit of the whole spice mix and aromatics listed below (add a little water if you don't have enough juice to cover). Let the zest cool in the brine, rinse and use as described below. Store any extra in the brine for future use.

Oh, and don't be turned off by the prunes -- the long braising time turns them into sweet little pillows of lamby goodness. They're probably the best part of this recipe.


(Thanks to hippywife for the inspiration. )

Moroccan Braised Lamb Shanks with Prunes and Preserved Lemon

6 lamb shanks, trimmed

salt and ground pepper

1/4 cup olive oil

whole spice mix

1 tablespoon whole cumin seed
2 teaspoons whole fennel seed
12 whole peppercorns
6 whole green cardamom pods
1 3-inch cinnamon stick
6 whole allspice berries

ground spices

2 teaspoon paprika
1 teaspoon cayenne
1/4 teaspoon mace
1/2 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg

aromatics

2 bay leaves
1 teaspoon lavender
1 teaspoon ground ginger

mirepoix

one large onion, chopped (~2 cups)
3 carrots, chopped (~1 cup)
3 ribs celery, chopped (~1 cup)
large pinch salt
large pinch sugar


2-3 tablespoons tomato paste

6 whole cloves garlic, lightly smashed and peeled

36 pitted prunes (about 10 oz)
2 preserved lemon rinds, cleaned, rinsed and chopped

1/2 teaspoon saffron threads, dissolved in 1/2 c warm water
2 cups dry red wine
1 cup dry white wine
2 cups double-strength meat stock (I used frozen homemade turkey stock)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Preheat oven to 300F, set rack to lowest or second-lowest level.

Generously season lamb shanks with salt and ground pepper.

Heat olive oil in a large dutch oven medium heat. Add shanks in 2-3 batches and brown well. Set aside.

Spoon out all but 3 tablespoons fat from the pot, return to heat.

Add whole spices and fry for 30 seconds. Immediately add mirepoix, salt and sugar and stir to combine. Reduce heat to medium-low.

Sweat vegetables and spices until soft and well-caramelized.

Add tomato paste, ground spices and aromatics , stir to combine and cook on medium until tomato paste and spices begin to fry in the oil.

Pour in red wine, deglaze and simmer until reduced by half.

Add white wine, saffron and stock

Return lamb shanks to the pot, add prunes, garlic and preserved lemon.

Cover tightly and bake for 2 hours.

Increase heat to 350, uncover and bake for 30 min -- top surface of shanks should be nicely browned.

Turn shanks over to expose bottom surface, bake for another 30 min.

Meat should be fall-off-the-bone tender at this point. If the shanks are still a bit al dente, re-cover the pot and bake at 300 for another 1/2 hour or so.

Remove from oven, cover, and let rest for 15 minutes.



(This is even better the second day. Store the pot in the fridge and scrape off any visible fat after it cools. If the sauce becomes too thick, you can add a bit more stock before reheating.)





Side suggestions: Steamed pumpkin and/or couscous with onion and toasted almonds.