Month: July 2005

Fish On!

I’ve been meaning to blog this for weeks now, and I’m finally sick of seeing the business card on my desk.

Fish On! Restaurant in Lewes, Delaware is the bomb. The atmosphere is classy but relaxed, the service is friendly and gorgeous, and the food…Oh! the food!

I had the medium rare spice crusted grilled tuna with green beans, tomatoes, and smoked bacon. It was heavenly. The fish was sushi-fresh, the flavors complimented each other perfectly, and even the green beans, which I don’t usually like, were amazing.

My fellow diners were kind enough to share samples of their entrees as well, and they were equally fabulous. Just don’t ask me what they were.

So if you find yourself anywhere near it, I highly recommend stopping in.

***UPDATE***

http://www.fishon.bz/staffpoems.htm

I love these people.

true value

Yesterday I went to Home Depot to purchase non-lethal mousetraps.

As I entered the store, I saw a young man slowly moving items from one box to another. He glanced up at me, we made eye contact for the briefest of moments, and he quickly turned away. “That’s okay,” I thought while scanning the banners at the end of each vast aisle, “I’m sure I can find someone to ask.” And I meandered over to the “Garden Center” banner, thinking it a more likely spot than “Plumbing” or “Electrical”.

The Garden Center was full of barbeque grills, cleaning supplies, and even candles — but there were no mousetraps of any sort in sight. So I kept wandering.

I wandered through half the store looking for clues, or at least an employee. Finally, in Cabinets, there appeared an obese man in an orange apron.

“Excuse me,” I said. He turned his head so that he was almost looking at me. “I’m looking for non-lethal mousetraps.” He blinked.

“For what?” he said slowly.

“Non-lethal mousetraps.”

He blinked again, but the eyes that opened were no more comprehending. “Uh. I guess that would be Garden. Down at the end of the store, through the sliding doors, outside.” Another man in an orange apron walked by, and the obese man confirmed that they thought that if they had them they would most likely be in Garden, but there was really no way to be sure.

I thanked them and began walking back toward the sliding glass doors. The obese man in an orange apron remained glued to his spot in Cabinets.

I passed through the sliding glass doors into the inferno that was the outdoor section of Garden. “Near the insecticides,” they’d said, but I could find no insecticides. Just bags and bags of dirt. I had no idea there were so many different kinds of dirt.

I began a fresh search for an employee, thinking that perhaps another orange apron could further narrow the hunt. There was no orange anywhere.

I walked back inside and took one more trip down the Garden aisle. There were no mousetraps; there were no employees.

I kept walking, right back out to my car.

This afternoon, I went to Hepfer’s True Value Hardware at the Highland Plaza in Lemoyne to purchase non-lethal mousetraps.

I walked in through the sliding glass doors and a blonde woman in a white t-shirt emblazoned with the words “True Value Hardware” looked up.

“Hi,” I said, “I’m looking for non-lethal mousetraps.”

She smiled and nodded. “Let me just get Ray to show you were they are. Ray?!”

Ray appeared.

“Can you show her where the non-lethal mousetraps are?”

Ray nodded, and began walking. I followed.

We arrived at a wall of assorted kinds of mousetraps.

“This what you’re looking for?” he asked, placing it in my hands.

It was exactly what I was looking for.

I took it to the front. I paid for it. I said thank you. I left.

judging roberts

Newsweek: Judging Roberts

This article is encouraging, given, you know, everything else. I was recently lamenting the political nature of modern Supreme Court nominations, wishing we could return to the days when nominations were
based on legal prowess, rather than stance on issues. I don’t doubt that Roberts’ stances, where they are discernable, are not necessarily in line with my own, and I’d rather he err with the Constitution rather than with the legislature, but… It’s also possible that he sees the difference between a district court and the Supreme Court, and will be less likely to side with legislatures when his is the final word.

Anyway, it’s impossible to know what kind of justice he will turn out to be, but I’m thinking it could be a lot worse.

streets of London

The London police shot the wrong man. Ouch. But I think it’s a little silly for people to get “outraged” and be “demanding answers”. Clearly they need to examine what happened and figure out how to minimize the chances of making the same mistake in the future, but the implication that this shooting makes London less safe than Brazil seems a little absurd to me. This sounds like an extremely tragic mistake, but not a crime against an entire community.

the half-blood prince

So I just finished the new Harry Potter, and now I’m ready for the next one. It’s a little frustrating to have waited so long for something to be done with it and back to waiting so quickly. But, of course, I do take a little bit of misplaced pride in finishing it the day after it was released (and I didn’t do the midnight thing).

Anyway, Potter fans won’t be disappointed, although I’m not sure there was any doubt about that. Devastated, perhaps, but not disappointed.

first amendment martyr

I hate to assume that the current First Amendment firestorm is all politics, but the Rove revelation has me wondering. I believe that confidential sources are important in a free press, etc, etc, but the more I think about it (and, unfortunately, the more we know), the more I begin to agree with this editorial:

Reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate scope of journalistic privilege. But we should keep the legal question distinct from the ethical question: Is a journalist ever ethically permitted to break a promise and divulge a source? However we answer the legal question, the answer to the ethical must be a resounding yes.

Should Miller have refused to offer anonymity to all those “high-level” sources who sold us a bill of goods on Iraq? Yes.

If it becomes apparent to a journalist that a source lied to him on a matter crucial to the public good, should he be ethically permitted to expose the lie and the liar, despite any previous promises of confidentiality? Yes.

If a source with a clear political motivation passes along classified information that has no value for public debate but would endanger the career, and possibly the life, of a covert agent, is a journalist ethically permitted to “out” the no-good sneak? You bet. And if the knowledge that they can’t always hide behind anonymity has a “chilling effect” on political hacks eager to manipulate the media in furtherance of their vested interests, that’s OK with me.

As an aside, one article I read this morning stated that author was no fan of journalistic shield laws, because what happens if they’re repealed? Have we then conceded that the Constitution doesn’t protect journalists?

off again

Given my recent posting habits, there’s probably no point in posting these AFK messages, since I could easily go an equally long (or longer) time even I were in town, but…

I’m off in a few minutes to spend some time with a great uncle in Tennessee. I may or may not have internet access there, and I may or may not be back in time for the Slam on Saturday.

But that reminds me, you should go to the Slam.

redefining terrorism

The National Counterterrorism Center has redefined “terrorism” to include 3,200 incidents in 2004, up from 651 under the old definition.

I’m wary of any “redefinition”, but especially of one that changes numbers so drastically, and so clearly in a way that supports the administration’s priorities. On the other hand, CNN says:

the earlier estimate did not include the following:

• The February 27, 2004, sinking of a superferry in the Philippines that killed about 130 people when a bomb planted by Abu Sayyaf rebels went off. The terrorist attack was one of the deadliest in the history of the Philippines.

• The August 24 downings by Chechen suicide bombers of two Russian airliners. The attacks occurred nearly simultaneously, killing a total of 89 people.

It certainly seems like any realistic definition of terrorism should include those incidents.

But what about the other 2,500? I couldn’t find a simple list of changes (I’d guess it’s more complicated than that anyway, although I don’t know), but here are the two I did find:

  1. Domestic incidents are now counted. IE, Iraqi insurgents attacking Iraqi police (but not Iraqi soldiers). Only international attacks were counted before.
  2. The new definition includes all damage and injuries. The old definition included only those attacks that caused more than $10,000 in damage or non-superficial injuries.

They’re also announcing the launch of a new website, the Terrorism Knowledge Base. It gives the following definition:

Terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. These acts are designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take. All terrorist acts are crimes. Many would also be violation of the rules of war if a state of war existed. This violence or threat of violence is generally directed against civilian targets. The motives of all terrorists are political, and terrorist actions are generally carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. Unlike other criminal acts, terrorists often claim credit for their acts. Finally, terrorist acts are intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage of the cause, having long-term psychological repercussions on a particular target audience. The fear created by terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerate the strengths of the terrorist and the importance of the cause, to provoke governmental overreaction, to discourage dissent, or simply to intimidate and thereby enforce compliance with their demands.

Life would be easier if everything were black and white.