Also funny

Chicom college students give this song the treatment it deserves.

Awesome Prank

Wow...shocked at first, but slowly overcome by the hilarious genius of it.

Protecting the wrong people

After listening to an insane amount of self righteous demagoguery involving the McCain amendment (Cheney as Torquemada) I’ve found myself supporting the amendment less and less. Primarily I think this is because the arguments employed all generally involve a certain degree of bait-and-switch. When sound moral arguments are employed to question the wisdom of disallowing all “torture”, proponents of the McCain bill shift to a legalistic argument invoking the third Geneva convention as if it’s Mosaic law. And when this is questioned the argument seamlessly shifts to anyone who is against the McCain amendment is implicitly pro-torture. There are many strong arguments against torture I agree with and would cause me to support regulation to limit torture as much as possible but none are convincing enough to persuade me that the human rights of an evil person trump those of their present and future victims. While torture may be ineffective in 99 out of 100 situations, should a situation arise where depriving someone of sleep might help keep 50 people from being blown up; well then let the Christina Aguilera blast away.

But wouldn’t this be a war crime? Article 4 or the Third Geneva convention clearly states that treaty protections only extend to:

o "Members of the armed forces"

o "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"

o "Persons who accompany the armed forces"

o "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"

o Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

I don’t see where anyone detained by the US in Afganistan or Iraq meet any of the criteria. The McCain ammendment goes far beyond the Geneva conventions though. If passed it would extend protections of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Torture is a horrible thing but I think it’s too easy to lose track of who the real victims in this conflict are. I believe it would be far worse to instill a greater fear of legal consequence within those that are working to protect the innocent. This is a bad law backed up by bad arguments.

One other thing: I do want to briefly acknowledge just how f'd I think the Republican party is at present. While I think too much was made over NJ and Virginia continuing to have democratic Governors, all of Ahnuld's amendments being defeated and the House's inability to pass the most recent budget doesn't bode well for 2006. God I miss Newt...

Taking a Stand

The Indy Star takes a gutsy stand against tornados.

Excellent critique

Steven Green of Vodkapundit has an excellent post that speaks equally well to both supporters and critics (the reasonable ones anyway) of the war in Iraq . He puts the war on terror in historical context, but primarily focuses on the growing role of the media in war and how what has been reported has influenced it's outcome. He attributes some of the media's tendencies to the lack of perspective in its coverage, primarily its lack of embeded reporters.

However it's worth noting that he also has this to say:

I don't mean to imply that the MSM needs to hop on board the bandwagon and cheerlead for any President along any military campaign, no matter how foolhardy – far from it. In case you hadn't noticed, I used a good portion of this essay to complain about Washington, and that's something the media can do a whole lot more effectively than one small blogger. Criticism isn't just necessary, it's a necessary good. But the MSM needs to relearn constructive criticism, and they need to remember which country defends their rights, and which group of people would gleefully slit their throats.

Here's the first section of the piece:

Four years into the Terror War, "What's the most important element for victory?" is a question long overdue. It's also a question our national leadership, nearly all of our intellectuals, and none of our mainstream media have yet to answer.

President George W Bush hasn't told us, because he doesn't know. His rivals for the Oval Office never answered the question – either because they also don't know or because they don't like the answer. Our Congress and Senate ought to be debating this issue, the most important of our postmodern era. Instead, they're doling out the pork, posing for the cameras, or busy keeping the campaign dollars flowing in by treating small, partisan differences as matters of life and death. Here we are, with a real life-and-death struggle on our hands, and our leadership fiddles while the barbarians beat us at our own game.

Our public thinkers – pundits, intellectuals, whatever you want to call them – are the people we should most rely on for guidance in times such as these. However, they've come up short even using the pathetic standard by which this blogger measures them. Too many of our intellectuals are caught in the past, real or imagined. Most liberal thinkers think one of two things: That this Terror War can be safely ignored (or treated as a police matter, which is effectively the same thing) or that "America isn't worth dying for." Either path leads to defeat – but at least Cindy Sheehan is cheering openly for the other side. Conservatives fall into three camps. Paleoconservatives, like Pat Buchanan, have joined in the loony left's "blame America first" chorus. If only we'd cut off Israel, buy off the Arabs, retreat behind our borders, and act a lot more like France – then we wouldn't be in this mess. Neoconservatives hold the naïve hope that if we just topple the dictators, democracy will sprout like shiitake mushrooms after a cool rain. Vanilla conservatives might have some reservations about singular campaigns in this war (George Will's reservations about Iraq, for example), but usually get all gung-ho whenever and wherever the troops are involved. But as I discussed in an essay called "Game Plan" last year, this war is about a lot more than combat.

Our mainstream media haven't answered the question, because they know the answer – and they're deathly afraid you'll find out what it is. But we'll get to them in a moment.

Incredibly Disturbing

For many people in Africa, it sucks to live. You can imagine how much worse it is to be in prison there.

Times up Bambi

Well there’s a sliver of good news for Republicans this week. It looks like the NRDC hippies and Larry David’s wife will no longer be able to keep us from our precious. The Senate voted (86-13) (51-48) today to allow drilling in ANWR. The 1.33 gallons-per-minute dream is still alive! Vroom!!!

Chomp

Noam Chomsky, the well known critic of US foreign policy and now retired Professor of Linguistics at MIT was recently named the worlds "top public intellectual" by Prospect magazine. I know nothing about his theories on linguistics and only a little about his politics, but it was his politics that got him on this list. The more I read about this guy, the more I wish folks on the left would distance themselves from his critiques. His logic, such as it is, is entirely incongruous with any conception of a moral high ground. I.e., since personal politics boils down to which ideology most reflects your broad ideas of right or wrong, consistency matters. If one truly cares about the plight of oppressed people, one does not flippantly excuse the actions of a despotic/totalitarian regime. This interview from the Guardian, hardly a bastion of conservative journalism, offers a pretty dramatic example of how morally capricious this fellow is.

"on the pogroms of Russia, which none the less Chomsky can't help qualifying as "not very bad, by contemporary standards. In the worst of the major massacres, I think about 49 people were killed."

or

"Being smart, he believes, is a function of a plodding, unsexy, application to the facts and "using your intelligence to decide what's right".

This is, of course, what Chomsky has been doing for the last 35 years, and his conclusions remain controversial: that practically every US president since the second world war has been guilty of war crimes; that in the overall context of Cambodian history, the Khmer Rouge weren't as bad as everyone makes out; that during the Bosnian war the "massacre" at Srebrenica was probably overstated. (Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.)"

More profound examples of these basic views online, simply google his name and browse through the results. The most concise and efficient grouping of critiques is can be found on Wikipedia.

How common is this?

While it’s likely that Mary Mapes is just an especially nutty (ex)member of the media establishment I wonder how many Journalists like Mapes rationalize ideologically motivated journalism by comparing themselves to Edward R. Murrow. Is this the security blanket journalists like those at the NYTimes wrap themselves in every time it’s revealed their reporting is less than objective? If this self-indulgent Robin Hood fantasy is what allows ideologues to believe they’re still good journalists, what does this say about Academia? I’m sorry but Edward R. Murrow and Joe McCarthy are hardly the hero and villain liberal mythology (and George Clooney) would like them to be.

That’s it?

So after 2 years of heavy breathing by the media all we get is an indictment of a subject of the probe (Scooter) who testified that they heard about Plame from Tim Russert instead of Cheney -- which in itself is perfectly legal? While I won’t dispute that what Scooter did was obviously very stupid (he of all people should know how and why you don’t perjure oneself), isn’t the real story that the whole basis for the investigation was a joke; that the administration did nothing illegal in their handling of Joe Wilson’s leaks, lies and subsequent editorial? Unfortunately I think the Democrats and their media sycophants will use this indictment as a foothold, however tenuous, to try to argue that the administration started the Iraq war knowingly on false pretenses despite the fact this investigation has essentially proven the opposite.

UPDATE: As usual, Andrew Sullivan needs to take a deep breath and meditate on Occam’s Razor. None of the conspiracy theories over the last 2 years have played out and there’s no reason to expect that any others created by his excitable mind will either.

ONE MORE: Tom Maguire is compiling a list of every reporter that admitted to having knowledge of Valerie Plame prior to the Novak editorial. What does this mean? Probably not as much as it would have a few months ago before Fitzgerald doused any hopes of indictments related to Plame's identity, but it still could make a Libby prosecution much more difficult; forcing Fitz to prove that Journalists didn’t bring up Plame before he did; in effect to prove a negative. At the very least it further demonstrates just how idiotic this whole controversy is.

Remote control people

I just found this article on Drudge, and it's incredibly bizarre.

Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp., Japans top telephone company, says it is developing the technology to perhaps make video games more realistic. But more sinister applications also come to mind.

I can envision it being added to militaries' arsenals of so-called "non-lethal" weapons.

A special headset was placed on my cranium by my hosts during a recent demonstration at an NTT research center. It sent a very low voltage electric current from the back of my ears through my head _ either from left to right or right to left, depending on which way the joystick on a remote-control was moved.

I found the experience unnerving and exhausting: I sought to step straight ahead but kept careening from side to side. Those alternating currents literally threw me off.

The technology is called galvanic vestibular stimulation _ essentially, electricity messes with the delicate nerves inside the ear that help maintain balance.

I felt a mysterious, irresistible urge to start walking to the right whenever the researcher turned the switch to the right. I was convinced _ mistakenly _ that this was the only way to maintain my balance.

The phenomenon is painless but dramatic. Your feet start to move before you know it. I could even remote-control myself by taking the switch into my own hands.

Freaky.

The right thing to do

Harriet Miers just withdrew her name from consideration for the SCOTUS post. Tell us what you think.

Google Earth

If you haven't yet, you should try playing with Google's new Google Earth program (currently only for PC's). It's freakin' awesome. You can explore any part of the world from almost any height and any angle. I've already "visited" the pyramids, hoover dam, mt. everest, mt. saint helens, the grand canyon, eiffel tower, mt. rushmore (you can actually make out some of the faces), and several other places.

My only complaint is that searching for locations, even popular ones, can often be a pain. It will tell you "Your search returned no results" for some places even if, once you've found it manually, it recognizes the name you originally searched for. I recommend having a second internet window open to use to find the coordinates of the place you want to visit, then find it manually using those--I find it quite entertaining. (FYI: Wikipedia often has the coordinates of famous landmarks).

Good point

My favorite "contrarian", Christopher Hitchens, has a very informative/chastening piece on the preconceptions of Iraq's ethnic and religious groups and where they rest politically, check it.

Ever wonder how to piss off an Iraqi? It's relatively simple. Just ask one, no sooner than you have been introduced: "So you're an Iraqi? How absolutely fascinating. Do tell: Are you a Kurd or a Sunni or a Shiite?" This will work every time, just as it's always so polite and so useful to ask a brown-skinned American if he or she is Chicano or, you know … Latina.
...

When it comes to Iraq, one of the most boring and philistine habits of our media is the insistence on using partitionist and segregationist language that most journalists would (I hope) scorn to employ if they were discussing a society they actually knew. It is the same mistake that disfigured the coverage of the Bosnian war, where every consumer of news was made to understand that there was fighting between Serbs, Croats, and "Muslims." There are two apples and one orange in that basket, as any fool should be able to see. Serbian and Croatian are national differences, which track very closely with the distinction between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic beliefs. Many Muslims are Bosnian, but not all Bosnians are Muslim. And in fact, the Bosnian forces in the late war were those which most repudiated any confessional definition. (And when did you ever hear the media saying that, "Today the Orthodox shelled Sarajevo," or, "Yesterday the Catholics bombarded Mostar"?)

You should watch the "Colbert Report"

His debut ruled. I hope he can keep it up. Slate has a review.

An oldie but a goodie

Ever since I saw him on Charlie Rose a couple years ago, I've been terribly impressed with one Lt. General David Patraeus. I stumbled on this post from Tigerhawk a while back, and it addresses many of the worries folks like me have had about how things have proceeded in Iraq. I was reminded of it when reading about the recent voting for Iraq's constitutional referendum. This by no means provides excuse for those who have led poorly, but it does give me hope that there are some terribly competent folks out there doing their damndest to help this process to work and who are showing progress. What follows is copied directly from Tigerhawk's post and is long, but is quite engaging. If you'd prefer not to read it, here's the video (note, I got the realplayer link to work, but didn't have luck with the window's media player file).

In General Petraeus' conception, the Transition Command has five missions:

To "help Iraqis." "We believed what TE Lawrence said: “Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not win it for them.”

To "organize" the Iraqi military. The task of building a functioning military and special police force is extremely complex, and the Iraqis are doing it with Coalition and NATO guidance. Iraq is doing its own "recruiting and vetting." We are helping them design the units, which includes the personnel and command structure of each unit from the platoon on up.

The organization of the training of the special Iraqi police had to be particularly original. We have "dramatically shifted" the police training from the Kosovo model. “Iraq is not a 9mm pistol world, it is an AK47 world.”

To equip the Iraqi military.

This is an enormous task. "I cannot overstate how big this mission is." More than 700,000 uniforms, 210,000 sets of body armor, hundreds of thousands of small arms, helmets, hundreds of million of rounds of ammunition, 20,000 vehicles and so forth have been distributed to Iraqi forces.

All these soldiers and equipment have been housed. We have built more than twenty facilities for the Iraqi military, including five large bases that can house an entire division, "each the size of Ft. Drum."

To train the Iraqi military.

Notwithstanding the huge size of Saddam's military, even experienced Iraqi officers did not know how to train. For example, they did not train with live ammunition because of shortages, and expressed wonder at American methods for teaching marksmanship. Historically, “the inshallah school of shooting” prevailed. Iraqi soldiers in combat would hold the weapon over their head, shoot wildly until the magazine was empty, and “inshallah -- meaning if God wills it -- you will hit something.”

To mentor Iraqi military and police leaders.

There are 115 Iraqi battalions in combat right now, and every single one of them has a ten man American training team. The American training team teaches the Iraqi officers how to lead and helps coordinate Coalition assistance in logistical matters and combat support. “A huge effort paying enormous dividends.”

So, what's the "bottom line up front?" Iraqi soldiers and special police are “very much in the fight,” as evidenced, “sadly,” by the casualties they have taken in combat, which are at least twice the American.

The most impressive thing about the Iraqi units is how tenacious they have become, notwithstanding early reports that they would cut and run. According to General Patraeus, since the January elections, from which the Iraqi security forces “took an enormous lift that still persists,” the Iraqi forces "have not run from a fight, they have not backed down." This strikes me, by the way, as enormously hopeful for the future of Iraq, the persistence of the counterinsurgency, and the power of democracy to motivate the fight against the war on terror.

More highlights from the Transition Command's work:

Under NATO's auspices, the Iraqi military academy is open with entirely Iraqi instructors. It might have been opened much earlier with foreign instructors, but the Coalition felt that it was important to make it an Iraqi endeavor. General Patraeus noted later that he was very unhappy that this achievement got essentially no coverage in the media given its importance to success in Iraq.

Short- Mid- and Long-Range plans for the future development of the military are in place and being executed, relating to force structure, training, institutions, equipment. This all being done in conjunction with Iraqis.

At any given time, there are more than 3000 Iraqis out of the country training, including 2000 at a police academy in Jordan, and another 200 at an elite training facility “in a neighboring country.” It was obvious that this neighboring country is classified, and we can assume that it isn't Jordan, which he mentioned specifically. Assuming that it isn't Syria or Iran, that leaves Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Since there would be no need to keep a facility in Kuwait secret and since it would be in Turkey's external interest to be seen to be helping NATO (given its pending application to join the EU), my guess is that the secret training facility is in Saudi Arabia, which undoubtedly does not want to be caught collaborating with the United States to kill Sunni guerrillas.

General Patraeus' discussion of metrics was very interesting, but I was only able to capture some of it. He did, however, explain the "readiness levels" that have so bedeviled the discussion of Iraqi preparedness.

There are 105,000 “trained and equipped” Iraqi forces through basic training and in the field under the Ministry of Interior Forces, which covers police, police commandos, highway patrol, dignitary protection, etc. These units are not “fully independent,” but they are getting there.

Ministry of Defense Forces Trained and Equipped 89,000, including the Iraqi Army, Special Operations, Air Force, Navy, and Combat Support.

“These are not people who have just walked across the stage. They are out there and in combat. For example, this number is about 12,000 fewer than the number of police trained, because some of them don’t make it.”

Soldiers are graduating every day. By the October 15 referendum on the constitution (which Patraeus predicted will pass), trained and equipped military and special police will total 200,000, and 300,000 by next summer.

The progress since the summer of 2004, when General Patraeus assumed command, has been considerable. Fifteen months ago, only six battalions of Iraqi army (less than 2,000 men) were in training, and none were "in the fight." Now, 14 battalions are in training, and 74 are operational and in the fight.

A year ago, there were no special police units. Now there are 27 battalions in the fight, and five more serving as border patrol and emergency response. These are all top-down units, none that have failed “like the homegrown Fallujah brigade.”

These units are all classified according to "readiness reports" that are very similar to those used for the American army.

Level 1 is fully independent, “capable of planning and executing operations, and sustaining itself, without coalition support.” This is a very high standard, and because it requires no coalition support in combat, whether logistical or in the form of indirect fire support. As reported this week, only one battalion operates at this level now, but the press accounts did not make clear what a difficult standard this is. Indeed, two other battalions had reached this level but were downgraded because of personnel changes (my sense was that a key officer was transferred).

A significant and growing number of Iraqi units are at Level 2, which is substantially, but not totally, independant. Level 2 units are “in the lead,”, "capable of planning, executing and sustaining counterinsurgency operations with some coalition support." These units are substantially independent, but still need some assistance with logistics and indirect fire support. However, they operate independently for most intents and purposes. Level 2 battalions now “own Haifa Street” in a way that only local units can, and another unit -- the armored battalion -- is policing the airport road. Level 2 units also run Karbala and Najaf security.

Level 3, “fighting alongside”: "capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations in conjunction with coalition units." The goal is to get most of these Level 3 units up to Level 2 in the next few months.

So, over 115 Army and special police battalions are in the fight, the majority of which are “fighting alongside.”

The training of the special police is also proceeding well. Iraqi cops are learning basic criminal investigation, internal controls, interviews and interrogations, elections security, counter terrorism, SWAT, dignitary protection.

“Not FBI caliber, don’t let me mislead you, but it is still very useful.”

The general took a number of questions from the audience, three of which were interesting.

The first dealt with the controversial disbanding of the Iraqi army. "What lesson could we learn from the disbanding of the Iraqi army?" Patraeus substantially dodged this question as not having been his call, but left the audience with two impressions. First, that the existing Iraqi army was not very useful: “I do not necessarily accept the idea that we should not have disbanded that Iraqi army. It was bloated with general officers – there were 1100 generals in one province alone, each one of whom expected us to do what they wanted – and it was an army that had not fought.” Second, without saying as much it is fairly clear from his comments that he thinks that we blew the means by which we disbanded the army, particularly in not having a plan to employ its soldiers and officers afterward.

The other interesting question involved the "public relations" war. "Are we losing the PR war to the enemy? What are you doing on the marketing PR front?"

General Patraeus said that they have given the media an enormous amount of information, including countless important metrics for measuring progress, but that it is largely ignored. He observed that the enemy “On many days it is impossible to break through the steady drumbeat of sensational attacks occurring in Baghdad throughout the country. The opening of the new military academy got no coverage at all, even though it was a big event with the whole Iraqi government in attendance."

Patraeus is obviously extremely unhappy with the monomaniacal press coverage.

Finally, Anne-Marie Slaughter asked the Abu Ghraib question – “what can we do, going forward, to acknowledge what we have to acknowledge but also to restore the values that we stand for in others eyes?”

Patraeus said that Abu Ghraib had been very damaging, but that there has been “an enormous change in the detainee operations piece... One of the lessons is that the most important job of a commander or leader is the setting of a tone. That sounds very simplistic, but in combat setting the right tone is hugely important.” I think we have gone back and looked very, very hard the tone we are setting. We have 29 operations lawyers [Good God. - ed.]. Patraeus described a recent "very minor" incident, and "we brought in the lawyers, brought in the imams," to discuss it openly and resolve it. And we are doing things that seem unimportant to us, but which are very meaningful to Iraqis. One of the imams asked us to install clocks in the prison so that the prisoners would know when to pray, so we put in clocks.

“How do we portray our sincere desire to help? It is very challenging, because the other side is enormously skilled in information operations. In Fallujah, by the way, there were two broadcasting stations in addition to the car bomb factories and the arms caches. The enemy is very sophisticated."

Green pepper mango

Just before dinner this evening I mentioned a phenomena in the Midwest that I've found pretty entertaining. With the exception of my brother, no one at the table had really heard of it, but for us it was only second hand. Karla has told us that on many occasions when she was in high school and working at Subway she heard the word mango or mangoes for what she would consider, a green pepper. As in, "don't put any mangos on it", or "gimme more mangoes." My dad once told me about some neighbors we had who ate Vidalia onions like apples, and I think they also called 'em mangos. Well, I decided I had to do a little research and found this cultural definition or some such from the Dictionary of American Regional English, Harvard University Press, which seems excellent.

2 also mango pepper; pronc-sp mangle: A pepper, esp a green pepper 1. chiefly W Midl See Map1948 WELS Suppl. VA, I was surprised while living in Virginia to see green peppers advertised and sold as " mangoes. 1950 WELS (Large sweet peppers) 2 Infs, WI, Mangoes. c1960 Wilson Coll. csKY, Mango. . . Sweet pepper, bell-pepper. 1964 Gourmet May 2, [Letter:] The use of the term mango for bell pepper . . is not limited to Indiana. I have heard it used in Louisiana and Georgia. We once had an old English gardener up in Vermont many years ago, and he always called the green pepper a mango. Bird and chili peppers are also referred to as mangoes. 1965- 70 DARE (Qu. I22d, . . Peppers—large sweet) 113 Infs, chiefly W Midl, esp sIL, sIN, sOH, Mangoes; IN41, 48, Sweet mangoes; MO39, Mango peppers; MO5, MO27, Mangles; MO4, Tomato peppers—also called the little mangle peppers; (Qu. I22c, . . Peppers—small sweet) 15 Infs, chiefly N Midl, Mangoes; IL85, Small mangoes; OK3, Mango peppers; (Qu. I22b, . . Peppers—large hot) Infs IN76, KS1, PA150, Mangoes; MO6, Mangoes—not so hot nor so small; KS6, KY52, VA28, Mango peppers; IN41, 48, Hot mangoes; (Qu. I22a, . . Peppers—small hot) Infs IL7, MO18, Mango peppers; NJ2, Mangoes. 1970 DARE File KY, sOH, Mango—bell pepper. 1972 NYT Article Letters cnIN, In my home area, green (bell) peppers are called mangos.

Then I found this article from the well named, "Food Resource Website". It's considerably more readable.

GREEN PEPPERS AND MANGOS

The word ‘mango’ is used in some areas to refer to green peppers or stuffed green peppers. Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri are all states that I have received e-mails about grandparents, parents and even current usage of ‘mango’ for green pepper.

Recent information I have come across (thanks in part to an e-mail from website visitor Richard Clark) I believe explains how and why the usage of the word spread along the path it did. Usage of 'mango' for green peppers seems to have originated with coal miners in eastern Pennsylvania (1870s +) - and spread with the mining industries, and then with the miners families as they migrated to new areas and found new jobs.

But why the word 'mango' for green peppers? Many of these coal miners were of Eastern European origin, and it has been suggested that the word may have a Slovak origin.
The English 'dialect' of the Appalachian region with its unique pronunciation, grammar, and word usage is due in large part to the immigration of miners, engineers and others from so many countries coming together in one area and being relatively isolated in the small mining towns.
They came from Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Germany, Scotland, Wales, Greece, Turkey, and Syria to name a few - so the word 'mango' might have been adapted from one of these languages.
Also, in many old cookbooks, 'mango' would sometimes be used to refer to a pickle, especially of melons or cucumber (resembling pickled green mango?)
'Mango' was also a term sometimes used to refer to cantaloupe in many old cookbooks).
So the question is, are there words in any Eastern European languages for melon and/or green peppers that may sound like ‘mango’?
Chef James

In the 1887 Edition of 'The Original White House Cook Book', there is a
recipe for Green Pepper Mangoes.
As follows:
“Select firm, sound, green peppers, and add a few red ones,as they are ornamental and look well upon the table. With a sharp knife remove the top, take out the seed, soak over night in salt water, then fill with chopped cabbage and green tomatoes, seasoned with salt, mustard seed and ground cloves. Sew on the top. Boil vinegar sufficient to cover them, with a cup of brown sugar, and pour over the mangoes. Do this three mornings, then seal.” That is the only recipe I have seen. J.M.

This would fit in with the use of ‘mango’ to refer to a pickle (mentioned above) and also brings in the use of Green Peppers.
Anyone with additional information about ‘mango’ green peppers, please E-mail me: ChefJames@FoodReference.com
I will add any new information here as I receive it. Chef James

8/2/2005
My cousin sent me (the Mango article) and I thought I would respond to the question about "mango" in Slavic languages. Our family originally is from northeastern Pennsylvania and my grandmother used "mango" for "green pepper." We've never been sure why. I can say that at least in Polish, Czech, Slovak and Serbo-Croatian, the word for pepper is some variation on "paprika." Slavic languages have tended to adopt the word "mango," for the mango fruit since historically it has been a non-native, uncommon fruit. In other words, the search for the origin of the use of "mango" continues.
Maybe the hypothesis about chutney is more helpful here. Since mango chutney is a fairly common type of chutney, perhaps it got shortened to "mango" in reference to all things similarly pickled. In addition to people of Eastern European background, late 19th cent. Pennsylvania also had high numbers of immigrants from the British Isles, who may have been familiar with such chutneys. One might think that "chutney" would have been the more logical adoption, but if neither mango nor chutney had any inherent meaning for a speaker of another language, it's reasonable to think that such a mistake could occur. Just a guess. By the way, in case you're wondering, the word for "pickle" in Slavic languages is nothing like "mango" either.
Hope this helps,
Tammy

Verrückt als Fuchs

I remember reading an article about the recall election in Caulleefownya where Arnold’s advisors begged him to respond to constant attacks from Bustamante that were beginning to erode his poll numbers. He responded that “No one wanted to speak first at the Mr. Olympia competitions. Wait for the end, that’s all people will remember”. He had the self-discipline to hold out to the end and won the election – looks like the same thing is happening now. All five of his referendums now appear to be winning which would be the largest political rout of California Democrats in history.

Also, while I’m not the Bush fan I used to be, it is worth noting that his insanely low poll numbers may not be completely by accident. He’s also used the “rope-a-dope” strategy successfully in his last two elections. He knows democrats are unable to DELAY gratification.

Interesting article

I just stumbled on this article in the NYTimes. It's about international food aid...a little confusing, but pretty interesting I thought.

Not the party of Reagan

I’ve been amazed at the effect the Harriet Miers nomination has had on Republicans. It’s not that her being confirmed or rejected is that big of deal but instead it seems like the last straw for conservatives who have put up with unprecedented increases in entitlement spending and gutless leadership. While Bush has pursued the war on terror with a determination not seen since Truman virtually everything else he’s done has left conservatives wanting. Real conservatives don’t want their cake and eat it too. The Bush tax cuts made us happy but he followed them up with a god awful prescription drug benefit entitlement. The reconstruction, military response in Afghanistan, and economic stimulus after 9-11 was followed by more tax cuts and “No Child Left Behind”. After the “It’ll cost what It costs” comment from Bush after Katrina I think conservatives went into insulin shock and this horrible SCOTUS pick snapped them out of it.
I grew up being serenaded by benefactors of the Johnson welfare state blaming Reagan for consigning them to starvation and ridiculous TV movies about being homeless and getting no help from the Government. Nothing says spending cuts like a ketchup sandwich. It was glorious. When Bush was elected I dreamed of long nights watching cable news laughing at the strained arguments Democrats would make for why the cut of a certain block grant or entitlement DOOMED!! their favorite victim group. Well we’re now in the 5^th year and I haven’t once seen Bush called “heartless” 1/100^th as much as Ronnie or even Newt Gingrich. Welfare reform under Clinton was the closest thing I’ve had and that’s pathetic.
The sad thing is that we can’t even wish we voted for the other guy (or party) because they’re even more pathetic. They’re just like that cloying guy that’ll say anything to get in a girls pants (See Stiffler in American Pie/American Wedding). For as good as Andrew Sullivan feels telling conservatives “I told you so” about Bush, at some level he must be relieved that Kerry wasn’t elected. He would have been an utter disaster.

Don’t agree? Watch.

Now I’m just looking forward to 2008. Hopefully we get a do over with McCain (or Condi).


UPDATE: Ugh. This is just nausiating.