Two incorrect notions

Two incorrect notions

Lately there have been postings on news sites saying "Islam is a religion" and you bad people are "racists," during debates in comments sections. I would like to shout at them: "DEFINE YOUR TERMS!" Then I realize that I believe some things that I think people get all wrong because they don't bother to study them. Well, here's my comments in a nutshell. I can go into more details ... but it's taken me years of reading and discussion to come to these current ideas. I'm willing to change, but the discussion better be well-researched to convince me otherwise at this point. But it will have to be good. (Hint: no name calling. I know it's satisfying, but it doesn't change minds.)

The two incorrect notions: ISLAM is a religion. There are different RACES.

1.Islam is not a religion. It is a polity, and shows all the problems with a mixing of religion and government. This is the very thing the American experience is trying to separate. And, I think, has gone too far and overboard in trying to achieve. The first amendment forbids the government process from making laws that call for a specific, single religion to be “official” and allows citizens to practice the religion of their choice, unless one of these choices interferes with other citizens' guaranteed freedoms. For example: A religion demanding death to others who practice a different religion is a no-no. (Isn't it?)

2.Race is a myth. It was a created notion that was meant to divide one group of persons from another based on some characteristic (or several). A characteristic is considered “superior” or “inferior” according to some measure (height, IQ, blood type, skin color, hair color, eye color, religion, food preference, etc.) and then allows the “stronger” to dominate the “weaker.” It’s all a fake idea. I prefer to treat humans the same way we treat birds: one species with many varieties of subtle differences (wing size, colors, flocking behaviors, etc.) called sub-species. These are usually naturally adapted from generation to generation to provide survival needs in changing environments. It would be better to describe humans as “featherless bipeds.”

But the whole idea of human “races” is a hoax.

So, now we can talk about our government, the laws we want or don't want, and how people can interact with one another. Let's leave out Islam and Race as concepts to guide our lawmaking. They only seem to help tyrants, dictators, idolized leaders, and fascists of all stripes. 

And I hate that.

TV Advertising

Advertising on television is a true mixture of good and bad. Kept in control by some federal bureaucracies that try to prevent it from being untruthful has pushed some advertisers to overload their presentation with a mass of truth that takes up 1/3 to ½ of a screen of teeny tiny type that you can’t read during the four seconds it’s on the screen.

Worse, though, is that it forces the advertisers (relying on their agencies) to present their message as quickly and forcefully as they can. That means trying to get and keep your attention and fascinate you into remembering what they are pushing … either product, service, or reputation.

Their problem is that once you have been exposed to a presentation technique that works, other advertisers start to use it. Then, once it becomes “standard” viewers become tired of seeing it and stop paying attention. Overuse destroys effectiveness.

Example: remember the “solarization” technique? A scene is presented, the audio begins, a phrase of two are uttered, and BANG!! The screen goes totally bright white, there is a whoosh or bang noise and a new scene appears. The narrative continues. A few phrases or scenic views and …. FLASH – BANG. Another solar experience. And so on through the ad until the required few seconds display (required by the bureau controlling TV ads) of the product or service name.

Before long, a gaggle of other ads use the technique. And viewers become used to it, ignore it, or turn away. It stops paying off as an effective technique.

Example: a new technique is created by some creative person(s). A speaker begins the presentation. A phrase or sentence is voiced. A sudden change of presenter is made, but the audio continues (in the current presenter’s voice) and the message continues without skipping a beat. SWITCH! A new presenter, for a continuous flow of message. SWITCH! Again! SWITCH! Again! This continues until the end of the message. “Tiring it is,” says Yoda. Effective? It does get your attention at least once. The presenters, and perhaps the order in which they are presented, are carefully chosen. A true cross section of our country. Men, women, different styles of dress, different races, different ages, etc.  Soon, the viewer sees this technique used in ad after ad, but after a couple of exposures to each of these, this also becomes boring and loses its effectiveness. Time to do something different again.

Now the agencies get onto a new track. The latest thing I’ve noticed now is “psychological” shock. And it seems to have landed on a scientific product presentation. Namely, Big Pharma. Yes, the pharmaceuticals have come up with their own “thing.” Product names! And their fascination seems to be with the letters “x,” “y,” and “z”. (Sounds a little like Sesame Street, no?) The “x” is usually used in it’s basic letter sense, pronounced as in “x-ray,” but some times is used as “z” as in “Xerxes.” The “y” gets used to replace “I,” and the “z” looks like it has replaced “s.” Remember when message boards and Usenet started doing this to be different (and perhaps lazy)? Warez and other terms, and shorthand “words” to cut down on typing (“ur nam soundz familure, bro”), or some such. Even the use of there/they’re/their gets changed to whatever you want to use for the sound, like “r u going to there sho?” really looks “kool,” doesn’t it? I guess Twitter is to blame for some of this stuff.

Back to pharm namez. Here are just a few of the ones I noted and jotted down as I was watching late-night programs. I guess they occur all day, but that’s when I watch TV mostly. The letter “v” and “w” creep in once in a while, but I don’t think they are being picked specifically. After all, there were older names like “Exlax” that fit the pattern. And one new one ends in “x” in the same “lax” context.

Here’s the list. Let me know what you think.

Xanax …. Lyrica …. Dulcolax …. Invocana …. Xeljanz …. Taltz …. Prodaxa …. Cosentyx …. Viberzi …. Xarelto …. Plavix …. Entyvio …. Zostavax …. Harvoni …. Linzess …Parodontax

And the new winner (get this!)  XYZAL.  

Sous Vide -- Read all about it!!

Sous vide is a really good way to cook.

I just ran across an article from Bon Appétit (March 20, 2017) titled “The Best way to cook a steak?” Well, now, we’re getting somewhere. I figured they were going to push sous vide! Oh, no, that wasn’t it at all! The “secret” they give you is to oil the meat instead of the pan when frying the meat. (It works for beef, pork chop, and lamb chop.

What the article says about this technique is probably all true; it sounds plausible. If I were frying a steak I’d probably try it. Go ahead … give it a whirl. I’m sure it will make a good eating experience.

However, putting the steak in (say) 130 degree F water (in a sealed cooking bag, of course) for anywhere from 1 to 4 hours gets you a never fail medium rare steak cooked to exactly the same doneness through the entire piece. Look up “sous vide” on the Internet and read all about it (https://anovaculinary.com/what-is-sous-vide/how-to-cook-sous-vide/). Of course it is easier (but not really that much) if you have a controlled heating element that also circulates the water (and items being cooked) in a pot, maintains the temperature you select, and shuts off all by itself after the maximum time you choose.

When you are ready to eat (the window of three hours after the beef is ready is a true convenience when guests arrive late), you just pull it out, brown the beef in a pan if your guests object to eating meat that doesn’t look “cooked” or they want a crisper outer shell on the beef. I usually allow 30 seconds on each side and a little bit on the edges to brown the meat a little without cooking the inside more. Here’s where the technique of “oiling” the meat instead of the pan might be useful.

I don’t oil the pan at this point, actually. I just use a cast iron pan that is really hot and lay the meat in it. 30 seconds and then flip it. At this point I salt, pepper, and lay a bit of butter on the meat, and then get it onto the plate. Done! Simple, quick, and perfectly cooked and served when you want it.

My son gave me my sous vide “tool” (an ANOVA immersion heater) and it’s one of the best kitchen gifts I have ever gotten. While it can be used for eggs and vegetables, I find it most useful for meats and chicken. Because I use a vacuum sealer for freezer items, all my main dish items go into bags, separately, and ready to cook this way. You do have to thaw them out first. Warming them up to room temperature is just as fast as putting them into pot water and using the sous vide heater to warm them until the whole pot comes to the cooking temperature. I just toss them into the sink a couple of hours before I am going to cook them. Hey! They are in vacuum sealed bags!

There are other brands, of course, and lots of techniques to play with until you are comfortable with sous vide. But this is a great way to easily make really good meat and chicken dishes. There are also DIY instructions on the net on how to build your own sous vide tubs and equipment. Some of them are interesting, but not for me!

What is "collusion?"

The following is a comment I made to a post by Gregg Jarrett of Fox News on the Fox News Opinion page.

Thank you, Jarrett, for this explanation. I have been wondering for a long time what this "collusion" was. And what did the Russians do? What was it that was meant to affect the outcome of our elections? Was there, in fact, anything? 

Thinking this over, the only entities that made direct statements about Trump, his campaign, his staff, etc. that was meant to influence the election were MS media, the NYT, and the WaPo. Are they, then guilty of interfering with our national election? Or with the primaries? 

Only one group of persons that I have noticed has tried to overturn the outcome of an election, and that was in the primaries. Consider: the Republican voters cast ballots to elect persons that would be committed to vote for Trump on the first nomination ballot (at least). But they were attacked, pleaded with, and even the targets of death threats by ... the far left and Democrats! They were pushed to vote for someone else (anyone but?) when they were legally elected to be legally bound to vote for Trump. (Aside: well, mostly. There are some jurisdictions that are allowed to change their vote if they wish to, for some reason or other. But that was very few of them.)

So where is the illegality? I sat and listened to Comey tell us all the statutes Hillary had violated in her campaign, and then heard him (an investigator charged with finding out facts) ignore the fact that the statutes don't require any kind of intent, just actions that are proscribed, make a judgment that wasn't his responsibility to make, that she "had no intent to violate the law" and therefore, should not be charged and brought to trial.

So, I say, Trump staffers may have talked with Russian counterparts (which may well be within the scope of their duties they were to assume or had already assumed at that point) but SO WHAT? After all, with tongue in cheek, they were only discussing "their grandchildren."

What a world!

Eating for fun and profit

It’s come time to talk about food. I like food, particularly good food. And what might that be? Well, I’m no food snob. As long as the food is prepared properly, with attention to its overall taste and look, I’m for it. Calamari? Yes! A good hamburger? Yes! Steak, fish, omelets, salads, breads? Yes, yes, yes, oh yes! The real point is I’ll eat just about anything except certain body parts: brains, mountain oysters, and the like are off my list. But the rest is okay. I even like a good smoked tongue!

I grew up in a delicatessen environment. That is, my parents had and/or ran delicatessens in Kansas City, both Kansas and Missouri. This   meant that I ate what I craved at any given moment without having what as “for dinner.” Everything on the menu (and specials) was “for dinner.” This must have spoiled me, because I really like to eat out.

My mother was a wonderful cook. Some of her specials were so good that customers would come in for breakfast and order lunch to be saved for them. Her tuna noodle casserole was like that. By the time I asked for some at lunch I would be told that it was all sold! Lucky for me I could always substitute a hot corned beef sandwich or her chicken soup.

I also like to cook. I’ve gotten pretty good at throwing together a meal just based on what’s around. However, I do buy specific ingredients to make (could you guess) tuna noodle casserole, with plenty left over for me. Happily, my mother left me a few recipes that I love, and my sister has filled in some of the gaps for preparing such feasts as brisket of beef, and matzo ball soup. But so much is lost!

I have a few cookbooks, maybe 60 or so. They are helpful for learning what works and what doesn’t, and for many ideas, but truly speaking there are only a handful that are my “go to” books. If I really squeezed them down I would end up with 10-15 books that I think are invaluable. The rest are just nice to have for occasional reference.

I adore most of the cooking shows on TV, too. There you can not only learn a recipe, but actually see how it is done, for the most part. Of course, You Tube is also a good source for watching actually cooking techniques, but it suffers from a wide range of excellent to horrible examples. One must be careful with this.

Of all the things that bother me the most are the esoteric equipment and ingredient demands these haute cuisine cooking shows use. Okay, Alton Brown not only uses some professional cooking tools, but he usually gives a substitute tool or technique if you don’t have what he is using. That’s pretty fair. But most of them use a piece of gear that you might use once in a lifetime and is really expensive, so it seems useless to try and duplicate the recipe. The other weak link in the recipes, both on TV and in books, is the ingredient that you don’t have. I mean when the preparer says, “And now just add three drops of yak sweat reduction,” and makes a point of it being a key ingredient … what are you supposed to do? Acme doesn’t carry yak sweat reduction, and the helpful source given where you can find the stuff is some mail-order food supply that sells it for a mere $450 a gallon. It’s a step above using the ½ cup of butter milk where you will be left with 3 ½ cups of buttermilk that you are unlikely to use. Careful planning to make a number of different recipes that use buttermilk would help. And I have found or seen TWO places that give a buttermilk substitution (it’s lemon juice in regular milk). But I have yet to find a substitute for yak sweat reduction (trust me, I looked).

Anyway, it’s time to talk about food. I already spilled the beans (I also like beans) that I like just about everything, so what more can I say? Well, I can say what food and where I prefer to get it. Here’s my abbreviated list, biased by my hometown (Kansas City and area*) and where I have become transplanted (Philadelphia and area**). The places that have numerous locations are shown with ***.

Steak: Ruth’s Chris***

Fish and seafood: Devon Seafood Grill**

Hamburger: Five Guys** (or Winstead’s*)

Chicken soup: homemade by me

Steak sandwich: Geno’s** (or Jim’s***)

Pizza: Gaetano’s**

Smoothies: Wawa** (or Maui***)

Hoagies: Primos***

Barbecue: Arthur Bryant’s Barbeque*

No award goes to Asian foods, delicatessens, sandwich shops, etc. There are just so many and they vary in quality unpredictably from visit to visit.

A stock broker I worked with when I was just getting out of college once gave me a compliment saying, “Gary is a hell of a man with a knife and fork.” He could tell even then that I was an eater. (Of course, his advice to investors was also straight forward and simple, “Just don’t run out of money.”) And now I have reached the pinnacle of success: I get paid to eat! But that’s another story…

I woke up this morning with a word on my mind. The word was “mine.” What does it mean that something is “mine.” It struck me that there are a variety of things that are spoken of as mine. This key is mine. This wife is mine. This God is mine.

The key is physically mine. Or is it? It is the key to the car (mine!) and so it has a relationship to the car. Indeed, the key is useless without the car, and the car is useless without the key. The relationship the key has to the car really makes the key the car’s. As a unit, then, they are both mine. My relationship to the key has a built in relationship to the car as well. But it is a physical relationship of me to “thing.”

My wife is mine, but in a very much looser way than the car. My wife is a separate person with her own relationships, only one of which is me. She is not useless without me and I am not useless without her. Our relationship is a more interdependence than an ownership relationship, unlike the car and key.

My God is mine, but only in a relationship in which I am dependent for my very existence on Him. As is everything else that is kept in existence by the power or force of a creator. More accurately, I am His. I guess an artist in creating a painting always has a relationship to it as its creator even after he gives it up to others and it leaves him physically.

My nephew, when he was little, saw and internalized the J.C. Nichols statue in the Country Club Plaza in Kansas City, Missouri. He referred to it as “Mine fountain.” And in a way, it was. And though he is now over 40, I hope he still has the internal relationship with that fountain in his memory. Our memories seem to maintain all the relationships we form with things, persons, and bits of knowledge, words, images, and sounds.

As I get older I find myself craving less and less. I don’t really need things to be mine. I am starting to think of my being theirs. Except for money. That’s mine.

Well, the first pesidential debate is over. Interesting, but not a world changing event. Each candidate got to take potshots at the other, and both got to express some thoughts. One thing I still can't figure out. They both call out the other on his lack of "details" about future policy. This strikes me as odd because there are a couple of issues in that one statement about "details."

First, the president gives suggestions and policy principles but is not the "lawgiver" like Moses, or somene of that ilk. Oh, I know Obama wants to be and DOES issue laws of his own making, as well as undoing laws passed by congress and signed by a president. His "orders" to ignore enforcing some laws that he disagrees with are a shredding of the constitution, and his directives to his agencies to impliment policies that are just new laws that the executive branch is "passing" without congress. Pocket appointments of a congress that is still in session (technically) is another end run around the constitution. Etc. This has all been going on for so long by presidents over the last 40 or 50 years that I guess the public thinks that this is the way laws are passed. Since civics classes are passe (right?) there is no more schooling on how a law is created and passed, and the constitution is in shreds because of the two parts of government have assumed the role of creating laws (executive and judicial), the constitution is becoming null and void. Or at least moot.

Second, once the president has set down his suggestions, in a broad or narrow brush sort of way, with goals, policy guides, and his political desires in what I consider draft form, he is duty bound to submit his wishes to his paid consultants for their review and decision. These consultants should not b e confused with lobbyists who are paid by employers that have specific, special interest, and who want to affect the executive branch suggestions. No, I mean congress, all 535 consultants who are paid by the citizenry to represent them. The executive branch can certainly communicate with congress, apply pressures of various sorts, and as we have seen offer special deals to individual members to get the vote the executive wants, but this turns into a foul process after a while. The judicial branch hovers over all this to stand ready to stop any law that gets passed from violating a constitutional principle. This has deteriorated, however, into such open ended judgments that the constitution is hardly a barrier anymore to anything. Take for example the "fine is really a tax" conversion of the so-called Obamacare law (that was illegally introduced by the Senate) and you begin to see all three branches making laws.

And the result is a tyranny that the constitution was supposed to prevent. Ah me. Still, civilizations come and go, countries come and go, politicians and political parties come and go, and we ... well, we come and go. I might not like the changing parade, but it changes anyway. And one actually can't ever "go back" even though such talk is used to make people feel better. The United States had a long, torturous run, but it certainly looks like it is trouble. It has changed, and will continue to do so, but along with the rest of the world is is changing in such a way that anyone who has read some history will recall the decline and fall of the Roman Republic. There are some similarities, and the end results may end up the same. Something new will come along, and mankind may or may not survive.

You know, the Earth is in a far arm of a galaxy that turns once in 2 billion years and has turned more than twice already. "There has been joy. There will be joy again." Alfred Bester, The Demolished Man