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

Friends: Okay, I’m puzzled. I have sat at my television and watched as Fox (mostly) and MSM (almost none) gave us coverage of the attack on an American Embassy in Libya. Not only was the story of this disgrace muddled and spun by our own administration to support the idea that it was a “spontaneous” action of a mob, but came about because of a trailer of a to-be-made file about the prophet Mohammad. So, at the end of a couple of weeks of back and forth we can come to some conclusions: it wasn’t “spontaneous.” It was a planned attack by militia in Libya, connected more or less with Al Quida, and was specifically timed to occur on 9/11, believed by some to be a response to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Well, maybe. (And what’s this “preplanned” crap? Something done before it was planned? Doesn’t anyone know English any more?) The reason I’m puzzled is that I have been reading the Koran for myself for a year now, in several translations. They substantially agree. Here are some snippets from it, which I hope you will follow up on and read for yourself. It’s tough going, but worth the effort, I think.

Surah 3. Al 'Imran (The Family Of 'Imran, The House Of 'Imran)
28. Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
32. Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger.: But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.

Surah 4. An-Nisa' (Women)
76. Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.

Surah 5. Al-Ma'ida (The Table, The Table Spread)
33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
38. As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.
51. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Surah 9. At-Tawba (Repentance, Dispensation)
29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
30. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
31. They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
33. It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).
123. O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

Surah 48. Al-Fath (Victory, Conquest)
28. It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion: and enough is Allah for a Witness.

I won’t try to interpret any of this. You do it. Best --- read the thing yourself. I have plowed through three versions so far and I don’t find much difference. I will try others. It’s fascinating. I see a group that wants to dominate the entire world, convert all to Islam, apply their law which varies all over the place depending on which Imam you listen to last, and punish, kill, and dominate anyone else than Muslims. So, is it a religion we can coexist with, a philosophy that makes sense, or a government structure that works? You decide. I think it isn’t, but that’s just me.

Now, here is another “film” available on Youtube.com. It was put up in August, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MEquLcPomM Have you seen any Jews in any of the countries where there are Jews (how many is that?) burning Mosques or killing anybody? is the link to one of what I suppose is many lies on the Internet? There appear to be many more posted by Memri on Youtube.com. Check some of them out.

Now for my puzzlement. We have (had?) free speech in the United States. It is in the founding document of our nation, the Constitution, large trashed and shredded for many years by a bit by bit process of misinterpretation by courts, congress, and the public in general. People seem to believe what they want or what they are told without any thinking facility being used. Well, that’s freedom for you. As long as the free speech is SPEECH, and is not DOING, I support the freedom to say what you want. (I hope you give me that some courtesy.) But when free SPEECH progresses into DOING (like burning things down, killing those who disagree with you, and intimidating those on the sidelines, I don’t give the DOERS any right to do what they want. We are supposed to believe that because the Muslims involved (millions, apparently) are outraged, they are entitled somehow to do whatever their Imams tell them to do. Islam, if we are to believe the Koran, is “religion” of hate, barbaric DOING, in the name of prophet who was a warlord in 10th century Arab lands. I think he spoke to “current events” and gave instruction on how to live in a multicultural world. One tenet is that Islam must take over the world and make it ONE culture. That is what I think I see in the Koran. I have also seen many Imams giving different and sometimes conflicting instructions on how to deal with life in the 20th and 21st centuries. So, I’m puzzled. I’m willing to believe (am I gullible?) that most of the Muslims who rioted around the world at the urging of their leaders never knew of or even watched the Youtube trailer. I did. It’s stupid, annoying, and certainly meant to disturb Muslims. But it does fall into the free SPEECH area. It’s the DOING I object to. Our fearless leaders seem to live in the chaotic kneejerk responses of their minds, going to several directions at once, with no one in charge, or willing to take a stand other than one that says, “Not me!” or “Not us!” Nonesense. Somebody has to be in charge.

And here I sit, confused and puzzled. We are in the midst of a bitter contest to see who will be put in charge: the man who currently IS, and doesn’t do anything except pettyfog, or the man who says he’ll do something about it, which may be a dangerous path for us all. What a choice, but one we have to make. I am puzzled. What do you think? (Please, if you don’t THINK, don’t bother getting involved with this complex issue.

Well, here I go again. I have spent some time rethinking why I wanted a blog in the first place. The reason remains pretty much the same as always: I feel I have something to say. As I watch the world events down to the local level, I am shocked at the lack of understanding most people seem to show. More and more all I see is "feelings" and greediness. No thought. No knowledge. No effort to dig for further information. It's the same thing I saw in most of my students when I was teaching. So, I find myself frustrated, annoyed, and in many cases angry. Thus, the blog. But I have never made the effort to make the blog available in any real sense. That would require advertising. So, if I am ever to get any feedback as to whether I am on a right track, a wrong track, or any track at all, I am going to have to make effort to "spread the word." Let see if any of my attempts work! A new approach but with much of the same level of commentary. I hope anyone reading my blog (if any) will take the time to mention it and/or respond to me. I encourage debate, after all. This is solely my challenge. Can I do anything about this? I'll see. Perhaps no one else will....

All the news that fits, we print

The New York Times has a slogan: "All the news that's fit to print." I think it's a good thought, but has been changed. Just about everything gets printed nowadays. To the reading public's detriment. Here's a story I followed up that was hyped on my MSN "news" page. (I redacted some information to make a point.)

As if (name of man) doesn't have enough problems, his younger sister was arrested in (city and state), and charged with two felonies in connection with the operation of a methamphetamine lab, according to a report.
(Named) County police Sgt. (name) told the (city and state) (name of newspaper) that (name of woman), 34, of (city and state), was one of three arrested and charged with the manufacturing of methamphetamine and generation of hazardous waste.
Investigators said that they observed a drug buy at a gas station and that the suspects then led police to a condominium where an active meth lab was discovered in a bathtub.
The (name of newspaper) reported that the suspects were taken for decontamination before going to lockup.
In 1999, (name of woman) was charged with felony shoplifting after stealing clothes from a department store in (city and state). In 1996, she was charged with unlawful use of a weapon in connection with a drive-by shooting at a motel in (city and state).
According to the website, (city) is in southern (state), near (city), where (name of man) grew up.
(name of man), 41, has said he will retire (name of employer and rating at work).
In October of last year, it was alleged that he sent lewd photos and cell-phone texts to (name of woman, her employer, and type of work done) when (name of man) (worked with her employer) there in 2008. In December, (name of his company’s management organization) fined him $50,000 for failing to cooperate with its investigation.
Earlier this month, two massage therapists sued (man, identified by his type of work), claiming they lost their part-time jobs with (man’s employer) after complaining about sexually suggestive text messages from him. The (employer’s management) said it could not substantiate their claims.
 
Two persons are named in this story. One is the man. The second is the man’s sister. There are names of others who are involved in various actions with these two: a police officer, an employee at a related company, the newspaper that reported the story.
The bare bones of the story are:
A woman was arrested on charges of operating a meth lab. Her brother has also been involved in possible unlawful activities in the past three years.

Is this news? I can tell you it took place in a small, southern town and that it is not (unfortunately) an uncommon occurrence in today’s society.
So what makes this a news story that is listed as “popular searches on Bing?”
He is famous. So, is the story about him? Or his sister? Do you really care about Bret Favre’s personal life? Or his sister’s? How about the personal life of the president of General Motors? Or the personal life of the owner of your local gas station? Does this constitute an attack on that person? Everything is “alledged,” “charged,” “claimed.” Some news. Now, I’m just asking questions, but why have we become so gossipy? “Did you hear about Sally? Do you know what she did? Isn’t it just awful? (Sally is your next door neighbor.) This is just about all that can be said about this “news.”

News used to be information about events that could affect your life and give you something to make judgments about how you would live it. Now it’s just reports of violence, crime, fires, accidents, personal activities of people you only know about but don’t know, and other “shocking” things. Who wants to be so shocked? About all that really matters is what the overreaching, overreacting, governments are doing without regard to consequences and careful consideration, and the weather forecasts, which are 30-80% accurate.
I suppose business reports, statistics on financial activities, etc. are fine, but since I’m now retired they have very little effect on me except to ruin my retirement. (Hey, my best choice at present is to get a gigantic 1.24 percent on my savings!)
And if you still want the details about Favre, just Google him or check it out using Bing. All the gory details, and probably lots more, are there.

All New Post

As the new year begins (well, the All New Year) I have an observation. I'd call it a complaint, but I have no suggestion about what to do, so I can't complain. It is the wrong and overuse of the phrase "all new."
When you say something is all new, what do you mean? A poem, identical in every way except the last word, would clearly not be "all new." Agree? An example was an old radio show which I think was "Can You Top This" on which a panel was given a joke, poem, or situation and was asked to come up with same topic jokes, poems, etc. and top the listener. I remember one: a limerick with the last line missing....

"A four legged hen in Tibet
Laid three sided eggs when she set.
She had two-headed chickens;
She said, "What the dickens?"
...and here the panel must suggest closing lines.

Some suggestions were:
"Must be that new rooster I met."
"It must have been something I et."
and so on.

Would you call each of the suggestions an "all new" limerick?

Scenario is, I was watching TV and saw a promo for a show that I had seen a couple of times. It said the show was "all new." So I watched it. Well, the cast was the same. The setting was the same. The situation was pretty much the same. The interactions between characters was the same. Some of the jokes were the same. The writers were the same. The music was the same. Where was all the "new" stuff? I think I would call it a new episode, but "all new?" Nope. There was very little new.
In the old days we had TV shows like "Studio One" (1948), "Robert Montgomery Presents," "Kraft Televison Theater" (1947), and "The Twilight Zone" (1959). They were all new every week. I'll grant that sometimes the same actors would show up, with some groups being used repeatedly, but always as different characters. Rod Serling wrote a lot of the "Twilight Zone" scripts, but there were other authors who contributed. I always liked Charles Beaumont a lot.
My point is that the phrase "all new" is overused now, and inaccurate. It's like "free gift" (I would never want to pay for a "gift," would you?).
Why don't they just say, "new episode?" You would know it wasn't a repeat and that's probably all they meant. And they would get me off their backs!