Tactile:  Fry, baby, fry!!!

 

Hubby’s out of town, not for long but just long enough for the rest of this household to indulge ourselves in some foods that are otherwise forbidden in the household.

 

First, steak for dinner.  Surprisingly, at my daughter’s request; I wouldn't have believed it would be the favorite craving of a nine-year-old girl.  She loves a big, thick, rare steak; it’s her idea of a great meal.  No problem at all, I’ve got steaks marinating right now.  We’ll slap them on the grill, bake some potatoes, fix a tossed salad and enjoy a nice, big, fat and juicy helping of red meat!

 

My son hasn’t gotten to select any food indulgence yet, but I’ll bet he’ll go along with my suggestion: beignets.  Or maybe I should fix doughnuts.  Since I wrote about paczkis on Fat Tuesday, I’ve had deep fried dough on my mind, can’t stop thinking about it.

 

It’s not just me, it’s almost a meme-of-the-month.  There’ve been a number of articles on paczkis and beignets floating around recently.  Kane was nice enough to share a link on the topic (after I’d mentioned malasadas at Leonard’s in Honolulu).  Now Christian Science Monitor gets into the act with a mouth-watering article on doughnuts (including a recipe).

 

Yum.

 

I remember during Christmas seasons past my mother would occasionally bless us by making sour cream doughnuts.  They were made from yeast dough, requiring a period of time to rise before being tossed in the fry pan.  I remember the air in the house prior to the final frying being warm and moist, the smell of the sweet dough like a homemade aromatherapy.  They were absolutely fabulous; light, airy on the inside, unctuously crispy-doughy outside, drizzled with a tiny bit of glaze.  We’d be on our best behavior, waiting eagerly for these golden treats still warm from the fryer.  Doggone it, I’d even make an effort to shovel the driveway without being asked just to earn one of these beauties.

 

Being just a kid, I never though much about their shape…but there’s a damned good reason why these were shaped like a big “O”.   As in, Oooooh, bay-bee.

 

Son-of-mine loves anything fried and nearly anything sweet.  I bet he’ll demand the first sample out of the fryer.  Wonder if he’ll have the same kinds of memories of fried dough when he gets to be my age?

 

Hmm, wonder if he’d shovel the driveway for a doughnut?

  4:18:26 PM    comment []

Mr. Gima

 

One of my favorite blogs is KaneBlues.  Kane lives in the Honolulu area; while missives from Hawaii always make me wistful, Kane’s posts are more emotional without being at all maudlin.  A large portion of the quality of his blog is derived from his photography, the rest from his stories and commentary.

 

His March 11 post is particularly poignant; I’ve visited twice and each time I cried.

 

Aloha, Mr. Gima.

 

Mahalo, Kane.

 

  1:47:09 PM    comment []

Rational: what’s that?

 

Jan Haugland at Secular Blasphemy labeled my posts and comments yesterday (regarding the use of depleted uranium in missiles manufactured and deployed by the U.S. military) as “irrational”.

 

Am I?  Is questioning my government and military, is having an opinion on matters related to their operations, irrational?  Is it rational, on the other hand, to evaluate the use of any particular weapon of war based solely on scientific criteria, even if the scientific criteria are unclear?

 

As defined by Merriam-Webster:

 

Main Entry: [1]ra·tio·nal

Pronunciation: 'rash-n&l, 'ra-sh&-n&l

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English racional, from Latin rationalis, from ration-, ratio

Date: 14th century

1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times

3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>

 

Is it reasonable, therefore, to question whether Americans should pay for and support the use of missiles manufactured with depleted uranium versus tungsten?

 

Is it rational to question the U.S. government or its military as to all social and economic liabilities they will incur on behalf of the American public?

 

Let’s look at a few more issues, ask the same question:

 

Is it rational and reasonable to maintain or enlarge the U.S. military?

 

“How big is the US military? It is by far the largest and most potentially destructive in the history of the world. The US this year will spend in excess of $400 billion (not including much spy spending). The next largest spender is Russia, which spends only 14% of the US total. To equal US spending, the military budgets of the next 27 highest spenders have to be added together…” (Llewellyn Rockwell, 06-MAR-03)

 

Is 400 billion U.S. dollars a rational, reasonable expenditure in light of the increasing hostility of other nations against the U.S.?

 

“…If you consider this, and also consider the disparity of the US nuclear stockpile and the 120 countries in which the US keeps its troops, you begin to see why the US is so widely regarded as an imperialist power and a threat to world peace.” (Llewellyn Rockwell, 06-MAR-03)

 

Is it rational, reasonable for a single political party in a multi-party system, to insist on the enlargement of government and military, in direct opposition to their stated mission to reduce the size of government?

 

Is it rational, reasonable to ask whether weapons created and employed by the U.S. military, approved by the U.S. government, comply with inhumane weapons conventions agreed upon by the global community?

 

Is it rational, reasonable to ask whether the U.S. government and military should not do everything humanly possible to reduce the risk to innocent non-combatants?

 

Is it rational, reasonable to ask whether the expenditure of nearly 1 billion** U.S. dollars (to be provided through U.S. tax revenues over the next 1 to 10 years - or longer), to remove a single man from office in a sovereign country is an effective use of tax dollars?

 

Is it rational, reasonable to ask whether the U.S. government and military should take actions against other nations unilaterally, both by lack of concurrence from the world community or by lack of concurrence from its constituency?

 

Is it rational, reasonable to expect the U.S. government and military not to act in any manner that they would find intolerable if directed against the U.S.?

 

Is it rational and reasonable to question a government, created of, by and for the people, as to whether it is acting rationally and reasonably on behalf of the people to whom it owes its entire power, authority and servitude?

 

Is it rational, reasonable, to expect a government which is charged not only with providing for the common defense of its people but with establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare, that it do so in all of its actions both here and abroad?

 

 

I’m entitled to my opinion, as are you.  Perhaps NONE of us are rational.

 

---

 

UPDATE -- 12-MAR-03 --

 

** CORRECTION: This number should be 100 billion, not 1 billion.  See this rather stale estimate; even my number is on the low side at 100 billion.

 

  11:44:47 AM    comment []

Follow-up -- The Economics of War: Doug Rokke

 

Jan Haugland at Secular Blasphemy questioned the title or qualifications of Doug Rokke, quoted by journalist Elliot Borin in Wired.com’s article this week regarding depleted uranium used in missiles by the U.S.  Jan maintains that Rokke is a “medical doctor”.

 

The following was received from Mr. Borin in response to an email sent to him requesting confirmation of Rokke’s title or qualifications:

 

Dr. Rokke is a physicist and, I believe but am not positive, a physician. I do know that he was assigned to the Army team send to evaluate the effects of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq as both a physicist and the inspection team medic.

 

While I’m not exactly pleased with the degree of confidence exhibited in whether Rokke is a physician, the fact that he was inspection team medic suggests he was qualified by some amount of medical training.

 

Is someone with graduate schooling in physics and medicine qualified to determine whether depleted uranium is safe in the environment?

 

Do the documents in Dai Williams’ report (some based on recent findings in Afghanistan) contradict Rokke’s quoted opinion?

 

You be the judge.

 

(Jan, save yourself the time, we already know your opinions on the entire topic and on my posts and comments to now.)

 

  10:36:42 AM    comment []