Why Don't We Hang Pirates Anymore?
The Wall Street Journal: Now that the economic nooz is so depressing, we're just gonna talk about hanging pirates. Arr, matey.
Tomorrow: Should Paulson be made to walk the plank?
Actual Headline
The MRA Mirror
[Trigger warning.]
by Shaker Sunless Nick
When MRA-types can be bothered to acknowledge rape as a problem at all, they inevitably claim false accusations of rape as a comparable problem, one that happens at least as often, and one that is—unlike rape, they claim—ignored and belittled. For the record, that is not true. But I thought I'd look through that MRA mirror and see what would happen if false rape accusations were really "taken as seriously" as rape.
First, of course, depending on where he lives, the falsely charged man might have to pay for a rape kit that could bolster his case. Naturally, it would likely never be relevant, because the false report case would probably never get to court, being summarily decided instead by lawyers or the police after they determine there to be no evidence that the woman lied. (And of course, there would be a legal presumption that she is truthful and he a rapist.)
But leaving that aside... There is also the fact that false accusations would benefit from widespread apologism, and accused men would suffer from victim-blaming.
For instance, if a victim of false rape accusation was really treated like a victim of rape, then the accused man would be held responsible for it. He'd be asked why he was alone with her. He'd be lectured on everything he coulda woulda shoulda done differently, then or otherwise. He'd have his whole history dissected, looking for other women he might have annoyed, thus justifying this woman's annoyance. He'd be asked if he agreed to the rumour, or secretly liked it? He'd be pressured to drop the whole thing because it was a mistake, not really a serious allegation, she's not really the lying type (heck, she might even be called plucky), and is it really worth ruining her life over this?
And that'd be from the people who believed him and claimed they were on his side.
Otherwise of course, he'd be called a liar (or even a sinister conspirator)—and were he ever to smile or date again, it could be advanced as proof of it. And he'd be called the male equivalents of slut, whore, tease, and bitch (or would, if the male equivalents of those words weren't compliments). And he'd be asked if he can really remember what happened, and is he sure she said yes?
There would be long earnest diatribes about how men could avoid being "deservedly" accused. (Not by just by disgruntled women either; the mainstream media would weigh in on the "MRAs false-accusation fallacy"). Of course they'd include disclaimers of how, "No man deserves to be falsely accused of rape, BUT"—before going on to explain how so many case of false accusation are indeed the man's fault, and how men should ensure that they don't happen.
For instance, it might be trotted out how women are hardwired for intimacy, security, and long-term commitment, and are you sure you didn't say or do anything that implied you were willing to marry and start a family with her? No? But you had sex, and that could have been construed as a promise for those things, so her anger at you breaking that promise is quite understandable really. Did you made it clear you were only interested in a casual hookup? Well why didn't you make it clearer?
Along the way, it might be compared to property crime... say identity theft. After all, we know the stories now; we're careful about letting information about slip into other people's hands, and we know how hard it is to prove the truth if false purchases are racked up in our name. So it's not much of a stretch to parallel that to false accusations and tarnished reputations, right?
There'd be PSAs on how parents can prevent their sons getting into situations where they might be accused of rape, with the women who might do it mysteriously disappeared from the narrative.
Men would be told to take false accusations as compliment—you know, you're so hot she'd say anything to make people think you'd been together—or maybe she thinks the accusation makes you sound more manly. At the same time, they'd be told the claim must be true because they're too old or ugly to have been with a woman any other way.
We'd read posts about how false accusations are sometimes necessary; this link needs an extra trigger warning.
Kobe Bryant, saying "I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter" would be a nationwide rallying call for how all men who deny committing rape are lying dogs.
We would read news stories about falsely accused men being punished for engaging in malicious gossip. We would read about judges who even if an accusation had been proved false, would say they wish they could jail the man anyway (oh, and they might ban him from using the words "false," "lie," and "sex" in his testimony).
False accusations would be the stuff of jokes, even onstage. Men would even be expected to take direct or veiled threats as jokes. False accusations would also routinely be evoked in adverstising and used as metaphors for wit or good presentation. And you would deemed humourless if you objected to any of this.
Even when utterly blatant, false accusations would frequently be ignored or disappeared.
Saying that a false accusation is never deserved would elicit controversy, while a woman who didn't make a false accusation against a man who annoyed her would be deemed worthy of praise for her accomplishment and self-control.
I think most MRAs would much rather see their causes ignored than taken as seriously as that.
Of course on this side of the mirror, I don't see anything like that leveled at men accused of rape—including those who are genuinely accused, tried, and convicted. But rape victims face all of it. So no, I don't find the problems all that comparable. It beggars my imagination that someone can seriously believe there are as many women who voluntarily put themselves through it for no reason as there are men who decide they can get away with rape.
But that's the trouble with mirrors: They don't show us the real world, but a back to front version of it. Maybe MRAs should try the window instead.
Florida Gay Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
Following up on this post, here is some great news:
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman Tuesday declared that Forida's 50-year-old ban on gay adoptions unconstitutional -- a ruling that state lawyers immediately said they would challenge.And another brick crumbles from the wall of inequality.
The ruling sets the stage Frank Gill, a gay man from North Miami, to adopt two foster children he has raised since 2004.
In a 53-page ruling [pdf], Judge Lederman said, ''It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent.''
Two lawyers from the Florida Attorney General's Office said they would file an appeal Tuesday.
''We respect the court's decision,'' said Assistant Attorney General Valerie Martin. ''Based upon the wishes of our client, the Department of Children & Families, we will file an appeal.''
Gill, who is raising the half-brothers, ages 4 and 8, said he was ''elated'' by the ruling and ''I cried tears of joy for the first time in my life.''
I Write Letters
Dear English-Speaking World:
Please stop using the phrase "Joe's a man's man," effective immediately.
When you use that odious idiom, you are implicitly suggesting that any man who is not in Joe's peer group, by virtue of, say, his sexual orientation, gender expression, lack of the requisite physical aptitude for team sports, love of Luigi Illica librettos, and/or aversion to bullying, is also not a man.
And we can all see how silly that is, now, can't we?
If you mean to communicate that a particular man is very popular with other men who are just like him, then you can say: "Joe is very popular with other men who are just like him."
If you mean to communicate that a particular man is very popular with lots of different kinds of men, then you can say: "Joe is very popular with lots of different kinds of men."
If, upon consideration, you realize that Joe is popular not just with men at all, but with women, too, and not just in that "ladies' man" kind of way, then you can say: "Joe is very popular."
And if, upon consideration, you realize that what you meant to communicate all along is that Joe is an embodiment of the stereotype of a straight, white, beer-guzzling, sports-obsessed, dodo-brained, porn-loving homophobe who substitutes rape jokes for a real sense of humor and claims he can use the n-word because his college roommate was black, then you can say: "Joe is a douche."
Thank you and have a nice day.
Love,
Liss
P.S. Ixnay the use of "ladies' man," too. Thanks.
Teaspoon by Teaspoon, We Take the Country Back
Meet Melody Barnes.
During a press conference earlier today, President-Elect Obama announced that she has been chosen as his Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, a role that entails coordinating the domestic policy-making and –makers for the White House. As Shaker Afroacademic aptly described the role in comments, Barnes will be "the Domestic policy czar leading the Cabinet secretaries of Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Energy, Treasury, Agriculture, Transportation, Interior and Veterans Affairs on a mega-board."
A former Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress, Obama introduced her today as "one of the most respected policy experts in America"—and if you check out this interview, it's easy to see why.
This appointment makes her one of the most influential African-American women in the nation.
The current Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council for President Bush is Karl Zinsmeister, not just your run-of-the-mill straight white conservative dude, but a patently unqualified and unethical straight white conservative dude who's contemptuous of the very position he's being paid to fill.
Change I can believe in: An eminently qualified and authentically progressive woman of color managing domestic policy.
Actual Headline
Barack Obama, honeymoon killer?
For an article about whether President-Elect Barack Obama has, by virtue of "creeping signs of centrism," given progressives reason to panic, Salon chose to play on the old "honeymoon's over" chestnut by suggesting Obama may be a "honeymoon killer."
Problem is, a "honeymoon killer" doesn't mean someone who kills a honeymoon. It refers to a man who kills his wife on their honeymoon (or soon after their marriage), e.g. Gabe Watson, a term that can be traced back to a 1970 cult film called The Honeymoon Killers which is loosely based on a dozen real-life murders of young women who replied to "Lonely Hearts" ads.
Suffice it to say, I find the headline a curious choice.
Especially given that it's eminently possible to discuss this issue without implying the president-elect is a vicious misogynistic murderer.
OMGOMGOMG
Rachel (who gets the hat tip) describes this as "a REALLY BADASS Lost promo set to a douchy song." Pretty much, lol.
Drool. Pant. Heart palpitations. Swoon. Shiver. Piddle. Drool. Pant. Heart palpitations. Swoon. Shiver. Piddle. Drool. Pant. Heart palpitations. Swoon. Shiver. Piddle.
58 DAYS!!!
[Spoiler warnings if, for some unmaudely reason, you haven't seen the kickass finale of Season 4 yet. Previous Season 5 omgomgomg here.]
Our Guys
[Trigger warning.]
by Shaker Ginmar—liberal pinko commie hippie feminist female combat veteran who loves zombies and werewolves and hates trolls, twits, and MRAs.
If you click on the link and look at the first photograph on the left, you'll see a young man named Richard Corcoran. He was the son of a police detective. He was also one of the rapists in the 1989 gang rape of a developmentally-disabled girl in the basement of one of the boys' homes. Six boys left the basement, but none of them tried to stop the rape. Why became apparent as author Bernard Lefkowitz interviewed people around town: "It's such a tragedy," said one resident. "This will scar them forever." They meant the boys.
Glen Ridge families had been collecting money for the boys' defense and school teachers publicly urged students to remain 'open-minded' and 'to stand by our guys.' Four days before his trial was scheduled to start, the victim's family decided they couldn't stand any more and backed out. Richard Corcoran escaped trial and joined the Army a few years later, even after the Army was made aware of his past.
He served a tour in Afghanistan, came home, and beat up his wife. Michelle Corcoran asked for a divorce and began to see other men. Richard Corcoran had just taken an anger-management course one day when he came home, shot Michelle, shot another soldier who was there in the house, and then killed himself, with his seven-month old daughter in the house. The other two survived.
PTSD, some said. What about the rape? Was that caused by Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder, rather than post? That seems to be the line the military is taking, even though Richard Corcoran was the tenth in a ghastly string of soldiers murdering their wives since 2002 at Ft.Bragg. In one six week period, four women were killed by their husbands. This does not include the recent murders of two pregnant female soldiers and a third, murdered by men who were accused of harassing or raping them, events which occurred three years after this Salon piece appeared.
The military classifies domestic violence as happening only amongst married couples. This is known as sample or selection bias. Crimes that occur off base are also uncounted by the military, much like suicides that occur after the service members leaves the service aren't counted in the military's suicide figures. Sixty percent of service members live off post. According to those narrow standards, in 2004, there were 16,400 cases of domestic violence reported, with 9,450 substantiated. What does that mean? It means that someone in a position of authority, someone who perhaps didn't want to lose a soldier, decided that there was no merit to the case. Soldiers convicted of domestic violence, like cops, are supposed to be stripped of their weapons. With the military hurting for warm bodies, there's a substantial incentive to look the other way.
This is exactly what they did in the case of Sgt. Carlos Renteria two years ago. He choked his wife, body-slammed her, threw her onto the couch and began to smother her. It was his second arrest for domestic violence. Adriana Renteria was assured that the military would prosecute the case, and so was the local DA, who dropped his case.
Instead, Sgt. Renteria was sent off on a second tour, where he was promoted to staff sergeant and presumably placed in a position of leadership over male and female soldiers, to spread sexism to the males and contempt of women to the females. People wonder how a soldier like Stephen Green got away with planning a rape that turned into a quadruple murder and involved being out of uniform (which is in itself an offense) and going off post without permission (also an offense). I guarantee you that claims that other soldiers know nothing of this are pure bull, plain and simple. Soldiers gossip more than ladies at a church social. Other soldiers were also necessary in that someone had to open a gate for Green.
Ms. Renteria pestered the military to pursue the case, sending letters and emails and making countless phone calls. More than five years ago, after a number of women were killed by their military spouses, the Pentagon concluded in writing that the military did a better job of shielding soldiers from prosecution than it did in protecting victims. Post traumatic stress disorder tends to be blamed for these assaults and killings, despite the fact that many of the men were violent before deployment.
Contempt and skepticism for female victims are written into the very briefings that the military gives on, say, sexual assault, where the military refers to male and female victims equally, despite the fact that the military is 90% male and that its female service members tend to be young and low-ranking. Discussions of lying female victims are common. I haven't, personally, seen a briefing about domestic violence, but I've seen enough to dread it should it occur. In one case, I observed a briefing on sexual assault conducted by a sergeant who had a record of stalking and sexual harassment. A Chief Warrant Officer stood up and in response to a situation a lower-ranking female soldier described, said that anybody who didn't report sexual harassment was 'stupid.' This despite the fact that the biggest impediment to reporting any kind of sexual or domestic misconduct in the military is the military's own vengeful, skeptical attitude toward female victims, and the hatred of snitches built into the concept of honor.
Furthermore, in the case of intra-member cases, making a false accusation against a higher-ranking individual can be a court-martial offense. As seen, for example, in the recent Maria Lauterbach case, domestic violence is not limited to husbands and their civilian wives, but by the Army's standards, the accused murderer and rapist in the case cannot be charged with domestic violence. Neither can the 60% of soldiers who live off base, unmarried.
Ms. Renteria's case so disturbed the civilian prosecutor, Allen Wright, that he issued a warrant for SSGT. Renteria. The military has not cooperated and the warrant remains outstanding.
While some would blame SSGT. Renteria's crimes on PTSD, it is clear that his actions predated his deployment to Iraq. He was abusive early on in the marriage, order to anger management courses, and took one class before dropping off, boasting to his wife that he was untouchable. The military asked Mr. Wright to turn the case over to them—as it can when it wishes to handle a case—and Wright did so, assured that the military would prosecute the case.
First Sgt. Robert Simmons, the highest-ranking non-commissioned officer in SSGT. Renteria's chain of command, was concerned enough about the case that he issued a no-contact order and moved to have Renteria prosecuted on the basis of erratic behavior he had observed himself. If he had succeeded, Renteria would have been stripped of his right to carry his weapon and would have been unable to deploy to Iraq.
Instead, First Sgt. Simmons was himself deployed to Iraq and Ms. Renteria never heard from him again. The priorities of the command at Fort Riley were very clear. Fort Riley quickly closed ranks around Sergeant Renteria. That became clear to Ms. Renteria after a brief conversation in August 2007 with an assistant at the inspector general's office. "'Honey, we are not going to bring a soldier back who beat on his wife a couple of times or because you feel things weren't done correctly,'" Ms. Renteria said, recalling the conversation. "'He is over there fighting for his life.'"
The inspector general is the office which investigates crimes on base, or at least is supposed to.
Ms. Renteria called Mr. Wright, in Texas, in tears, and Mr. Wright eventually reached an Army captain who said that he was under the impression Wright had dropped the charges because of insufficient evidence. Renteria had by this time returned from Iraq on leave, and Wright re-issued the warrant, but Renteria was allowed to return to Iraq without being arrested. "I'm angry," said Maj. Nathan Bond, public affairs officer at Fort Riley, after The New York Times brought the case to the Army's attention. "This is not my Army. This is not how we handle domestic violence cases."
Apparently, however, that might be a trifle inaccurate, according to later statements he made. "Accusations of domestic violence are taken very seriously," he said. "In this case, there were communication difficulties." It's the military answer to every case where a victim complained and was ignored or harassed for complaining—or snitching. The whistle blower in Abu Ghraib was ridden out of town on a rail and now has to live under an assumed name, for example.
Finally, however, Maj. Bond declined to prosecute, refusing to discuss why, citing 'privacy'. Not sending Renteria to war was never an option, however, due to the need for soldiers. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the military does not take wife beating seriously, no matter how many times how many high-ranking people say, "We take this very seriously."
Ms. Renteria obtained a divorce in October, along with an order of protection. She and her former husband have two young sons. SSGT. Renteria has attended no classes, received no therapy, suffered no consequences, and has gone through a second tour of duty, which—as long as he is needed—might very well function as a 'stay-away-from-jail-for-free' card. "I feel that nobody is in my corner," Ms. Renteria said. "Because he wears a uniform, he is protected by everybody."
[Cross-posted. H/T to Shaker Lauren.]
In Which Blogger Boys Discover That Politicians Say a Lot of Things...and Don't Always Do Them
by Shaker Kevin Baker
Young Ezra is on the case:
All of which goes to underscore how bad campaign-season information is. The data all comes from candidate statements, campaign decisions, and messaging choices, but it's impossible to disentangle which are motivated by principle and which by politics. It now looks likely that Obama's relative caution on health care was a simple function of coming out with a subpar plan that they thought would be to the left of Hillary (the working assumption was that her proposal would be very timid), but was not, and thus had to be defended from the right. That strategy, however, no longer looks operative, and the health care appointments haven't hewed to that approach. Meanwhile, it's a bit hard to say what was going on in foreign policy, but when Obama spoke of "end[ing] the mind-set that got us into war in the first place," most folks I know took that as central principle, but it's a bit hard to sync with the retention of the last secretary of defense and the appointment of Hillary Clinton. Which is, again, not to say that any of these appointments are bad ones, or good ones. The jury is still out on administration priorities and individual efficacy. Health care could still languish, and foreign policy could prove a progressive redoubt. But they're not the appointments you would have predicted if you'd been following the campaign.So, ummm... I'll give Klein the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was already aware on some level that politicians sometimes say things to get elected. I presume that was covered in the Political Science curriculum at UCLA. But the fact that he would even write this post suggests that a lot of our young liberal thinkers are having a hard time processing the emerging reality that Barack Obama isn't Progressive Jesus after all.
Which in turn suggests that they had their heads way up their asses during the campaign.*
Case in point: The NY Times is saying that Hillary Clinton is preparing to resign her Senate seat because she has already accepted Barack Obama's offer to become the Secretary of State. Some of the blogospheric responses to this development have been truly hilarious.
Maybe they're just disillusioned because they're starting to see what was pretty obvious from the get-go: Barack Obama has some really effective rhetoric for engaging the most energetic left flank of the Democratic Party, but beyond that rhetoric, he is fundamentally a principled incrementalist reformer with a deep affinity for coalition-building and compromise. This is not to say that he's a bad person or a liar or that I have anything other than the highest hopes for his presidency. It's simply to say that he's not the generational revolutionary he has been made out to be by some bloggers. Barack Obama isn't the angry young man who brings down the system and gives hope to a weary world, much to the dismay of angry young man bloggers everywhere. But anyone who wasn't deeply invested in their own projections and neuroses during the primaries should already know that, right?
Regular readers may recall that although I supported Clinton's candidacy, I frequently said that I'd be more than happy to vote for either of them. I wasn't just saying that to be nice, nor was it a "any Democrat will do" kind of thing. It's because I (no political expert to be sure) could see quite clearly that they're not that different. I don't mean that there weren't policy differences between them (although, really, there weren't many). What I mean is that despite the ridiculously childish acrimony between their campaigns, they themselves are obviously of similar character and temperament. In fact, I suspect (although I have no proof of this) they get along great. I think she's had his back since she endorsed him, and I believe she'll be a loyal and effective member of his team.
How did all our clever liberal writers miss this?
If you viewed Obama's candidacy as some sort of political Advent, the eruption in history of something totally New, then I suppose you might have missed it. If you had convinced yourself (at the urging of the Obama campaign) that Hillary Clinton is some kind of power-mad monster intent on crushing the hopes of a new generation, you definitely missed it.
But then, if you believed either of those things, you're caught up in some seriously non-reality-based thinking, and…I sort of thought we were against that.
----------------------------
[Related (and Recommended) Reading: Tom Watson's Change You Can Perceive In: "The liberal blogosphere has gone decidedly bi-polar in the Great Transition. On one side are the believers, betrothed to an image they conjured between the lines of conventional centrism, a group that is beginning to think that President-elect Obama is going to leave them waiting at the altar. They wait for their progressive swain among a growing sea of centrist appointments, foreign policy hawks, and leaked favorites from the last Democratic administration. On the other side are the cynical pragmatists - just as personally progressive as their heartsick brethren - but decidedly less ambitious in their perception of the Obama promise; this latter group tends to know their Democratic Presidential history and is likely to own a copy of Dennis Perrin's brilliant and instructive Savage Mules. In the end, the history-reading cynics (and count me as a card-carrier) may end up happier with President Obama." Go read the whole thing.]
----------------------------
* To be fair, a lot of Klein's writing during the campaign counseled realistic expectations about an Obama Presidency…but that just makes it even weirder to find him spending a Sunday morning pondering the astonishing facts that politicians pander and that Barack Obama is a politician. Some of the other people I linked to above deserve no such qualifications regarding their journalistic conduct during the primaries.
Monday Blogaround
Sock it to me, Shakers.
Recommended Reading:
BAC: Change Still Needed
Pam: Failed 'Sexual Restoration' Subject Ted Haggard Can't Stay Away From Pulpit
Stephanie: Transgender News Today
Lauren: More Moral Than Thou
Resistance: 'To save adopted girl, U.S. couple gives her up'
Christina: Forgetting This Stupid Movie
Weboy: Crouching Vampire, Hidden Boyfriend
Leave your links in comments...
Shaker Gourmet: Thanksgiving 2008!
Time for the annual (American) Thanksgiving post! First up is an appetizer. Now, you can't reside in the midwest for any significant amount of time and not have (or have seen) the classy appetizer known as cocktail weenies.
Yeah, yeah. Classy, I know. But they're usually a big hit and do taste good.cocktail weenies
1 pkg Lil' Beef Smokies
1 12-oz jar Heinz Chili Sauce
1 tablespoon grape jelly (more if you'd rather have sweeter)
Mix it all in a crock pot. Cook on low for a couple hours before time to serve.
Main dishes & sides below...
(Recipe here)Good Eats Roast Turkey
Ingredients
* 1 (14 to 16 pound) frozen young turkey
For the brine:
* 1 cup kosher salt
* 1/2 cup light brown sugar
* 1 gallon vegetable stock
* 1 tablespoon black peppercorns
* 1/2 tablespoon allspice berries
* 1/2 tablespoon candied ginger
* 1 gallon iced water
For the aromatics:
* 1 red apple, sliced
* 1/2 onion, sliced
* 1 cinnamon stick
* 1 cup water
* 4 sprigs rosemary
* 6 leaves sage
* Canola oil
Directions
Combine all brine ingredients, except ice water, in a stockpot, and bring to a boil. Stir to dissolve solids, then remove from heat, cool to room temperature, and refrigerate until thoroughly chilled.
Early on the day of cooking, (or late the night before) combine the brine and ice water in a clean 5-gallon bucket. Place thawed turkey breast side down in brine, cover, and refrigerate or set in cool area (like a basement) for 6 hours. Turn turkey over once, half way through brining.
A few minutes before roasting, heat oven to 500 degrees. Combine the apple, onion, cinnamon stick, and cup of water in a microwave safe dish and microwave on high for 5 minutes.
Remove bird from brine and rinse inside and out with cold water. Discard brine.
Place bird on roasting rack inside wide, low pan and pat dry with paper towels. Add steeped aromatics to cavity along with rosemary and sage. Tuck back wings and coat whole bird liberally with canola (or other neutral) oil.
Roast on lowest level of the oven at 500 degrees F. for 30 minutes. Remove from oven and cover breast with double layer of aluminum foil, insert probe thermometer into thickest part of the breast and return to oven, reducing temperature to 350 degrees F. Set thermometer alarm (if available) to 161 degrees. A 14 to 16 pound bird should require a total of 2 to 2 1/2 hours of roasting. Let turkey rest, loosely covered for 15 minutes before carving.
This is a new one for us this year! For more information on buying, thawing,cooking, and stuffing a turkey, see here.
A couple gravy tips: be sure that the mix remains at a full boil for the full one minute to cook the flour so that the gravy doesn't have a starchy flavor and if you do not have enough drippings, you can use wine, broth, water from cooking potatoes, or tomato juice.Gravy!
* 1/2 cup turkey drippings
* 1/2 cup flour
* 3 cups liquid, either more juices w/o fat and/or chicken broth
* 1/2 tsp salt
* 1/4 tsp pepper
* browning sauce, if desired
--Pour drippings from roasting pan into bowl, leaving particles in pan. Return 1/2 cup drippings to roasting pan (remember that too little fat makes gravy lumpy).
--Whisk in flour (measure accurately so gravy isn't greasy). Cook over med heat, stirring constantly until smooth & bubbly. Remove from heat.
--Stir in liquid. Return to heat and bring to boiling, stirring constantly for one minute. Stir in few drops of browning sauce, if desired. Stir in salt & pepper.
Appx 12 servings (of 1/4 cup each).
(Recipe here) This is another new one this year. Yes, Food Network is my crack. Don't judge me.Apple and Onion Stuffin' Muffins
* 2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil, 2 turns of the pan
* 1 stick butter, softened
* 1 fresh bay leaf, available in produce department
* 4 ribs celery and greens, from the heart, chopped (save time and purchase celery already washed, trimmed and cut into sticks, this makes chopping fast work)
* 1 medium to large yellow skinned onion, chopped
* 3 McIntosh apples, quartered and chopped
* Salt and pepper
* 2 tablespoons poultry seasoning
* 1/4 cup chopped fresh parsley leaves
* 8 cups cubed stuffing mix (recommended: Pepperidge Farm)
* 2 to 3 cups chicken stock, available in paper containers on the soup aisle
Directions
Preheat oven to 375 degrees F.
Preheat a large skillet over medium high heat. Add extra-virgin olive oil to skillet and 4 tablespoons butter. When butter melts, add bay leaf and add the vegetables as you chop them, celery, onions then apples. Sprinkle the vegetables and apples with salt, pepper and poultry seasoning. Cook 5 to 6 minutes to begin to soften vegetables and apples then add parsley and stuffing cubes to the pan and combine. Moisten the stuffing with chicken broth until all of the bread is soft but not wet.
Butter 12 muffin cups, 2 tins, liberally with remaining butter. Use an ice cream scoop to fill and mound up the stuffing in muffin tins. Remove the bay leaf as you scoop the stuffing when you come upon it. Bake until set and crisp on top, 10 to 15 minutes. Remove stuffin' muffins to a platter and serve hot or room temperature.
I made this last year and, holy crap, it is sooooo freaking good. I highly recommend this if you want to serve cranberry sauce.Ginger Apricot Cranberry Sauce
* 1 tbsp. unsalted butter
* 2 tbsp. finely grated ginger
* 16 oz. fresh cranberries
* 2/3 cup sugar
* 1 cup orange juice
* 1/2 cup apricot preserves
In a saucepan, over medium heat, melt butter. Add ginger and cook, stirring for 2 minutes. Add crans, sugar, oj and preserves. Cook, stirring occasionally, until crans burst and sauce thickens, about 20 mins. Transfer to bowl and serve warm.
Easy, easy! I make this several times a week.Basic French Bread
* 3/4 cup warm water (110 degrees F/45 degrees C)
* 1-1/2 teaspoons active dry yeast
* 1 tablespoon white sugar
* 1 tablespoon vegetable oil
* 1/2 teaspoon salt
* 2 cups bread flour
* egg white + tsp water, beat together for egg wash
1. In a large bowl, stir together warm water, yeast, and sugar. Let stand about 10 minutes until foamy.
2. To the yeast mixture, add the oil, salt, and 1.5 cups flour. Stir in the remaining flour, 1/4 cup at a time, until the dough has pulled away from the sides of the bowl. Turn out onto a lightly floured surface, and knead until smooth and elastic, about 8 minutes. Lightly oil a large bowl, place the dough in the bowl, and turn to coat. Cover
with a warm damp cloth, and let rise in a warm place until doubled in volume, about 1 hour.
3. Deflate the dough, shape, return to bowl. Cover again with a damp cloth, and let rise until doubled in volume, about 30 minutes. Meanwhile, preheat oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C).
4. After rising and before baking, put on greased cookie sheet in loaf form. Brush liberally with egg wash.
5. Bake 20 - 22 minutes in the preheated oven, or until golden brown.
We'll also be having cheese & crackers, sweet potato balls, roasted green beans, corn, and baklava (I do one pumpkin pie & one alternative dessert). For other recipes, such as herb-scented turkey, sweet potato casserole, old-fashioned dinner rolls, and brie mashed potatoes (which we'll also be having)--see this post.
I hope you have a great holiday!
The Good News and the Bad News
ABC News has learned that President-elect Obama had tapped University of California -Berkeley economics professor Christina Romer to be the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, an office within the Executive Office of the President.The Good News continued:
Romer, a widely respected economist with an expertise on the U.S. economy, will be one of [Obama's] key economic advisers.
Ellen Moran, executive director of EMILY's List, will serve as Obama's communications director.The Bad News:
Moran worked for the AFL-CIO, coordinating "Wal-Mart corporate accountability activities," before returning to EMILY's, an organization dedicated to helping Democratic women get elected to office.
Lawrence Summers, who Sunday was confirmed as president-elect Barack Obama's pick as his chief economic advisor ... would be director of the National Economic Council (NEC), would take on the role of chief presidential economic advisor as the world struggles to counter the still-expanding effects of the international financial crisis.Oof. The tonedeafness, it burns.
...He resigned [as president of Harvard University] in 2006 after relations with Harvard faculty broke down, in part leading from controversial remarks he made at a academic conference that "issues of intrinsic aptitude" could explain underrepresentation of women in the fields of science and engineering.
I'm a little concerned by the appearance (if not an explicit strategy) of choosing Romer (as part of the economic team) and/or Moran (as a public feminist) to counterbalance choosing Summers. It doesn't work that way.
And, apart from anything else, as Shaker rrp has wisely pointed out, choosing Summers also "signals a return to the fiscal policies that helped cause the credit meltdown."
Not good. On multiple levels.
Where's My Invitation?
The invitations to Florida Governor Charlie Crist's December 12th wedding are in the mail.
The invitation says, "No gifts, please, due to Florida law." Darn; I was going to give them a toaster oven like the one I got.
Christiane Amanpour to Anchor Own Show
Imagine my excitement when I read that one of my idols, Christiane Amanpour, the best and most highly-paid field reporter in the world, "the very model of a foreign correspondent, turning up at seemingly every war, genocide, famine and natural disaster, slipping through previously closed borders and interviewing even the most recalcitrant of foreign leaders," a brilliant and widely-respected journalist who says of her vocation cheeky stuff like, "I have a very frivolous side which I exercise liberally. People imagine that I relax by practising in the backyard with my Kalashnikov, but I absolutely don't do that," and thoughtful stuff like, "There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn't mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing," was getting her own daily show.
And then imagine my disappointment when I read further to find that it won't air in America.
[T]here is one thing she has never done: anchored her own daily news show.Of course. Because where, amidst all the reporting of important stories about how crimes against women and crimes against dogs are comparable, catcalling, marriage-ruining hussies, what sermons HRC hears, whether calling HRC a "white bitch" is appropriate, stay-at-home wives, biological determinism of the sexes, "hot teacher sex," all women being whores, Biblical views on women's inherent submissive role, disappearing the word rape, endless sensational stories about missing, raped, and/or dead (white) women, and 22 hours of day of scolding Britney-Paris-Lindsay for being dirty sluts under the guise of "celebrity news," could CNN possibly find the time to give an hour a day to a news show hosted by a woman who pretty much undermines everything they constantly suggest about women?
That will change next year, when she starts a nightly program on CNN International, which is retooling its lineup. An edited version of Ms. Amanpour's show is expected to be shown on the weekends on CNN's United States channel.
Fuck you, CNN.
Watch Christiane Amanpour being cool as fuck here.
And So It Begins
Help us, Maude! Our preznit-elect ain't goin' to church!
President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.Oh, they managed to do it, did they? Well, you know what that means. If they could manage it, but Obama can't, it proves once and for all that he really is a secret Muslim! If he weren't, he could certainly manage getting to church.
On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym.
Asked about the president-elect's decision to not attend church, a transition aide noted that the Obamas valued their faith experience in Chicago but were concerned about the impact their large retinue may have on other parishioners.
"Because they have a great deal of respect for places of worship, they do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw," said the aide.
Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected.
I mean, sure. Obama's family (rather famously, ahem) left their long-time home church not long ago, so attending church would mean going somewhere new, which, considering the scrutiny given his past pastor's sermons, would certainly require intense vetting of any new pastor's sermons, for which Obama and/or his team might not have the time or energy right now as they're preparing to hit the Oval Office running in the middle of a major economic crisis and two wars. And, sure. It would cause massive amounts of upheaval for the church they chose, which wouldn't be particularly fair to the parishioners or church staff. And, sure. It's none of our fucking business, anyway.
But Clinton and Bush managed it, people! The country's going to hell in a handbasket already!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!11!!elevety-one!111!!!!!!!!!!
