Monday, December 31, 2012

"...but the best thing about him was his eye."

The most incredible horse to ever live.

I watched him win the Belmont as a very young girl. I had been around horses my whole life, but I really only knew that it was fun to go fast and that my horse loved it as much as I. What I saw that day was that it was more than fun. It was -- to the horse -- his entire reason for being. Secretariat was a horse who vibrated with his own tremendous power. A horse who knew, as every horse does, what it means to run, to fly, but who was given the special gift of exemplifying it for all of us mere humans.

How wondrous. How simple. To do what you were meant to do.

I remember standing in my living room, because one could not sit as they watched that race, and crying...sobbing...laughing. All of it. Even a young child knows when they witness a miracle.

Happy New Year everyone. Let's look for miracles in 2013.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Winter Spiced Pumpkin Soup

This is a soup that nourishes the soul, first with scented whispers rising from the stove, and then with lovely, thick warmth that fills your belly and banishes the memory of cold winds outside.


1 large potato, peeled and diced
1 medium onion, sliced
2 leeks, sliced (white to just pale green part only)
4 to 6 garlic cloves (The more the merrier, I always say. If Edward is creeping around, definitely throw in the 6!)
Olive oil (or butter, if you're so inclined)

Saute the potato and onion until just beginning to brown in either the olive oil or butter. If you're Martha Stewart or similarly insane, or have too much time on your hands, or want to save money by using one of those pumpkins you still have laying around from that ONE pumpkin vine your kids planted and which yielded far too many of something no one ever really uses, then, by all means, peel, slice and add pumpkin to this melange, too. Knock yourself out. I use canned. It comes in later.

Once this vegetable mixture has softened and just slightly begun to brown, add:

6 cups chicken broth
1 cup water
1 can (29 oz) pumpkin puree (Again, if you're overzealous you've already sauteed real pumpkin into the mix so reduce the amount of puree to a 16 oz can) 

Stir in well and add spices:

1 bay leaf
1 1/4 teaspoon nutmeg
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon coriander
1 teaspoon ground sage
1/2 teaspoon allspice
1 teaspoon curry

Salt and white pepper to taste.

Simmer this until all the vegetables are VERY soft. Remove bay leaf and puree in batches in a blender. Taste and adjust seasoning. If it's too thick, add a little water or chicken broth. 

Banishes vampires, cold weather, and bad moods.


Friday, December 28, 2012

Well...when you've lost Oliver Stone...

You're in real trouble.

Oliver Stone to RT: ‘US has become an Orwellian state’

Americans are living in an Orwellian state argue Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick, as they sit down with RT to discuss US foreign policy and the Obama administration’s disregard for the rule of law.

Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone (right) and historian Peter Kuznick
­Both argue that Obama is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and that people have forgiven him a lot because of the “nightmare of the Bush presidency that preceded him.”

“He has taken all the Bush changes he basically put them into the establishment, he has codified them,” Stone told RT. “It is an Orwellian state. It might not be oppressive on the surface, but there is no place to hide. Some part of you is going to end up in the database somewhere.”

According to Kuznick, American citizens live in a fish tank where their government intercepts more than 1.7 billion messages a day. “That is email, telephone calls, other forms of communication.”

No kidding. I mean really. No kidding. When did the inestimable Mr. Stone figure that out? As glad as I am to see him finally have a lightbulb moment, it seems he was way waaay behind those dumb ass Teabaggers who had this figured out before Obama was even elected in 2008. Of course, they are just a bunch of ignint who listens to them? Not Mr. Stone.

He [Obama] was a great hope for change. The color of his skin, the upbringing, the internationalism, the globalism, seemed all evident. And he is an intelligent man. He has taken all the Bush changes he basically put them into the establishment, he has codified them. That is what is sad. So we are going into the second administration that is living outside the law and does not respect the law and foundations of our system and he is a constitutional lawyer, you know. Without the law, it is the law of the jungle.  Nuremburg existed for a reason and there was a reason to have trials, there is a reason for due process – ‘habeas corpus’ as they call it in the United States.
Yes, and the reason is assholes like Obama.

But now Mr. Stone believes he has seen through Obama. What a mind! What insight! A wolf in sheep's clothing, he says. What a dumb ass. It took him four years to see what we saw in 2008 and we're still supposed to concede that he's the smart one. Okie dokie.

I hate stupid people.

More so every day.


There is code for more than just racism.

The easiest word problem ever!

Gun Control is a Lot Harder on Four Cups of Coffee

Let me begin this post with a warning that it is a rant and will therefore come with the inevitable disjointed arguments presented in what is more than likely to be a chaotic jumble peppered with regrettable expletives that a more erudite columnist would never deign to use.

Before I begin this tirade, let me present the "Cliff Notes" for any of you who wish to understand my basic point without the necessity of even scanning this post. To all leftists, self-congratulatory elitists, moral idiots, progressive retards, and liberals who believe that the loss of freedom, up to and including the right to self-defense, should apply to the Little People (and, of course, you are the Little People) and ONLY to the Little People while they themselves retain the fullest expression of privilege and protection afforded the Ruling Class:

"Do I make myself clear?"
For the rest of you kittens, I appreciate your determination to struggle through the ravings of a slightly hungover woman hopped up on four cups of strong coffee and annoyingly damp from wrestling leaves and twigs out of the coat of a squirming little dog who saw fit this morning to gambol through bushes which were thoroughly soaked from a week of steady downpour. 

To put it mildly, I'm a bit peevish.

So when I read this at Rachel's...
The wonderful British blogger David Thompson links to a piece by the pompous leftist British writer George Monbiot, who describes an encounter with reality many years ago that apparently did not sink in very well, seeing as how he’s still a pompous leftist (or even “anarchist” as he fancies himself). I bolded my favorite parts.
A group of us had occupied a piece of land on St George’s Hill in Surrey, 70 miles from where we now sat. In 1649, the Diggers had built their settlement there, in the hope of establishing a “common treasury for all”. Our aim had been to rekindle interest in land reform. It had been going well – we had placated the police, started to generate plenty of public interest – when two young lads with brindled staffordshire bull terriers arrived in an old removals van.

Everyone was welcome at the site and, as they were travellers, one of the groups marginalised by the concentration of control and ownership of land in Britain, we went out of our way to accommodate them. They must have thought they had died and gone to heaven.

Almost as soon as they arrived they began twocking stuff. A radio journalist left his equipment in his hire car. They smashed the side window. Someone saw them bundling the kit, wrapped in a stolen sleeping bag, into their lorry. There was a confrontation – handwringing appeals to reason on one side, pugnacious defiance on the other – which eventually led to the equipment being handed back.
...I thought how utterly amusing it was that those who were protesting the indignity of private property in the hands of others were nonetheless indignant when their private property ended up in the hands of others. Goose, meet Gander. Y'all should really get along.

Rachel points out that Mr. Monbiot also believes that Britain should tax the living crap out of anyone who has "too much living space". In a charming bit of irony, what might be considered "too much" is more than likely defined by people who live in castles and manors and palaces. This tax should be so punitive that one is forced into taking in a boarder to avoid paying it. Such boarder must surely be allowed into one's home for free, it would follow, since private commerce is a sin or something to Mr. Monbiot. The justification for his position is that housing resources should be commonly owned because they are universally needed. What he seems pathologically unable to ascertain is that the travellers who stole everything they could get their hands on forcing -- handwringing appeals to reason -- were simply employing his philosophical ideas in the most immediate and genuinely intimate way possible. They were just taking it because they needed it. Why create red tape where it isn't necessary? The thrifty and efficient travellers were simply removing the middleman. Jolly good.

Barely able to process the enormous hypocrisy of such a position by celebrated "smart guy" Monbiot, I then read that another celebrated "smart guy" and journalist David Gregory, obviously a man of refined impulses who would never succumb to the lurid temptation of violence that the rest of us hair-trigger idjits fumbling with our Bibles while trying to pick our noses during target practice always seem so frighteningly close to doing, held up an illegal magazine clip on TV to illustrate the existence of such accessories. Apparently Mr. Gregory's "AH HAH!" moment in the face of NRA lobbyist Wayne LaPierre was worth the flagrant illegality of having such an item in his possession at all, much less brandishing it on air. It seems, kittens, that a stunt that would land you in prison was performed by the intelligent Mr. Gregory because he was "committing an act of journalism." One's right to own firearms therefore, while constantly questioned and restricted under the 2nd Amendment, is wide open under the 1st Amendment, provided you have the proper credentials to open your yap. Not a member of the journalistic intelligentsia? Then shut up and put on this here orange jumpsuit, Mr. Average Citizen. And quit picking your nose.

Of course it is also obvious to all but the most casual of observers that the real lesson in Mr. Gregory's astonishingly courageous journalistic action (fully protected under the 1st Amendment) is that our gun laws are ineffective because they are such a hodge podge, changing from state to state. 

The Gregory case incident highlights the problem with the country’s gun laws, a patchwork of state, local and federal regulations that make it almost impossible for jurisdictions that want to enact stricter regulations to do so with any kind of effectiveness.
Gun advocates often point to crime rates in Chicago, Washington and New York City — which have some of the country’s most robust gun control laws — as evidence that gun restrictions don’t work to deter crime. But the problem is that, in the absence of a robust national law like the Assault Weapons Ban, it’s incredibly easy for someone to simply go to the next jurisdiction over to buy a gun or ammunition that is banned in their hometown.

While it would have been impossible for Gregory and his staff to purchase the magazine he used in the District of Columbia, they could have easily visited one of the many stores ringing the city in its Virginia or Maryland suburbs, all within just a few miles of their studio. Or you can simply order high-capacity magazines like the one Gregory used on eBay or off a dozen other websites.

“Don’t wave Chicago because where are Chicago’s guns coming from? We trace the weapons that come into my city. They’re not coming from [Chicago],” Newark Mayor Cory Booker said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday after Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan raised this exact point. “They’re coming from places that have free secondary markets where criminals and gun runners can easily buy weapons and pump them into a community like mine, where it is easy for a person who is a criminal to get their hand on a gun.”
Allow me to point out where this line of reasoning is headed. Gun bans don't work. Even the Educated and the Elected admit they don't work and they will never work -- so they must be implemented everywhere and for know, so they will finally work. Otherwise someone somewhere will get a hold of a gun and use it illegally. It is an accepted fact to the more intelligent among us that any gun anywhere is a potential threat to everyone everywhere unless, of course, it is in the hands of the "proper authorities". You, Mr. Average Citizen, are no longer considered a "proper authority". Your government now considers you a "threat." We have an orange jumpsuit for you right here....

And I do hope you're not ill-bred enough to question whether the same person who would soullessly commit mass murder would instead meekly hand over his guns to the authorities. That would be in poor taste because...

MORE GUN CONTROL = PROBLEM SOLVED.  (And if the problem isn't solved, we promise to eliminate every last freedom until it is. You have our word.)


One of the most remarkable things about the way progressives view the insane world their ideas create is that when the inevitable disasters occur from their stupid ideas, their solution is always to increase the stupid. If some gun control leaves law-abiding citizens unarmed and sitting ducks for criminals, then more gun control is obviously needed.  If even more gun control creates "gun-free" zones where mass murders can happen, then we need to make the entire country a "gun-free" zone. We need more more MORE, not less. You have to be very, very smart to understand this. Of course, if they're wrong, they have that covered too:
John Hayward of the conservative-leaning Human Events website, frames it as a “Ruling Class” versus “Little People” divide, pointing out that "David Gregory is ... a highly-paid, high-profile employee of a high-powered news network – in other words, a member of the Ruling Class. It’s supposed to be tastefully understood that most of the little rules for Little People don’t apply to him, any more than demands for a helpless and disarmed citizenry mean the Ruling Class will disarm its own bodyguards."

And also resource control and space control....
So remember, when government offers more of anything, it always represents the loss of freedom for someone. Eventually that "someone" is you.

So hand over those guns, Mr. Average Citizen Little Person. Your Overlords of the Ruling Class don't want anyone getting hurt.

And while you're handing over those guns, perhaps you can find some room for a comrade? It's been determined by the Central Committee that you have entirely "too much living space."

Of course, if you disagree, we have a rent-free accommodation specially designed to have exactly the correct amount of living space. Oh...and it comes with its own fashion-conscious wardrobe. Here's your orange jumpsuit.

Don't say government never did anything for you.


(And HEY! I didn't swear once. I let Mr. Gillette do that for me.)

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Running for Dummies

And bears.

It's almost identical, if you ask me.

I give you Bernard, the Polar Bear.

And Dummy.

See what I mean? Very little difference, except apparently the bear is the tool user. And Dummy isn't in any danger from global warming or something like that.

My next project

Okay...I'm spending Christmas vacation attempting to create Bacon Crack. HAHAHA!

H/T: IMAO who posted this video which sent me down the rabbit hole...

When you need a friend.

There are times in life when the struggle is just enough that you fail at first, maybe a few times, and you become frustrated and therefore more determined, and then you do it! You make it! It works! 

And along comes your friend to help at exactly that moment....and you're screwed.

Penguin humor always makes me laugh like an idiot. And it's Christmas. So it seems appropriate. Oh, I know penguins live at the South Pole and Santa lives at the North Pole. Do you think I'm retarded? (Don't answer that.)

Ok...I'll go looking for polar bear humor now or maybe caribou humor.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Merry Christmas from my neck of the woods

This is a photo of the Cornish Christmas Fair held on the main street of our town on the weekends through the Christmas season.


On Perfecting Pollyanna

Evan Sayet and Bill Whittle discuss Evan's new book, "The Kindergarden of Evil" (with lots of clever subtitles).

If you don't recognize Evan Sayet, he is the genius who spoke at the Heritage Foundation in 2007 and blew everyone out of their chairs with his indictment of liberals and liberal thinking. If you've never seen this video, do.

Sayet is witty and insightful on the motives behind liberalism. In my VERY humble opinion, his analysis misses one critical point - the moral framework behind what liberals believe. Yes, liberals believe that Pollyanna can be perfected and that there can be a world with no pain. But why do they even feel such a world would be "good."? This is critical because we think the way we feel. Yes, even conservatives. We like to believe we arrive at our conclusions purely from an intellectual viewpoint, but this isn't possible. Emotions are the basis for belief. Intellect is what guides our emotions toward constructive and wholesome beliefs. This connection between thinking and feeling is the framework for why we have morals. Morals help us organize social actions so that we can feel safe, cared for, connected to others, valued, and purposeful.

Dr. Jonathon Haidt of the University of Virginia has done some extremely interesting research into the moral constructs of all societies from the beginning of man's history to now. He found that all human societies are formed around six moral foundations.


When I first read his work in 2008, Dr. Haidt had identified only five categories and they were described slightly differently:


I will not go into the subtleties of his research and the breakdown of every category because the most interesting thing he discovered was there was a significant difference between people who self-identified as political liberals and, basically, everyone else.

They only used the first two moral pairs. Period.

Fairness/Cheating (or earlier Reciprocity)
The rejection of FOUR out of six moral foundations by the liberal leaves conservatives and liberals hopelessly unable to communicate and agree on moral "goodness." The conservative and the liberal simply aren't playing the same game with the same game pieces. We will never arrive at the same conclusion.
It is easy to understand and agree with the usefulness of the first two in building a society. Without harm/care and fairness/cheating even the most primitive society would be unable to create bonding, mating, and childrearing behaviors to insure survival.  Dr. Haidt's research shows exactly this. Everyone, everywhere agrees with these first two imperatives. 

Not only does everyone agree with these two, every AGE agrees with these two. Spend even an afternoon with a three year old and you will hear at least once, and probably several times, "That's not fair!" or, "You're being mean!" 

It's the rejection of the next four that gets us into trouble. It is also telling that these are the moral ideas which increasingly demand that you set aside your instinctive selfishness and respond to the world around you in a more sophisticated and discriminating way. The remaining four must be exercised with wisdom and personal restraint. It is necessary to use judgment. They ask something of you, instead of simply providing something to you.

Liberty/Oppression - the liberal sees LIBERTY as causing oppression. One person's ability to act as he wishes, resulting in success or advancement, is seen by the liberal as OPPRESSION of another. Therefore, liberty is dangerous, resulting in inequality.

Loyalty/Betrayal - This is the "us vs them" idea. This combo used to be Ingroup/Loyalty which I believe is a better description. The liberal sees this pair as particularly dangerous because it can lead us to believe that our values are superior. The liberal believes that we create nation-states because of this moral foundation. Nation-states make war. Therefore, this moral foundation is goose-stepping us right into fascism.

Authority/Respect - QUESTION AUTHORITY. DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE OVER 30. These were the chants and the bumper stickers of every committed hippie in the 60's and the ideas have seeped into our culture since then. To the liberal, this foundation causes us to yield, Borg-like, to a dominate authority and therefore puts us at risk for totalitarianism. It also ties us to the past, and none of those old dead white guys got it right anyway because the world is still filled with outrage, injustice and pain, so what could we possibly learn from them? Dismissing wisdom for the lure of an unknown future is always the promise of every good little leftist. FORWARD!

Sanctity/Degradation - this one is vitally important for the liberal to attack. CELEBRATE DIVERSITY! the liberal screams. What he really means is CELEBRATE DEVIANCY! Blurring the line between what we feel to be right or wrong because it insures our very survival, like sexual behavior, is one of the most important tenets of the liberal philosophy. David Pizarro, Assistant Professor in Psychology at Cornell University, gives a talk on the strange politics of disgust.

See? You always knew hippies were disgusting. Well, SCIENCE! now proves it.

Given this fascinating research by Haidt, Pizarro, and Sayet's book, my conclusion is that liberals are little kids with dirty, filthy minds. They should be spanked and sent to bed.

Or maybe just made to do their chores.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

My Exit Strategy

Tomorrow is the end of the world and I am determined to not be here when it happens.

I'm still working out the kinks.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Friday, December 14, 2012

Thursday, December 13, 2012

So be good for goodness sake!

In Europe the legend of Saint Nicholas traveling through the night to find good boys and girls to whom he gives presents and treats is balanced with the terror of the Krampus. These creatures go with him, and when they find really bad little children, they steal them and eat them for Christmas dinner.

I like it. Works for me.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Dear Santa

Dear Santa,

How are you? How is Mrs. Claus? I hope everyone, from the reindeer to the elves, is fine. I have been a very good boy this year. I would like an X-Box 360 with Call of Duty IV and an iPhone 5 for Christmas. I hope you remember that come Christmas Day.

Merry Christmas,

Timmy Jones

* *

Dear Timmy,

Thank you for you letter. Mrs. Claus, the reindeer and the elves are all fine and thank you for asking about them. Santa is a little worried by all the time you spend playing video games and texting. Santa wouldn't want you to get fat. Since you have indeed been a good boy, I think I'll bring you something you can go outside and play with.

Merry Christmas,

Santa Claus

* *

Mr. Claus,

Seeing that I have fulfilled the "naughty vs. nice" contract, set by you, I might add, I feel confident that you can see your way clear to granting me what I have asked for. I certainly wouldn't want to turn this joyous season into one of litigation. Also, don't you think that a jibe at my weight coming from an overweight man who goes out once a year is a bit laughable?


Tim Jones

* *

Mr. Jones,

While I have acknowledged you have met the "nice" criteria, need I remind you that your Christmas list is a request and in no way is it a guarantee of services provided. Should you wish to pursue legal action, well, that is your right. Please know, however, that my attorneys have been on retainer ever since the Burgermeister Meisterburger incident and will be more than happy to take you on in open court. Additionally, the exercise I alluded to will not only improve your health, but also improve your social skills and potentially help clear up a complexion that looks like the bottom of the Burger King fry bin most days.

Very Truly Yours,

S Claus

* *

Now look here, Fat Man,

I told you what I want and I expect you to bring it. I was attempting to be polite about this, but you brought my looks into it. Now you just be disrespecting me. I'm about to tweet my boys and we're gonna be waiting for your fat ass, and I'm taking my game console, my game, my phone, and whatever else I want. WHAT EVER I WANT, MAN!


* *

Listen Pizza Face,

Seriously??? You think a dude that breaks into every house in the world on one night and never gets caught sweats a fat little G-banger wannabe? "He sees you when you're sleeping; He knows when you're awake". Sound familiar, genius? You know what kind of resources I have at my disposal? I got your shit wired, Jack. I go all around the world and see ways to hurt people and if I described them right now, you'd throw up your Totino's pizza roll all over the carpet of your mom's basement. You're not getting what you asked for, but I'm still stopping by your crib to stomp a mud hole in your ass and then walk it dry. Chew on that, Petunia.

S Clizzy

* *

Dear Santa,

Bring me whatever you see fit. I'll appreciate anything.


* *


That's what I thought, you little bastard.


H/T: Anonymous (But I WISH I knew who wrote this!)

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

I need a drink.

Of course, it doesn't help that others do alot of the thinking for me and have the time to put together lists like this:


  1. Climate change. Needs no explanation, I assume. (I would like one, actually.)
  2. Robots. Explanation here. Even Paul Krugman is tentatively on board now.
  3. Immortality. Laugh if you want, but it's hardly impossible that sometime in the medium-term future we'll see biomedical breakthroughs that make humans extremely long-lived. What happens then? Who gets the magic treatments? How do we support a population that grows forever? How does an economy of immortals work, anyway?
  4. Bioweapons. We don't talk about this a whole lot these days, but it's still possible—maybe even likely—that extraordinarily lethal viruses will be fairly easily manufacturable within a couple of decades. If this happens before we figure out how to make extraordinarily effective vaccines and antidotes, this could spell trouble in ways obvious enough to need no explanation.
  5. Energy. All the robots in the world won't do any good if we don't have enough energy to keep them running. And fossil fuels will run out eventually, fracking or not. However, I put this one fifth out of five because we already have pretty good technology for renewable energy, and it's mainly an engineering problem to build it out on a mass scale. Plus you never know. Fusion might become a reality someday.
So I guess I need to worry about an arid, relentlessly hot and oxygen-depleted environment where robots who don't mind the heat and don't breathe and, by the way, are already kind of immortal after a fashion, are wielding deadly viruses (which would negate immortality for us, don't you think?) for as long as they have sufficient energy to destroy the planet.

Oh, goodie.

The bright spot in all the news today is that drinking makes you live longer. So if I have to see this future, at least it will be with a Senor Playboy in my hand.


 A newly released study shows that regular drinkers are less likely to die prematurely than people who have never indulged in alcohol. You read that right: Time reports that abstaining from alcohol altogether can lead to a shorter life than consistent, moderate drinking.
 So I'm good. Really good. I have the consistent part down, anyway. I will live to see immortal deadly robots burning under an angry sun.

That thought alone would make me drink, if I didn't already.

You cahhhn't do that, but he's done it.

This effort took a little strength and balance. Oh, and guts, determination, tenacity and just plain old "never say die" stubbornness. Those Kiwis can really ride. 

The Cold Hard Truth. DAMN!

Bill Whittle delivers the cold, hard truth. I have nothing to add.


How do you describe perfection?

One of the greatest ladies in sports.


Monday, December 10, 2012

Good Lord is right.

I think this little bit of athletic wizardry speaks for itself. Except for the, "Good Lord," of course which was entirely necessary. The announcer exercised enormous restraint in using that phrase. I'm sure, though, that later in the locker room, the young man's coach did not.

Nip Tuck

I'll let everyone else criticize Susan Rice for being a lying sack with naked political ambition and slavish loyalty to the worst president in the history of this country. My observations are considerably less erudite and informed.

I can't help thinking that this....

Susan Rice as a college student.

...didn't just "mature" into this...

Susan Rice as a lying sack UN Ambassador.

I'm seeing some work done. Just my opinion. But this woman has seen "the knife."

I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. Consider Hillary Clinton. The years have not been kind.

Of course, Hillary needs to meet "the scissors" even more than "the knife." Good LORD! woman, who told you that when you hit 65 years of age that growing your hair long is a good idea?

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Good news...bad news...

Out of the mouths of babes.....

I sound just like that toddler, but no one cares. It's ageism, I tell you! Get a little age on you and people don't think you're so adorable when you squeak.

Holiday Baking

Cinnamon is a Christmas smell. Like the piney green scent of fir trees or the spicy sweetness of narcissus, cinnamon is required for it to smell like Christmas. These cinnamon sugar biscotti are incredibly easy to make and absolutely delicious. Dipped into a latte so that the traditional snap of the biscotti is gently softened to a satisfying bite and covered with foamy milk - it's yummy milk and cookies for grownups.



2 cups all purpose flour
2 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/4 teaspoon salt
1 cup plus 3 tablespoons sugar
6 tablespoons (3/4 stick) unsalted butter, room temperature
2 large eggs
1 large egg yolk
1 teaspoon vanilla extract


Preheat oven to 325°F. Line 2 large baking sheets with parchment paper. Mix flour, 1 1/2 teaspoons cinnamon, baking powder and salt in medium bowl to blend. Using electric mixer, beat 1 cup sugar and butter in large bowl until fluffy. Add 1 egg; beat well. Add egg yolk; beat well. Mix in vanilla, then dry ingredients.

Transfer dough to work surface. Divide in half. Shape each half into 9-inch-long, 1 1/2-inch-wide log. Transfer logs to baking sheets. Beat remaining egg in small bowl. Brush logs with egg. Bake until golden and firm to touch (dough will spread), about 50 minutes. Cool on baking sheets. Maintain oven temperature.

Mix 3 tablespoons sugar and 1 teaspoon cinnamon in small bowl to blend. Using serrated knife, cut logs into 1/2-inch-wide diagonal slices. Place biscotti, cut side down, on baking sheets. Sprinkle 1/4 teaspoon cinnamon sugar over each biscotti. Bake until pale golden, about 20 minutes. Cool on racks. (Can be made 1 week ahead. Store in airtight container.)


I have been making these for years and while this recipe is incredibly easy, the dough is a bit too crumbly to handle well. It helps if you add just a touch of water after you have added the dry ingredients, and this requires some judgment. You want the dough to just come together. Also, since I like the taste of cinnamon (that's the whole point, really!), I make the cinnamon sugar topping with more cinnamon, so that the mixture is decidedly brown and smells heavenly. The cooking times have never worked for me. I find that the first time in the oven should be closer to 30 to 35 minutes and the second baking should be between 10 and 15 minutes. At any rate, just keep a close eye on these until you find what works for you. Also it helps not to let the cookies cool too much before slicing them for the second baking. When they are too cool, they crumble. Use a bread knife and go easy to reduce crumbling.


Friday, December 7, 2012

When can we just start calling him King and be done with it?


Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Nothing's too good for our boy.

And I mean that in the most pejorative way possible. I'm done pretending I like this a**hole. Excuse me. KING of the A**holes.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

But it gets better. We're not being robbed by this joker and his staff just for fun and games. Oh no. We are being robbed to pay for his re-election.

“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with The DC on Wednesday.
Yes, this is a trifle concerning. But there's more.

“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
So we're effed.

Keep your pants on, boys.

When you're in a knife fight and someone brings a gun, it's not advantageous to have your pants down around your ankles, boys. Republicans in Congress need to grow a pair, hike their pants up and load their pistols. This is a real fight they are getting from President Dick Tator and it's not really about the money.

It's about power. Absolute power.

With the looming fiscal cliff dampening everyone's Christmas spirit, Obama's negotiating style resembles a vengeful wife in a nasty divorce who keeps refusing settlement offers and demanding ever more from a whipped soon-to-be-ex-husband. Even when Boehner caves on alimony, custody and the house, our miffed and petulant POTUS refuses the offer and demands more.

Charles Krauthammer hammers this point:

Let’s understand President Obama’s strategy in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. It has nothing to do with economics or real fiscal reform. This is entirely about politics. It’s Phase 2 of the 2012 campaign. The election returned him to office. The fiscal cliff negotiations are designed to break the Republican opposition and grant him political supremacy, something he thinks he earned with his landslide 2.8-point victory margin on Election Day.

This is why he sent Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to the Republicans to convey not a negotiating offer but a demand for unconditional surrender. House Speaker John Boehner had made a peace offering of $800 billion in new revenue. Geithner pocketed Boehner’s $800 billion, doubled it to $1.6 trillion, offered risible cuts that in 2013 would actually be exceeded by new stimulus spending and then demanded that Congress turn over to the president all power over the debt ceiling.
Boehner was stunned. Mitch McConnell laughed out loud. In nobler days, they’d have offered Geithner a pistol and an early-morning appointment at Weehawken. Alas, Boehner gave again, coming back a week later with spending-cut suggestions — as demanded by Geithner — only to have them dismissed with a wave of the hand.

This isn't the negotiating behavior of someone who wants to find an answer. This is the negotiating behavior of someone who wants to break his opposition. Someone who is ruthless - and ideological enough - to break his country to do it. Obama wants political dominance for his party in a country where they are effectively the Politburo. Forever.

Uncle Joe (Stalin) said, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." Apparently we have plenty of gutless egg-heads in Congress.

What’s going on here? Having taken Boehner’s sword, and then his shirt, Obama sent Geithner to demand Boehner’s trousers. Perhaps this is what Obama means by a balanced approach.
He pretends that Boehner’s offer to raise revenue by eliminating deductions rather than by raising rates is fiscally impossible.

But on July 22, 2011, Obama had said that “$1.2 trillion in additional revenues . . . could be accomplished without hiking tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process.” Which is exactly what the Republicans are offering today.

I have often said that the biggest  reason 9/11 resulted in so much tragedy when the hijackers were minimally armed and decidedly overwhelmed was that the passengers thought they were playing a different game. They had been conditioned from decades of hijackings and terrorism to believe that you followed the directives of the hijackers and let the authorities deal with their demands - that the safest thing to do was to do nothing. It wasn't until passengers on UA Flight 93 learned that the planes were being used as missiles that they realized the rules of the game had changed.

This is what Obama is doing. He has changed the game and we don't realize it. He is deliberately destroying this country. That is his intent. It isn't an unfortunate impasse with recalcitrant and intransigent Republicans that we are seeing as we race toward the fiscal cliff. This is a game for the "fundamental transformation" of this country. There are new rules.

Obama has never shown interest in genuine debt reduction. He does nothing for two years, then spends the next two ignoring his own debt-reduction commission. In less than four years, he has increased U.S. public debt by a staggering 83 percent. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the real marker of national solvency, it has spiked from 45 percent to 70 percent.
Obama has never once publicly suggested a structural cut in entitlements. On the contrary, he created an entirely new entitlement — Obamacare — that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will increase spending by $1.7 trillion over 11 years.

The difficulty is in getting people to see the gravity and the magnitude of Obama's plans. No one wants to believe that the president wants to really shred the Constitution and assume unprecedented power. No one wants to believe that we've elected a man twice who really hates this country and the freedoms its citizens have enjoyed for over 200 hundred years. No one wants to believe that Obama is really a bad person, not just an incompetent one.

He is one or the other, though. Flat out bad. Or flat out stupid.

Pick one.

Thomas Sowell pointed out in a column a few weeks ago that the most serious problem concerning the implementation of Obamacare was all the waivers Obama had given out. What Obama has essentially done is create a law that gives him limitless power to punish and reward, according to his whim.

Among the objections to ObamaCare, one that has not gotten as much attention as it should is the president's power to waive the law for any company, union or other enterprise he chooses.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides for "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans. To have a law that can cost an organization millions of dollars a year either apply or not apply, depending on the whim or political interest of the President of the United States, is to make a mockery of the rule of law.

How secure is any freedom when there is this kind of arbitrary power in the hands of one man?

What does your right of freedom of speech mean if saying something that irritates the Obama administration means that you or your business has to pay huge amounts of money and get hit with all sorts of red tape under ObamaCare that your competitor is exempted from, because your competitor either kept quiet or praised the Obama administration or donated to its reelection campaign?

And now Obama wants to be given total power over spending by removing any restrictions placed on the debt ceiling by Congress.

John Adams said, "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt."

John Marshall wrote, "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Obama wants both these powers, with no restraints.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Struggling with cool

There once was a time in my life when it was effortless to be cool. Cool wasn't something you did; cool was something you were. But, like staying skinny on a diet of pizza and ice cream, or waking up presentable on two hours of sleep, that time is long gone. It's so long gone down the road that it's out of sight, the dust has settled, and I'm standing there forlorn, abandoned, and beaten. I know this because I am reminded of it virtually every single day by my teen-aged daughter. For those of you who have managed to get through life without one of those, believe me, you have missed one of life's greatest joys. I love learning at this stage of my life that I am hopelessly out of step and that my best attempts at, well, almost anything, are woefully inadequate.

Who knew? Do. Not. Answer. That.

Coming home from school today, my daughter was monitoring the music. This is an activity that  she considers vital to the trip -- any trip -- and apparently it is a highly esoteric process with a number of variables, about which I haven't a clue. Numerous songs that I liked were being skipped, but when she came to "Somebody That I Used to Know", I said, "Let's listen to that. I haven't heard it in awhile."

"Oh please! That song has been done to DEATH! NO ONE listens to it now."

OOPS! Not cool. Whatever.

"I listen to it," I insisted. "They played it alot for awhile, but that was months ago. You used to like it. How did I miss that it stopped being cool?"

"You haven't seen this?"

And she took my phone and brought up this YouTube video.

And we laughed ourselves silly.

So, it seems when there are 6,000,000 views of a send up ridiculing how lame your song has become because it was too popular, you are officially uncool.

I remember when it was cool. That was when Rachel Lucas was writing about it. But that was back in July and I imagine she has known for some time the song had reached its zenith and descended into the NO LONGER COOL abyss.

Andy Warhol once said that everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes. He was right. But I am from the era when people were famous for decades...or their whole lives. You got used to them. You could rely on them. Being cool wasn't that hard because it didn't change that fast. This fifteen minute stuff is really difficult for me to keep up with.

Now that Obamacare is the law, this kind of tragedy should never happen again.

God willing and the creek don't rise.

It's been a little wet around here lately.

Here is the pasture where the creek rose. Alot. There is a road (I am standing at the top of it) that is to the right of this photo and it was completely flooded. I had to park the car and walk across 30 acres to get to the horses to feed them. Lovely.

I am now halfway across and looking back at the flooding pastures. This is taken from the front driveway back toward the flooded road and pasture.

Normally I drive in the front driveway and save myself the pastoral stroll across the field. But of course one can't simply drive in the front driveway, like real people, because of this:

Yeah, poor me. But sometimes, the saying, "When it rains, it pours" has a particularly personal edge to it. Like someone is saying it and laughing at the same time.

Of course, this IS California, Land of the Goofballs, so this is what was going on up in town:

Yes, California. Where we get flooding, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, and drought. And we all moved here for the weather.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

It feels just like it looks....exhilarating!

A compilation of horses running the cross country portion of Eventing at the summer games in England. Eventing is a sport in the truest sense of the word. It is a test of skill, courage, strength, training, athleticism, and, perhaps more than any other sport, teamwork. To forge a partnership with an animal who will willingly carry you over obstacles and terrain that are challenging, exhausting, yes, even sometimes dangerous, is an amazing feeling.

People do get injured. Often. Horses as well, it must be said. There is great risk in this sport. But that is what makes it all about living.

Kick ON!

Giddy UP!

A Letter From Nicole

Monday, December 3, 2012

'Tis the Season

'Tis the season for family, friendship, lights in the darkness, and fires burning warmly to bring you home. 'Tis the season for warm hugs and cold champagne. 'Tis the season for reflection and introspection. 'Tis the season for parties and food and merriment. 'Tis the season for spiritual renewal and intellectual honesty as we make New Year's Resolutions with all the optimism of children and the resolve of drunks. (Okay, I was joking about the "intellectual honesty" part.) 'Tis the season for ritual and tradition and memories. For Christmas is the season, no matter what you believe, no matter whether you believe at all, that makes us turn from the chaos and hustle to the soft glow of kind smiles, cookies fresh from the oven, and the mystery of beribboned presents under a glimmering tree.

There is a place for magic in everyone's life, for the magic is found within us.

Merry Christmas. Happy Holidays. Happy Hanukkah.
Merry Christma-Hanu-Kwaza-dam. Is that PC enough for you?

So, just to show I love you, here is the BEST recipe for adding a little holiday cheer to your eggnog.


Buy the best eggnog you can. I'm not going to give you the recipe for homemade eggnog. Who does that, anyway?

For every 12 oz of eggnog add:

1 1/2 oz bourbon (1 jigger)
1 oz cognac (2/3 jigger)
2 T dark rum

If you're a lightweight, this can serve two. If you love Christmas, this is a single serving.

MERRY CHRISTMAS! (Don't's early. I'll be saying Merry Christmas for WEEKS!)

Rules are made to be broken, Retard.

 Dolphin Bites 8-Year-Old Girl at Sea World

Feeding the dolphins at Sea World was a dream come true for 8-year-old Jillian Thomas, until one of the marine mammals bit into her arm, nearly dragging her into the water.

Jillian's mother took video of her daughter, who says dolphins are her favorite animal, feeding them at the theme park's Dolphin Cove.

Jillian was in the middle of her second visit of the day to the friendly looking animals when she made a crucial mistake, lifting a small plate of dolphin food in the air out of excitement, something the park warns people not to do.

The dolphin, eager for the food, chomped down on Jillian's arm instead, nearly dragging her into the water.

The 8-year-old walked away from the encounter with a set of teeth marks the size of dimes.
So the little girl got away with a tremendous fright and a bitten arm while Mom captured the whole thing on video. I'm sure little Jillian learned very quickly that animals, no matter how cute, are potentially dangerous - at ALL TIMES. But most especially when you have food in your hand. I hope little 8-year-old Jillian also learned she is frighteningly vulnerable to her own mother's stupidity, because Mommy, I'll wager, didn't learn a damn thing.

The real lesson here was for Mommy Dearest who allowed her 8-year-old daughter to feed the dolphins because the park had a rule.

The Thomas family said it has no plans to sue Sea World, however they are urging the park to increase the age limit for children who are allowed to feed the animals.

 It's not their fault, you see. They are "furious". It is the park's fault for having a rule.

Apparently, if we are to follow the Thomas family's logic concerning the details of the incident, the park's rule absolves them of any responsibility for personal decisions in the safety of their own child. There was a rule.

We once were a nation of self-reliant, independent-thinking, somewhat cantankerous troublemakers who didn't trust rules blindly and even fairly routinely questioned authority. And I am referring to the Founding Fathers, not the 60's hippies.

Now we are a nation of rule-following, law-abiding, queue-forming, Honey Boo Boo-watching whiny brats. We need rules to tell us everything. And the more rules we demand, the less responsibility we assume for our own actions.

Of course, it could all be explained by the theory that we have become a nation of complete retards. That's entirely possible, and certainly worth considering, because I have no other explanation for this video.

Just as an aside to the reader, I have no idea what "behind me and fluctuate" means.

You Can't Argue With The Logic - UPDATED WITH REBUTTAL

This is the most persuasive argument I've heard supporting gay marriage. In fact, I wasn't even FOR gay marriage...and now? Welllll....I'm still not for it, but I think you guys should be.


"What did we make her for breakfast? Nothing." 

Okay, so which argument is the most convincing? 

Sunday, December 2, 2012

How Much Money to be Happy?

People considerably smarter than I and certainly more tenacious have discovered that it takes exactly $161,000 per year to be happy.
More than one study has tried to determine the financial price of happiness. Some look at wealth. Others look at income.
Wealth or income? Pish-tah. Personally, I look at whether I have to earn it myself or if it's going to be given to me. This is the real difference, kittens.
One well-publicized study last year put the optimal income for happiness at around $75,000. Rising income, it turns out, produces greater happiness until you get to around $75,000. After that, there are diminishing returns, with more income leading to little or no gain in real happiness.
If I have to earn it myself, than I'm quite satisfied with closer to $75,000, thank you.
The latest to weigh in on the issue is Skandia International's Wealth Sentiment Monitor. It found that the global average "happiness income" is around $161,000 for 13 countries surveyed. The United States wasn't specifically measured.
If, however, this magic number for happiness is going to just magically appear in my life to make me magically happy, than $161,000 is no where near enough. I'm not settling for $161,000. Freaking Mexico needs $181,169.

Pony up all you Obama lovers. Wasn't that what you voted for? To take care of others.

Well...I'm "others." And I desire a lot of "taking care of."

Life Imitating Art

Well, if you can even call it art.

Years ago I laughed my head off at this video. I have ridden more than a few horses whose name should have been "Nasty Attitude." And I've been in enough show barns to attest to the fact that every other name in this video is a nickname for some expensive pony. HAHAHAHA!

WARNING!!!! NSFW! Or even around small children and pets.

So this ACTUAL race at Monmouth Park is deliciously hysterical to me as the names of the horses are real. Of course, "My Wife Knows Everything" wins. Did you any doubt?

See, guys, it's that LITTLE bit of doubt that gets you into such trouble.

I know why we lost the election.

I've been pondering all the variables and unknowns and lost opportunities and failed messaging and I have finally figured out why we lost the election. Republicans were playing Fronthand/Backhand.

We've been playing it for years. We played it with McCain and we did it again with Romney.

Me and you. Me and you.