Rock and Rockabilly:

Joel reminds us that rock and country music have a certain connection. We can make that plainer with a few examples.

Jerry Reed is pretty much country, as is Johnny Cash; but you can see that Reed could stretch bluegrass into jazz just fine, while Cash is easily rendered into punk rock. Surf music? No problem. None of it is a problem for the masters, like 'the Killer' Jerry Lee Lewis, or Elvis himself. Consider the "walk away" quality of the Jerry Lee piece compared with the famous example from The Blues Brothers -- which isn't properly either rock or country, but blues music. Taking that on board, you can enjoy the piece with Ray Charles, B.B. King, and the Killer himself

Post up your favorite examples using the YouTube button, in the comments.

Parade Day

Parade Day

The preparations for the annual fire department fund-raiser are marginally less crazy this year, because our friend/neighbor/assistant chief is skipping his usual parade float. He sold his trailer a few months ago, and besides the parade has been going on for nine years and has attracted quite a few participants. None of them are quite as enthusiastic as our friend, of course, who in recent years has built a giant crawdad, a pirate ship, a Jimmy Buffet beach bar, and (last year) a flying saucer. We did have fun with the costumes, and even more with the Star Trek and Outer Limits music, but I'm just as glad not to be jamming the considerable painting work into this last few days before the festival starts on Friday. All I had to do this year was repaint the dates onto the festival signs.

Popping the Question

Popping the Question

In keeping with today's "Plug Maggie's Farm" theme, here's an article they linked this morning about the stubborn persistence of gender roles in the ancient ritual of the marriage proposal. As usual, I intrude my personal counter-experience: neither of us can remember how it was that we decided to get married, back in the Cretaceous. At some point, it just seemed that we were setting a date and informing the families. The NPH claims it was my idea, while I remember its being his.

The author of the linked article notes, nevertheless, that even in this gender-equalized, de-ritualized culture, one thing we never, ever witness is the woman getting down on bended knee. If there is a distinct proposal at all, it is the man who presents it. There does seem to be pressure to re-invent the ritual to show more verve:

Men who prefer a more intimate approach still must find a way to demonstrate wit and intelligence, qualities that are also good predictors of success in today's world. One author who achieved brief internet fame proposed to his girlfriend by asking for her hand in the preface of his latest book. It was a cunning trick, simultaneously showing off his impressive status for his beloved and letting him find out whether she actually reads his stuff.

. . . Some readers will doubtless rue the tired gender rules and status displays that define the contemporary proposal. But growing up in a culture whose idea of asking for a date is a midnight text message asking "u free?" a young man doesn't face many opportunities to demonstrate manly initiative in the romance department.

Speaking of manly initiative, you cain't hardly beat a Valentine's Morning presentation of my favorite almond chocolate bark shipped in from a little store in Houston. Way to improve my mood all week long! Better than roses any day.

In light of our recent discussions, I was amused to note that I didn't get past the first dozen comments in the linked article before the talk veered into the familiar territory of how terrible marriage was for men these days. Why do they pop the question, anyway?

Down on Maggie's Farm

Down on Maggie's Farm

I do like the Maggie's Farm site, and since they made an open appeal today to their readers for more exposure, I'm plugging them here.

Pickle

I Don't Want A Pickle:

Yeah.

So I took the motorcycle up to Tallulah gorge. It was like that. The late winter wind was strong enough to blow the wheels right out from under my cruiser; but, like a gyroscope, it pulled true as long as you had enough hammer under the throttle.

Therefore, as Lancelot said, "All shall be welcome that God sendeth."

Rock & Roll:

There was a recent discussion about whether rock and roll music was inherently degrading; and of course it mostly is.

There are certain subsets of the thing, though, which manage to avoid degradation. The best things point to the True and the Beautiful: the truth, and the beauty, of rock music is joy.



It's rare that they get to it honestly; mostly they lose it in other things. Once in a while, though, you get a song -- in rockabilly, or punk rock -- that is nothing more than an ode to joy. That's the real thing.

A Novel Concept

A Novel Concept -- Or, Perhaps, One From the Sagas:

The proposed law:

22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

Discuss. Points to consider:

1) "Master, mistress or servant"?

2) Usually homicide is justified on one of two grounds: because it is self-defense, which is a natural right; or because it entails defense of an innocent from suffering grievous bodily harm or death at the hands of a felon.

This law is interesting because it locates justifiable homicide in a different natural right: the right to protect one's offspring or blood-kin from harm.

Further, it brackets 'defense of an innocent from suffering grievous bodily harm and death' -- but not at the hands of a felon. The person you are justified in killing may be doing something perfectly legal.

That's new, and not only in American law. Even in the ancient laws on which our system is based -- Anglo-Saxon or Norse laws -- removal of legal protections against homicide was based on some offense against the law itself. Those systems recognized something like a legal right to kill in defense of your family (or to avenge a member of your family); but they also recognized your victim's legal status and the right of his family to pursue legal remedies. Removing the protection of the law entirely -- outlawry -- was reserved for cases where the law itself had been defied.

The harmony here is that the legal remedies available in the ancient system were more akin to our civil than criminal law: that is, you can still sue the killer of an abortion doctor for removing his family's income support. In that sense, this is something like an honest rendition of the ancient Icelandic code (which we discussed at length during the Book Club discussion of Njal's Saga). All that is being removed here is criminal law: the family of the slain abortion doctor would still be able to sue for monetary damages, akin to the 'weregild' (blood price) as in Anglo-Saxon or Norse courts.

So, with all that said: what do you think?

Kitty Rescue

Kitty Rescue

Those of you who aren't sentimental about cats will suspect this is played for laughs, especially considering the portentous music, but it was just the thing I needed to start my day.

FlashoverTV is powered by FireRescue1.com

iTunes

A Reason to Consider Apple:

In general I avoid anything with an "i-" in front of it; but this sounds worthwhile for those of you who don't share my sense.

Corey Olsen had a lot to say about J.R.R. Tolkien. But it seemed a pity to consign his thoughts to a scholarly journal, to be read by a few hundred fellow academics who already knew more than enough about the author of "The Lord of the Rings."

So in spring 2007, the Washington College professor took his scholarship public, with a podcast called "How to Read Tolkien and Why" and a Web site called the Tolkien Professor.

A million downloads later, Olsen is one of the most popular medievalists in America. His unusual path to success - a smartly branded Web site and a legion of iTunes listeners - marks an alternative to the publish-or-perish tradition of scholarship on the tenure track.

Looks like that website is here.

Smoked Oyster Dip

Smoked Oyster Dip

Family Recipe

8 oz. cream cheese

1 T lemon juice

2 t onion, grated

2 t horseradish

1/4 t Liquid Barbecue Smoke

3 drops tabasco sauce

1 tin smoked oysters

Oyster PIe

Oyster Pie

by Emeril Lagasse

Updated: We used a modified Alton Brown pie crust; this will make enough dough for one pie with a top and bottom crust. As you'll see, it's very, very short. If you were making a sweet pie, you'd add up to a tablespoon of sugar to the dough. In either case, you should brush the assembled raw pie with an egg white whisked with a little water, to get the dough to brown nicely. This one wasn't browned quite enough, and in any case looks paler in the picture than it really was. By the time we had re-heated it in the oven the next day (this was the last course, so we had one full pie left over!), it had browned perfectly and the dough was just right.

2 cups flour

12 T unsalted butter

4 T lard

(or just use two full sticks of butter and skip the lard)

scant 1/4 cup ice water, maybe no more than 1/8, as needed

Cut the butter and lard into small pieces and place in the freezer for 15 minutes. Drop the butter into the flour and cut it into small pieces, then add the lard and cut in again. Drizzle in ice water until you can just get the pastry to hold together into a ball, taking care not to overwork it. Refrigerate the pastry until you're ready to roll out a bottom and top shell.

Filling:

4 strips bacon, chopped

1 cup onions, chopped

1/2 cup celery, chopped

1/2 cup green onions, chopped

2 t garlic, minced

1/4 cup flour

1 T Essence (recipe online, but basically a mix of Cajun-style dry stuff)

3/4 t salt

1/8 t cayenne

1 quart oysters

3/4 cup oyster liquor

1/2 cup cream

1/3 cup parsley chopped

1 t lemon juice

Preheat the oven to 375 F. In a large skillet, cook the bacon over medium heat until brown and almost crisp, about 5 minutes. Remove with a slotted spoon, reserving 1/4 cup grease in the pan (add vegetable oil to equal 1/4 cup if more fat is needed). Add the onions and celery and cook, stirring, until soft, 3-4 minutes. Add the green onions, garlic, Essence, salt, and cayenne, and cook, stirring, for about 1 minute. Add the flour and cook, stirring, to make a light roux, about 3 minutes. Gradually add the oyster liquor, cream, and lemon juice, stirring constantly, until thickened, about 3-5 minutes. (We found that we had to add a good bit of corn starch to get the filling to thicken enough to permit us to serve the pie hot without its filling running out. Thinking back, my husband believes he didn't drain the oysters enough, and so had extra liquid.) Add the well-drained oysters and cook, stirring, until they start to curl, 1-2 minutes. Remove from the heat and fold in the bacon and parsley. Let cool slightly. Adjust seasoning to taste.

Bake in a 375 F oven for about 40 minutes. The recipe said 25 minutes, but ours took longer, even though the filling already was cooked. Anyway, bake it until it looks nice and golden brown, and by that time your bottom crust should be fairly crisp if you've gotten the filling firm enough. This holds up very well to re-heating for as long as you're comfortable with the freshness of the oysters -- at least two days in our case.

Oysters with Cilantro-Chili Sauce

Oysters with Cilantro-Chili Sauce

by Terry Thompson-Anderson, Texas on a Plate

2 oysters, on the half-shell

6 large garlic cloves, minced

3 T cilantro, minced

4 green onions, minced

1/3 cup Oriental chili paste

2 T sugar

1/2 t lime zest, minced

1/3 cup lime juice, freshly squeezed

1/3 cup Vietnamesse fish sauce

1-1/2 T pickled ginger, minced

Line a baking sheet with rock salt and nest the oysters in their shells in the salt. Refrigerate until ready to use. Combine the reserved oyster liquor and all the remaining ingredients in a large bowl. Whisk vigorously to blend well and dissolve the sugar. Allow the mixture to sit at room temperature for 1 hour.

Preheat the oven to 350 F. When ready to bake the oysters, spoon a generous portion of the sauce over each oyster. Bake in a preheated oven for 15 minutes or until the sauce is bubbly and the oysters are curled around the edges.

Chipotle Barbecue Oysters with Salsa Fresca

Chipotle Barbecue Oysters with Salsa Fresca

by Emeril Lagasse

Chipotle BBQ Sauce:

1/2 cup granulated sugar

1/4 cup cider vinegar

2 T tomato paste

1 T sesame oil

1 T molasses

1 T soy sauce

2 t chipotle peppers, finely chopped

Salsa Fresca:

1 cup tomatillos, peeled and chopped

1/ cup lime juice

1/4 cup red onion, minced

1-1/2 t jalapeno, minced

1/2 t salt

1/8 t pepper, ground

48 oysters on the half-shell

Chipotle BBQ Sauce: Combine the sugar, vinegar, tomato paste, sesame oil, molasses, soy sauce, and chili peppers in a small pan and bring to a boil. Reduce the heat and simmer until it starts to become syrupy and dime-sized bubbles form, 12-15 minutes. Remove from the heat and transfer to a blender or a food processor. Process on high speed until smooth.

Salsa Fresca: In a mixing bowl, combine the tomatillos, lime juice, red onion, cilantro, jalapeno, salt, and per and mix thoroughly. Cover and refrigerate until ready to use.

Preheat the broiler. Place the oysters on baking sheets and top each with a teaspoon of the chipotle graze. Broil until the edges of the oysters are curled and the sauce is bubbling. Spoon a teaspoon of the Salsa Fresca on top of each oyster and serve immediately.

Oysters in Spiced Tomato Sauce

Oysters in Spiced Tomato Sauce

by Terry Thompson-Anderson, Texas on a Plate

2 oysters on the half-shell

4 oz. prosciutto, minced

2 T Parmesan cheese, grated

16 oz. Italian-style tomatoes

1/2 cup extra virgin olive oil

1 small onion, finely chopped

3 large garlic cloves, minced

1/2 green bell pepper, finely chopped

1 T fresh basil, minced

1/4 t dried oregano

1 T flat-leaf parsley, minced

1 bay leaf, minced

2 t lemon juice, freshly squeezed

1 t Worcestershire sauce

12 t black pepper, freshly ground

1/2 t salt

2 t crushed red pepper flakes

Shuck the oysters and discard the flat top shells. Drain off and reserve the oyster liquor. Set oysters aside.

To make the spiced tomato sauce, puree the tomatoes and their juice until smooth. heat olive oil in a heavy 10-inch skillet over medium heat. Saute onion, garlic, bell pepper, basil, oregano, parsley, and bay leaf until the onion is wilted and transparent, about 5 minutes. Stir in the tomato puree and reserved oyster liquor. Add lemon juice, Worcestershire sauce, salt, black pepper, and red pepper flakes. Cook over medium heat, stirring occasionally, until the sauce has thickened, about 15-20 minutes.

Preheat the oven to 400 F. Line 2 baking sheets with rock salt. Nest the oysters in their shells in the rock salt. Top each oyster with a portion of the sauce. Scatter minced prosciutto and shredded Parmesan cheese over the sauce. Bake in the oven until the cheese is golden and the sauce is bubbly, about 10 minutes. Serve hot.

Oysters au Gratin

Oysters au Gratin

by Food & Wine

32 oysters, shucked

1/2 cup oyster liquor

1 cup milk

1 clove garlic, minced

1/4 t nutmeg, grated

1/ cup flour

1/2 t hot sauce

2 T parmesan cheese, grated

4 limes, cut into wedges

In a large heavy skillet, bring 1/4 inch of water to a simmer over moderate heat. Add the oysters in 2-3 batches and poach until the edges just begin to curl, about 1 minute.

Preheat the broiler. In a medium saucepan, combine the milk, 1/2 cup reserved oyster liquor, garlic, and nutmeg. Hold a sieve over the pan and add the flour to the sieve. Gently tap the sieve and whisk the flour into the liquid. Set over moderate heat and bring to a boil. Boil, whisking constantly, for 3 minutes. Remove from the heat and stir in the hot sauce. Set the sauce aside.

Return the oysters to their half-shells and place on 2 baking sheets. Coat each oyster with about 2 t of the sauce and a generous pinch of Parmesan cheese. Broil the oysters until the sauce is bubbly and speckled brown, 2-3 minutes. Serve hot with lime wedges on the side.

Oysters Rockefeller Soup with Gruyere Croutons

Oysters Rockefeller Soup with Gruyere Croutons

by Emeril Lagasse

4 slices bacon, diced

1 yellow onion, diced

1 t garlic, minced

1 pint oysters

4 cups cream

1 pound spinach, stems removed

4 t salt

licorice/anise liqueur to taste (1 T or so)

Garlic Croutons:

16 slices French bread

1 clove garlic, peeled and smashed

1/2 cup Gruyere cheese, grated

Soup: In a large, heavy stock pot, cook the bacon over medium-high heat until brown, about 5 minutes, stirring constantly. Add the onions and cook for 5 minutes, then the garlic and cook for 1 minute, stirring constantly. Add the oysters, the oyster liquor, and cream and bring the mixture to a boil. Remove the pot from the heat.

Using an immersion blender, or in batches in a blender, puree the mixture, adding the spinach in batches as you puree. Season with salt and white pepper, and stir in the anise liqueur.

Croutons: Place the sliced bread in 1 layer on a baking sheet and bake until just lightly brown on both sides, about 3-5 minutes per side. Remove the bread from the oven and rub garlic over 1 side of each slice. Top each slice with cheese and roast until the cheese is bubbly, about minutes. Serve with the soup.

Updated to correct errors in the original, which we discovered upon cooking it.

Pickled Oysters with Cucumber & Dill

Pickled Oysters with Cucumber & Dill

by Thomas Keller, The French Laundry Cookbook

Pickling liquid:

1 cup white wine vinegar

1/2 cup water

1/2 cup sugar

1 star anise

3 cloves

6 coriander seeds

3 dill stems

6 oysters

Capellini:

1 cucumber, peeled

1/2 t kosher salt

1 T rice wine vinegar

1 t dill, chopped

1 oz. sevruga caviar

6 sprigs dill

For the pickling liquid: Place all of the ingredients in a saucepan. Bring to a boil, cover, and allow to steep for 30 minutes. This is enough liquid to pickle up to 2 dozen oysters.

For the oysters: Shuck the oysters. Wash the deeper halves of the shells and reserve. Using scissors, cut away the muscle portion of the oysters and discard. Wash the trimmed oysters under cold running water to remove the milky residue, which would coagulate with the vinegar in the pickling liquid and create an unwanted coating on the oyster. Add the oysters to the pickling liquid and refrigerate in a covered container for at least 12 hours and up to 36 hours.

For the "capellini": Using a mandolin, cut 1/16-inch lengthwise slices form one side of the cucumber until you reach the seeds. Turn the cucumber and continue slicing for all four sides. Stack the slices and cut them lengthwise in 1/16-inch julienne strips to resemble capellini. You will need 1 cup of "capellini." Combine the cucumber strands with the kosher salt and rice wine vinegar in a bowl and allow them to marinate for about 30 minutes to extract the excess liquid. Drain the "capellini" and squeeze to remove the excess liquid. Place in a bowl and toss with the chopped dill.

To complete: place a bed of seaweed or rock salt mix one each of 6 serving plates. Twirl the cucumber with a fork, as you would pasta, and place a mound on each oyster shell. Remove the oysters from the pickling liquid and place an oyster on each mound of cucumber. Garnish each oyster with 1 t of caviar and a sprig of dill.

Oysters Brownefeller

Oysters Brownefeller

by Alton Brown

1 T unsalted butter

3/4 cup onion, chopped

3/4 cup celery, chopped

1 t salt

1 T garlic, minced

1 24-oz. can artichoke hearts, drained and chopped

1 cup breadcrumbs

2 t lemon zest, finely chopped

1/2 t black pepper, ground

1 t dried oregano

24 oysters on the half shell

Preheat the oven to 425 F. Melt the butter in a 12-inch saute pan over medium heat. Increase the heat slightly and add the onion, celery, and 1/2 t salt; sweat for 5-7 minutes. Add the garlic and cook for an additional 1-2 minutes. Reduce the heat to low and add the artichokes, bread crumbs, lemon zest, remaining 1/2 t salt, pepper, and oregano. Continue cooking for 2-3 minutes, then remove from the heat and set aside.

Place the oysters on a sheet pan and divide the bread mixture evenly among them. Place in the oven for 10-12 minutes. Bread crumbs should be slightly browned. Serve immediately.

Raw Oysters with Smoked Salmon & Caviar Cream

Raw Oysters with Smoked Salmon & Caviar Cream

From David Rosengarten:

1/2 cup creme fraiche

1/2 cup cream

1 T lemon juice

1 T dill, finely chopped

2 oz. smoked salmon, thinly sliced

12 oysters

2 ounces caviar

In a bowl, mix the creme fraiche, cream, 2 T of the caviar, lemon juice, and chopped dill. Refrigerate the sauce for 1 or 2 hours before serving. Just before serving, cut the salmon into 12 pieces large enough to wrap the oysters into roughly square little packets. Wrap the oysters.

Divide the cream sauce among the serving plates, creating a pool of sauce at the center of each plate. Divide the wrapped oysters among the plates, arranging them on the sauce pools. Garnish each packet with a generous 1 t of caviar and a dill sprig.

Cocktail Sauce

Cocktail Sauce

All oysterfests begin with raw oysters and cocktail sauce on crackers. Grim, you can put this on cooked fish instead.

3 cups catsup

1/3 cup celery, very finely chopped

1/3 cup onion, very finely chopped

1 t salt

1 t cracked black pepper

3 T horseradish

juice of 1 lemon

tabasco sauce to taste

UK v GA

UK v. GA:

UK: 'Don't put protective wire on your windows -- burglars could get hurt by it.'

GA: 'Who would put ugly wire on their windows when one of these is so much better for hurting burglars?'

Oysterfest

Oysterfest

Our annual Oysterfest was this weekend. It was more of a family and local affair this year than usual; our discombobulated schedule didn't firm up until the last minute, so not many friends from Houston could make it. But my husband outdid himself, as usual, with a dozen oyster dishes served over a five-hour feast period. Here are some of them:

Pickled oysters:

Oysters in spicy tomato sauce:

Oysters in smoked salmon packets with dill cream sauce:

Oysters Rockefeller soup with gruyere croutons:

Oyster pie:

Oysters in lime chile vinaigrette:

Oysters in chipotle with salsa verde:

Oyster au gratin:

Oysters "Brownefeller" (with artichoke hearts):

Useful Piece

The TEA Party & Montesquieu:

A useful piece by a professor of history on the TEA Party and its antecedents. He begins by acknowledging that it's a movement that some may find troubling:

It is perfectly understandable that Republican regulars thwarted in the primaries, Democrats defeated in the midterm elections, and adherents of both parties who found themselves suddenly deprived of political influence should find these developments disconcerting. It is equally understandable that those who find unpalatable either the Tea Party’s approach or some of the more colorful and/or questionable candidates to emerge victorious as a consequence of its rise might consider this leaderless and inchoate force’s impact worrisome or even frightening.

There are, though, earlier movements of this type, as he demonstrates, which inform our thinking. His argument does not demonstrate that the turmoil promised by the movement will end well. A repeat of Jefferson's or Jackson's electoral adjustment of the American project is fine; a repeat of the American or English Civil War, which he also cites as antecedents, would be less enjoyable for all concerned.

However, as he notes, the alternative is the end of the American project.

[I]t should be reassuring rather than frightening to the American elite that at the dawn of the third millennium, Americans know to become nervous and watchful when a presidential candidate who has presented himself to the public as a moderate devotee of bipartisanship intent on eliminating waste in federal programs suddenly endorses “spreading the wealth around” and on the eve of his election speaks of “fundamentally transforming America.” It should be of comfort to them that a small-business owner in Nebraska believes he has reason to express public qualms when a prospective White House chief of staff, in the midst of an economic downturn, announces that the new administration is not about to “let a serious crisis go to waste” and that it intends to exploit that crisis as “an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” And it should be a source of pride to elites that the philosophical superstructure of the United States demonstrated extraordinary durability when a significant number of their fellow citizens refused to sit silent after an administration implied the inadequacy of the founding by promoting itself as the New Foundation, and after the head of government specifically questioned the special place of the United States in the world by denying “American exceptionalism.”...

In Europe, Jefferson explained, “under the pretence of government, they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.” He feared that the same would in time happen in America. If the people in the United States should ever “become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I,” he wrote to one correspondent, “and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves.” From the outset, Jefferson feared that in this country the government would eventually find its way to what his friend James Madison would later call a “self directed course.” It was with this unwelcome prospect in mind that he asked, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve their spirit of resistance?” In the end, then, one does not have to agree with the Tea Party movement in every particular to welcome its appearance.

Emphasis added. This is a long quote, but the main reason to read the piece is the historical argument, which I have not attempted to excerpt. What is given here are only the framing arguments. We should discuss the whole.

Skillet-Broiler Pizza

Skillet-Broiler Pizza:

You probably saw this new pizza hack via InstaPundit. I gave their final version a try tonight:

1) Preheat the cast-iron skillet and turn the oven to highest broil,

2) Form the pizza in the hot skillet,

3) Place the skillet in the oven and broil until the top is browning and crispy,

4) Return to the hot eye and cook until the bottom is crispy.

The claim was that the pizza would not only be delicious, but that the dough would remain thin and crispy beneath, but with significant "spring" to the dough on the edges. This produces the puffy and light (but still strong) outer edge called the cornicione .

The problem is with oven spring (or a lack thereof). When a pizza (or any bread, for that matter) first gets blasted by the heat of an oven, the moist air pockets inside the dough rapidly heat and expand, causing the dough to puff out. If it expands rapidly enough, it's possible to get a serious amount of poofing before the proteins in the flour begin to set, locking those bubbles in place. So there are really three factors that affect it: the stretchiness of the gluten in the dough, the amount of air in the dough, and the efficiency of heat transfer in the oven.

So how did it turn out?



Note that this pizza was made with a whole wheat crust, which I made using King Arthur's White Whole Wheat flour. Even with this denser crust, you get significant "pop" on the edges, and a thin inner crust that has the right mix of crunchy and chewy.

Serve with Guinness, of course.

Legendary

Legendary:

I'm pretty sure this is how the game was meant to be played.

From D29

More on St. Paul and Homosexuality:

Dad29 had a reply that Echo doesn't seem to be handling properly. I'm going to post it here so that we can explore the issue further; you can find the thread he is responding to at the bottom of this discussion chain.

I should have been more precise. Apologies.

No one should condemn the PERSON who has such 'inclinations.' However, the Church has recently described such inclinations as a "grave disorder." IIRC, that was Ratzinger pre-Papacy.

Thus, Paul's teaching as you understand it has been re-affirmed.

The 'judge not' mandate follows the person, not the inclination.

As to the Paul/TA difference: I disagree that they differ in substance. Paul was highly educated in the Jewish tradition. What Paul recognized (without being explicit) was the fact of Original Sin. That means that Paul saw 'defects' here on Earth, particularly in men. TA teaches the same thing: that while all of creation is 'good,' man carries defects resulting from Original Sin. The defects do not obviate the good; they merely exist within the good.

Paul's discussion of punishment is an analogy to the Jewish Exile. They were punished for infidelity to God and His commands. He simply states that the same infidelity results in other 'punishments', IOW, Paul sees "punishment" in broader terms than we do. He sees it as God allowing us to "enjoy" that which is 'of earth' rather than that which is 'of God.'

This vision is similar to the Church's rule of excommunication: one excommunicates oneself. The Bishop's paperwork is merely a follow-on, formalizing the matter. Paul tells us that the wrong exercise of free will results in punishment. (This brings up 'conscience' and natural law, again.)

In that regard, it is useful to recall Christ's words: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". "Way" (path) is critical to this discussion, but note well that Christ makes Truth, Life, and Way equivalent. (By the way, that makes the goodness-beauty-truth combination much more interesting, no? "Goodness" and "Beauty" are thus attributes of Christ/God, also.)

Vis-a-vis homosexual conduct: your understanding of TA's valuation of "life" is solid. But put "Life" (generation thereof, preservation thereof, etc.) into that saying of Christ and you have another dimension entirely. Thus the strictures on artificial birth control--which is sterile sex, just like homosexual conduct--and abortion, which is murder. Acts which are not, by nature or intent, 'for' life are 'against' it--and Christ is "Life."

Paul was blinded only to make the point that he did not 'see' correctly.

I have some further thoughts, but I will hold them for now in order to let D29 take and answer questions freely from you. The usual rules of the Hall apply, of course; I understand that this is a touchy subject for people these days, which is all the more reason to insist upon the courtesies.

UPDATE: D29 sends some additional material from St. John Chrysostom, including a military analogy. This is commentary on Romans 1, as you may know from reading the earlier thread.

Ver. 24. "Wherefore also God gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves."

Hence he shows, that even of the perversion of the laws it was ungodliness which was the cause, but He "gave them up," here is, let them alone. [1220] For as he that hath the command in an army, if upon the battle lying heavy upon him he retreat and go away, gives up his soldiers to the enemies not by thrusting them himself, but by stripping them of his own assistance; thus too did God leave those that were not minded to receive what cometh from Him, but were the first to bound off from Him, though Himself having wholly fulfilled His own part.

But consider; He set before them, for a form of doctrine, the world; He gave them reason, and an understanding capable of perceiving what was needful. None of these things did the men of that day use unto salvation, but they perverted to the opposite what they had received.

What was to be done then? to drag them by compulsion and force? But this were not to make them virtuous. It remained then, after that, for Him to leave them alone, and this He did too, that in this way, if by no other, having by trial come to know the things they lusted after, they might flee from what was so shameful (3 mss. add eikotos, and with reason).

For if any that was a king's son, dishonoring his father, should choose to be with robbers and murderers, and them that break up tombs, and prefer their doings to his father's house; the father leaves him, say, so that by actual trial, he may learn the extravagance of his own madness. But how comes he to mention no other sin, as murder, for instance, or covetousness, or other such besides, but only unchasteness? He seems to me to hint at his audience at the time, and those who were to receive the Epistle. "To uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves."

Note the emphasis here, as it is most severe. For they stood not in need of any others, it means, to do insolent violence to them, but the very treatment the enemies would have shown them, this they did to themselves. And then, taking up the charge again, he says, Ver. 25. "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator."

Things which were matter for utter scorn, he puts down specially, but what seemed of a graver cast than the rest, in general terms; and by all he shows, that serving the creature is Grecian. And see how strong he makes his assertion, for he does not say, barely, "they served the creature," but "more than the Creator:" thus everywhere giving fresh force to the charge, and, by the comparison, taking from them all ground of mitigation. "Who is blessed forever. Amen." But by this, he means, He was not any whit injured. For Himself abideth "blessed for ever." Here he shows, that it was not in self-defence that He left them alone, inasmuch as He suffered nothing Himself. For even if these treated Him insolently, yet He was not insolently treated, neither was any scathe done to the bearings of His glory, but He abideth continually blessed. For if it often happen, that man through philosophy would not feel the insults men offered him, much less would God, the imperishable and unalterable Nature, the unchangeable and immovable Glory.

The analogy is interesting -- what should a general officer do if he finds a unit in mutiny, in clear defiance of commander's intent, and because of that loss of discipline now behind enemy lines? Is that a proper analogy to this case? Why or why not?

Gun Trusts

Gun Trusts

A friend has come to me for help setting up a gun trust. There are lawyers, I know, who specialize in this kind of thing. I wondered if anyone here had ever done one. As I understand it, the idea is that some kinds of weapons or associated paraphernalia (in this case, specifically, noise suppressors) are so restricted in their transfer that it can be a good idea to put title in a trust whose multiple trustees are the whole group of family or close friends that are likely to be using or even temporarily possessing the weapon. Use of a trust also makes some aspects of the initial licensing process more convenient.

This sounds like a skill I need to learn. Perhaps we all have someone special in our lives who would like to receive a gun trust for Valentine's Day.

Angels & Devils

Angels and Devils

From Neal Boortz via the always reliable Maggie's Farm, this clip from "Family Feud," where I guess the setup is that they ask 100 people in a shopping mall how they would complete a common phrase, and the contestants win money if they guess the most common answer. Here, they're asked for "something that you would be likely to pass around," and two contestants offer a suitable and an unsuitable answer. How do you stack up against mall-going America, readers?

Luxuries

Luxuries

The Maine Family Robinson site continues to serve as my own personal mouthpiece, in "10 Luxuries We Don't Do Without." Well, that is, except for the part about TV, which I still watch, so sue me. I'm really liking the new show "Justified," for instance. How can you go wrong with Timothy Olyphant and Elmore Leonard?

But about luxuries, Greg Sullivan recommends things like a real fire that doesn't use an on/off switch, sleeping according to one's need for rest, and actual food. His kids, he says, "aren't rousted like vagrants and put on buses before the sunrise because it suits the public school teachers." They wake up when they're rested, and then his wife starts to teach them.

You Just Maht Be a Historical Revisionist!

In the 1950s and '60s, there were still states that outlawed birth control, so I started funding court cases to challenge that. At the same time, I helped sponsor the lower-court cases that eventually led to Roe v. Wade. We were the amicus curiae in Roe v. Wade. I was a feminist before there was such a thing as feminism. That's a part of history very few people know.

- Hugh Marston Hefner

Or maybe it's just a part of history few people will admit.

Birth control, abortion, no fault divorce, the sexual revolution: these are the four horsemen of the American apocalypse. And we all know who is to blame for these blights on traditional morality: feminists. We know that because we see feminists blasted 24/7 on conservative blogs. So let me ask those of you who are so sure that all of society's ills can safely be laid at the door of women's liberation: when was the last time you saw a conservative blogger taking Hugh Hefner to task? Surely if we regret admitting these four horsemen into our midst, we ought to recognize that feminists were hardly the first - or the only - ones holding open that barn door? They were hardly the only ones to advocate free love at the expense of marriage and fidelity:

Hefner’s friend Burt Zollo wrote in one of the early issues:

Take a good look at the sorry, regimented husbands trudging down every woman dominated street in this woman-dominated land. Check what they’re doing when you’re out on the town with a different dish every night...Don’t bother asking their advice. Almost to a man, they’ll tell you marriage is the greatest. Naturally. Do you expect them to admit they made the biggest mistake of their lives?

This was strong stuff for the mid-fifties. The suburban migration was in full swing and Look had just coined the new noun “togetherness” to bless the isolated, exurban family. Yet here was Playboy exhorting its readers to resist marriage and “enjoy the pleasures the female has to offer without becoming emotionally involved”—or, of course, financially involved.

What fuels the selective outrage against feminism? Is it principle, or personal pique? Keep in mind that Playboy began bashing marriage in the 1950s - years before Betty Friedan wrote the book that launched second wave feminism. No fault divorce and Roe v. Wade were still decades away and birth control was still illegal in many states. Yet somehow, evil feminists found a way to go back in time and brainwash poor Hugh. Who knew they had such power? His Their message was a simple one: chumps settle down with one woman and raise families. Real men demonstrate their sophistication and manliness by ducking marriage and wallowing in commitment-free sex:

According to the writer, William Iversen, husbands were self-sacrificing romantics, toiling ceaselessly to provide their families with “bread, bacon, clothes, furniture, cars, appliances, entertainment, vacations and country-club memberships.” Nor was it enough to meet their daily needs; the heroic male must provide for them even after his own death by building up his savings and life insurance. “Day after day, and week after week the American hubby is thus invited to attend his own funeral.” Iversen acknowledged that there were some mutterings of discontent from the distaff side, but he saw no chance of a feminist revival: The role of the housewife “has become much too cushy to be abandoned, even in the teeth of the most crushing boredom.” Men, however, had had it with the breadwinner role, and the final paragraph was a stirring incitement to revolt:

The last straw has already been served, and a mere tendency to hemophilia cannot be counted upon to ensure that men will continue to bleed for the plight of the American woman. Neither double eyelashes nor the blindness of night or day can obscure the glaring fact that American marriage can no longer be accepted as an estate in which the sexes shall live half-slave and half-free.

The "slaves" in this utopian manifesto were married men and traditional family life was the enemy of happiness and fulfillment.

This is not to say that second wave feminism, which became prominent well over a decade after Playboy began touting its siren song of self uber alles, did not have its own part to play in the dissolute and rootless culture we live with today. But to blame feminism first and foremost is to put the cart before the horse. Looking back at the world Hugh Hefner and his cronies worked so assiduously to destroy (and conservatives praise so long as no one expects them to adhere to the "prudish" moral code that made it possible), one can't help but wonder at the blind folly of human nature:

It was a world largely constituted by what he calls “desire”—desire chastened by deliberation, restrained by prudence, constrained by self-respect and rendered noble by a concern for the welfare of others. Since the 1960s, thanks to “the democratic project”, we have lived to an ever increasing extent in a world constituted by what he calls “impulse”, passion liberated from restraints and constraints, unchastened and utterly irresponsible.

The founders we love to quote understood the difference between freedom and license. They also understood that without personal responsibility, freedom is short lived.

What if feminism were only one part of a sweeping shift in morality that was fed by many sources: the civil rights movement, activists like Hugh Hefner who funded landmark court cases and worked tirelessly against traditional morals and traditional marriage, progressives who sought to maximize individual freedom while transferring individual responsibility to the State? And yes - feminists?

What if life didn't lend itself to simple answers where the other guy (or gal) is always - and conveniently - at fault? There's no question about it: we live in Hef's world now. If only I could figure out how those durned feminists got him to do their bidding.

Free Space

Free Space:

Skip to about three minutes in -- past the familiar ranting about the problems of large government agencies, and to the part where he begins talking about what private actors are doing right now.



That's some good stuff.

Fair

Be Fair:

The man says, "I didn't raise taxes once." PolitiFact says that's false.

Be reasonable, now. There must have been once that he didn't raise taxes.

Park, Out of The

Park, Out of The:

Dr. Althouse puts one over the bleachers. She has a couple of other posts on the subject as well, but that one is a very strong point.

Impossible

"Impossible"

From the NYT:

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal.

Well, no. "Impossible" is clearly right out. The point is that the... ah, discipline... that you participate in is untethered from reality. I believe that was T99's point from a day or two back.

That doesn't imply that nothing it says is ever of any use at all. It does suggest that we ought to be very careful in granting it standing -- only in special cases, or on especially good evidence in a particular case.

GOProud

Sarah Palin & GOProud:

I don't care if anyone goes to CPAC, which garners no interest from me in the first place; but the question of how conservatives (in general) should relate to homosexual groups (in general) is a good one. Sarah Palin provides a fairly moderate suggestion.

[P]erhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues.

I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have, the better.

That seems reasonable to me. You're all familiar with my own positions on the two largest "gay" issues, gays in the military and gay marriage; obviously I'm opposed to both. The reasons for being opposed are different in each case, but have to do in both cases with the bedrock status of the institution. There's a great deal of room for social experimentation in America, but that room lies within the walls guarded by the military, kept firm by the family. I must oppose anything that appears to weaken either institution.

That isn't a condemnation of homosexuality -- for example, there are probably a lot of extraordinary people who nevertheless have no business in the military. To say that they do not have any business in the military is not to condemn them as human beings. By the same token, to point out that their unions are not creating new kinship relationships across generations is merely to state fact, not to condemn what they are doing. It is a bedrock feature of my philosophy that there should be room for many different kinds of human beings.

One might argue that Christianity requires us to condemn homosexuality; I am not sure that I agree. There seem to be two approaches to this argument, both of which are doubtful. The first is the clear condemnation in the Old Testament; but it is not clear to me that the Old Testament's laws for the Jewish people are meant to apply broadly to all humanity, rather than being supplanted by the Great Commandment for Christians.

The second approach argues from St. Thomas Aquinas' three part test for sexuality: that there are three goods that God intended sexuality to fulfill, and therefore the moral kind of sex will be that which fills all three. These are: (1) generation, (2) a deepened union between the man and woman joined as 'one flesh,' and (3) mutual pleasure, which is a good of a lesser kind. Homosexuality clearly cannot fulfill the first two (being neither capable of generation, nor a tie across the sex divide that would allow deepened understanding between a unified man and woman), and the first of the three is given special importance by Aquinas.

The logical error here is this: if a thing is "good" in the eyes of God, then it is good. If mutual pleasure is the only good being achieved, still it is a good! Aquinas may be correct to say that the best kind of sexuality will achieve all three -- that seems correct to me. It does not follow that the only good kind of sexuality will do so. As long as greater goods are not being set aside in its favor, I'm not convinced that logic requires us to condemn it from these principles.

In any case, this is the long way around saying: by all means let us speak with people with whom we have some disagreements, and other agreements. In some sense that captures all of humanity, none of whom will agree with us about everything -- I suspect that several of you will disagree with me just over the material in this post! Yet I regard you still as my friends and companions, and think it is an excellent thing that we should debate and discuss both what we agree upon, and what we do not.

What Am I Missing Here?

This is a question for the men, but perhaps also for the women (because I'm inclusive and tolerant like that). What is the deal with men complaining that they don't get to have everything 100% their way anymore?

Once upon a time, the world belonged to men.

Literally.

Because men had exclusive power in both private and public life, they controlled their surrounding environment and the way in which space was designed and decorated. Consequently, the world was once a very masculine place.

Fair enough. I'd say a world where women are actively excluded from most public spaces could fairly be called "a very masculine place". It's lines like this that send me scurrying for the nearest liquor cabinet:

... we’ve made progress in the area of gender equality and women have brought their influence to bear in both the home and the workplace. However, as with many other areas of modern life, the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other;...

Has it really? Funny - I would have sworn on a stack of Betty Friedan novels that the polar opposite of: "Once the world belonged to men" isn't "... but then we decided to share". I would have thought it was something more like, "Now the world belongs to women.

Except the world doesn't belong to women, does it? We don't control everything, or even most things. Come to think of it, I can't think of a time in history when women ever held "exclusive power". I can't think of a time when we could exclude men from the workplace, from commercial businesses, or from voting booths. The truth is that Mr. McKay has never actually experienced the 'opposite extreme' of this metaphorical pendulum. Things haven't moved to the other extreme at all, but rather to some middle ground between one pole that has persisted throughout most of human history and an opposing fantasy scenario none of us has ever witnessed.

That middle ground, apparently, can be a bleak place:

...instead of creating a world that’s friendly to both male and female space, we’ve created one that benefits female space at the expense of male space.

It seems remarkable to this wife and mother that men gave up absolute control over the world peacefully. This is a thing that hasn't happened often in our history - confronted with demands from women that men give up some of their power and share control over the world we both live in, men decided (for whatever reason) to do so voluntarily. I would hope that every man who loves his wife or mother or sister - every man who has young daughters - would rejoice at this miracle that was accomplished, not at the point of a sword but at the ballot box.

The truth is that no one is keeping men out of the workplace. No one is keeping them out of bars. As McKay admits, women were first accepted in bars during Prohibition. When it was over, no law forced bars to continue admitting women. For over 30 years my husband has had his hair cut at a barbershop. Never, even once - in any state we've lived in - has he elected to patronize a unisex salon. But more importantly, never once has he had the slightest trouble finding a barbershop. If there were sufficient demand - FROM MEN - for single sex hair establishments, there would be more barbershops.

Likewise, single sex gyms have largely given way to co-ed ones. The success of Curves (which, by the way, is nothing like a full service gym) is a testimony to the free market's ability to meet the demand for single sex workout emporiums... as is the rise of male-only gyms like Cuts and Blitz.

As a woman, I can't begin to imagine what it must be like to marinate in nostalgia for some magical time when the law of the land guaranteed me the "right" to exclude one half of humanity from places of employment. And while I don't much care for forcing legally mandated inclusiveness upon private organizations that accept no public funding, I can't help noticing that the bulk of McKay's examples involve neither force nor operation of law, but rather gradual shifts in public sensibilities: the inevitable changes in outward form that follow changes in the function of our social institutions.

No law today prevents men from negotiating private space in their own homes or spending their leisure time with male friends. Men (and now women, too) have full access to the courts and the voting booths. They have both the freedom and the ability to influence and even change the laws we live under. In today's world a man is even free to, as one of McKay's commenters so aptly phrased it, "act without consideration":

The decline in male space also correlates with a decline in male empowerment. I am 52 and my father did whatever he wanted without consideration of my mother. I get to do about half of what I want with my wife disallowing the other half. My sons will I am afraid get to do nothing they want, unless it includes and is approved by the wife.

Question for the day: are we talking about empowerment? Or entitlement?

Martyr

A Martyr:

This is the kind of thing that might make you question the mission in Afghanistan; but the man himself should be seen for the inspiring figure he is, in spite of the circumstances.

National Debt

National Debt

Assistant Village Idiot's son's friend has produced a 90-second video about the national debt as part of a contest. You can watch all five of the videos that made the finals and vote for the one you like best. His son's friend's entry is winning so far.

Superbowl Ad

Superbowl Ad:

I imagine you've all seen this advertisement:



It reminds me of a story. Way back when my son was one year old, my parents bought him a toy remote control tractor. He was much too young to understand about remote controls, or to have operated it in any case, but he liked the tractor so they bought it for him. For about two years, he played with that tractor toy as you would play with an powerless toy car.

So one day, when he was about three, I got out the remote control and stood in the kitchen. I watched him play with it for a while, and then when he backed away to do something else, I had it follow him. As soon as he turned to look, I stopped it.

Then he started forward, and I had it back away. He said, "It did do it!" Then it followed him around the room for quite a while, before I showed him how it worked.

I suspect the rest of his life has been a disappointment after that. We live in a world where there isn't much magic left, and people seem resolutely determined to drive out what remains. These people are blind, and have missed the true story: everything we think we understand is really magic, and is hiding secrets we don't yet dream of behind its mask.

Catholics & Mormons in the Lead

Catholics & Mormons in the Lead:

That sounds like the introduction to a joke, but it's the thesis of an article by a jealous evangelical Protestant. He argues that there are two reasons: theology for Catholics, and culture for Mormons.

It's an interesting question.

Dolor Occultus

Dolor occultus

An article that takes up where the recent expansion of the official list of psychiatric disorders left off: Asymptomatic Depression: Hidden Epidemic and Huge Untapped Market.

The author proposes a binary approach to diagnosis and treatment. If the patient acknowledges depression, he is treated with drugs that have a variety of unpleasant side effects, the severity of which convince him of their power to alleviate depression. If the patient does not acknowledge depression, he is diagnosed with "putative axiomatic biochemical imbalance" and treated with the same drugs, until the side effects induce a more classical presentation of depression symptoms, after which he can be treated as usual for depression.

H/t Maggie's Farm

Wikileaks & Public Service

Wikileaks & Public Service:

Although the transfer of secret diplomatic documents to Wikileaks was an act of treason, it is not the only betrayal that the episode has revealed. The betrayal of our British allies by this administration does not quite rise to the level of treason, since we cannot commit treason against any country but our own. Nevertheless, it is shocking to the conscience.

The Obama administration plainly dislikes the British, but the rest of us Americans have warm regards for the mother country. We had our disputes at first, but have been strong allies since coming to terms on our independence. That is reasonable, as the British idea of freedom and human liberty -- not the French doctrine, which served as the root of so many of the early democratic movements -- is the root of the American ideal. We have often fought together in defense of our mutual ideals, across many wars and the entire world.

How Bad is This?

How Bad Is This?

Georgia is my home state, so when I see a political story located here I have to take notice. What a doozy this one is!

Georgia Republican state Rep. Bobby Franklin (of gold-standard-wannabe fame) has introduced a bill to change the state’s criminal codes so that in “criminal law and criminal procedure” (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as “accusers” until the defendant has been convicted.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee says:

Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims. But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn’t think you’ve been victimized. He says you’re an accuser until the courts have determined otherwise.

To diminish a victim’s ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all. Robbery, assault, and fraud are all real crimes with real victims, the Republican asserts with this bill.

Rep. Franklin surely is aware that the crimes for which he believes there are no victims are disproportionately committed against women—and are disproportionately committed by men.

It is a reasonable point that the victim of a rape has suffered emotional damage, and the court should give attention to the question of not inflicting further damage. It's fair to ask that the court use language that will not cause insult or offense.

Where I differ with the DLCC is here: that interest in protecting the victim has to be balanced against the bedrock legal principle of presumptive innocence. That may be of particular importance in cases where one of the questions before the court is whether a rape did, in fact, take place -- either because of disputes about consent, or questions of whether or not there was really sex at all. The court has to be careful not to prejudice the jury in either direction. If those interests cannot be balanced completely, shouldn't we err in favor of the bedrock legal principle that is protecting someone who is in jeopardy of losing freedom or life?

Perhaps not! There may well be cases when the presumption of innocence is a facade that no one can really keep up; frequently in criminal court everyone is quite sure of the guilt of the accused because of numerous past offenses. In those cases, the court may do the minimum necessary to keep up the facade for the sake of the jury, and no more than is required. Certainly in cases where there is no dispute that a rape occurred -- where the accused is merely disputing that he was the one who committed it -- it would make no sense to force the court to refer to the woman as "an accuser" rather than a victim. In cases where there is reasonable doubt, though, and where the fact of the rape is in dispute, it may be necessary for the court to consider the issue of language to ensure a fair outcome.

The issue is surely a complicated one; it is probably best be left to the discretion of the judge, rather than handled with an across-the-board legislative remedy. I agree that this attempt is clumsy and ill-advised. I'm not convinced that the motivating sentiment is immoral, or that a bill aimed at this matter should be taken as prima facie evidence of bias against women.

Permitorium Hell and Waiver Heaven

"Permitorium" Hell and Waiver Heaven

Laws that theoretically allow citizens to conduct their lawful business, but in fact leave the regime's political enemies exposed to the the whim of a bureaucrat who can refuse to grant a permit. Laws that theoretically compel all citizens to adopt an unpopular and ruinous course of business, but in fact leave the regime's political friends a loophole via waivers. None of it is consistent with free citizens co-existing with a properly limited government.

Look at the flap over the Planned Parenthood videos. People who believe in the importance of granting young women unrestricted access to what they call "reproductive healthcare" are alert to the dangers of imposing too many regulations on abortions to minors, such as parental consent requirements. Over-regulation in that context clearly undermines the essential freedom guaranteed by the law, right? Imagine how they'd react to the idea of a law "guaranteeing" the right to abortion by either subjecting it to a permit process, or outlawing it subject to the possibility of a waiver.

Lottery

The Lottery:

A voluntary tax on the stupid, it has been called; but that may be too strong. It is merely a voluntary tax on the innumerate. Just how much this is true is revealed by the statistician who broke the code:

After analyzing his results, Srivastava realized that the singleton trick worked about 90 percent of the time, allowing him to pick the winning tickets before they were scratched.

His next thought was utterly predictable: “I remember thinking, I’m gonna be rich! I’m gonna plunder the lottery!” he says. However, these grandiose dreams soon gave way to more practical concerns. “Once I worked out how much money I could make if this was my full-time job, I got a lot less excited,” Srivastava says. “I’d have to travel from store to store and spend 45 seconds cracking each card. I estimated that I could expect to make about $600 a day. That’s not bad. But to be honest, I make more as a consultant, and I find consulting to be a lot more interesting than scratch lottery tickets.”

So, in other words, if you're good enough to beat the lottery? You can make more money doing honest work.

A Pheasant Pie:

Served with a good brown ale.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem:

A new book provides a 'biography' of a city.

Over three millennia people have believed the city to be the bridge between heaven and earth. But it has usually been a dangerous crossing. Jerusalem has inspired courage, sacrifice and chivalry; art, architecture, and music. It has also sunk into persecution, brutality, butchery, squalor and venereal disease. Just to its south lies the Valley of Hinnom, notorious for child sacrifices even in the early Jewish era. As a result, it came to be known as Gehenna: hell. Given Jerusalem’s history, it is appropriate that it should have its own branch of Hades.

Jerusalem is surely one of the most fascinating cities in the world, even apart from religious history. Just the question of its relationship to water is fascinating. I have only become interested in it recently, but the more you learn about it, the stranger and more gripping the story becomes.