- is one of the great liberal lies. We have not taken one drop of oil out of Iraq. This is in line with the standard liberal cant: The US is evil, and anyone else is just an innocent victim.

Oil is one of the greatest liberal victories of all time. They must be very proud of themselves. Thank a liberal when you faint at the pump. Notice I don’t say Democrat. McCain is just as bad as any liberal where the subject of oil is concerned.

The predicament that we are in is really rather simple. We no longer allow any exploration or drilling in this country, even though there is plenty of oil. We even know generally where it is. We have the technology to extract it with minimal disturbance. We have built no refineries in the last 20 years or so. If we developed our own oil and built sufficient refineries we would see the price of oil drop by half or better quite quickly.

The oil companies that the liberals like to beat up on are captives of foreign interests, thanks to the very same liberals. They do not develop any more in the Middle East because the governments of the Middle East do not allow foreign ownership of oil resources. Even if our own companies did the developing, the Saudis or whoever would own the oil and sell it at whatever price to whomever they choose.

The repercussions of the libs strangling us over oil are far reaching. We cannot decide the price that is fair, we have no control over that. We cannot pursue foreign policy that is in our own best interests. The Saudis (home of Wahabi Islam) dictate much of our foreign policy. Foreign companies and countries own large portions of our major companies and maintain a huge network of lobbyists to pressure our politicians. Never mind McCain-Feingold, many of our politicians are so beholden to Moslem oil counties that they are merely puppets.

Never mind Afghanistan, we were determined to stop them after 9/11 and they were also a bit of an uncontrollable thorn to the Saudis. But consider that the only country we have taken out was run by a secular madman and the Saudis were quite happy for us to remove him. However, Iran is a much larger threat and we well know that they spend millions of their oil revenues to attack us and Israel. Consider that we sided against the Christian Serbs, who had a good bit of right on their side, to support the Moslems, who were invaders. These policies come from Saudi Arabia, not from our own interests.

Our foreign policy is dictated by those who hate us deeply.

As for me, I fully realize that if we pull our troops out of Iraq, the immediate consequence will be that the Iranians will own the country in less that a year. We can either abandon the people to tyranny, as we did to the South Vietnamese, or we can keep a military presence there for many years. Before you listen to the libs scream too loudly, remember that we are still a presence in Japan and Germany 60 years later.

I am of the opinion that we should take oil out of Iraq equal to the cost of this war. And enough every year to pay for the necessary support for their safety.

We keep hearing alternative this, that, and the other. Fine. Let’s start by developing enough nuclear power plants to replace all oil and gas fired plants immediately. In the long term, we also need to develop enough to replace coal fired plants as well. By the way, the coal fired plants are not nearly as dirty as the libs claim. As a general rule, whenever a lib speaks, make him prove any allegations with hard scientific data and keep a firm grip on your wallet. The libs lie like dogs and want to put us all into poverty so that we are government dependants rather than free citizens. I will believe that they are compassionate when the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s, Clintons, Obama’s, Feinstein’s, etc. etc. give some of their millions to charity. Like something higher than 1%, Many give less. And I do mean to charity, not to their own self-aggrandizing tax dodging foundations.

If you check the facts, you will see that conservatives, in general give significantly more to charity than do liberals. George Bush gives over 10% of his income to charity. Ted Kennedy, Obama, Clintons, etc. give mostly less than 1%. I will not trust a bunch who want to use the force of government to do to me what they do not willingly do themselves. Betcha Ted Kennedy pays a smaller percentage of total worth to taxes than I do.

After we have stabilized sufficient energy to keep going, I say well and good, go after alternatives. But - prove the science before jumping. We are doing entirely too many things stupidly just because we think that it is the feel-good politically expedient thing to do. I am all for alternatives that genuinely work to improve our lives and leave things clean. But only when they are proven better.

Except that they aren’t. These are really a variation on soft molasses cookies. That’s what kept driving me nuts over the years. I made these with my mother when I was young and have never been able to duplicate them since (until now). Mother was from Kentucky and these may be what Louisville people called ginger cookies, but they are not like the normal ginger cookie. I know. I’ve tried all kinds of ginger cookie variations and they were never right. Good, maybe, but not what I was looking for.

Anyway, try these. They’re rather good.

1 stick shortning - can be butter flavor or plain (1 cup)
210 g sugar (1 cup)
1 beaten egg
400 g all-purpose flour (2-1/2 cups)
350 g molasses (1 cup)
4 g salt (1/2 tsp)
9 g soda (2 tsp)
3 g cinnamon (1 tsp)
3 g cloves (1 tsp)
3 g ground ginger (1 tsp)

Preheat the oven to 350°F.

Cream the shorting and sugar. Beat in the egg and molasses. Add the dry ingredients and mix thoroughly.

You can skip the cinnamon and cloves if that’s not to your taste.

Traditionally, chill the dough, roll thin on a floured surface, then cut out with a cookie cutter. Place on a greased cookie sheet.

That’s too much fuss for me. I don’t fool with the chilling bit. I just drop tablespoonfuls onto the greased cookie sheet (doesn’t need greasing if non-stick type), then kind of pat flat with my greasy fingers. Works just fine.

Somewhere around 10 minutes in the oven, then let them cool on the sheet before transferring to a cooling rack. Don’t burn them. The molasses makes them kind of touchy.

Enjoy.

Herself Sez: OMG These are good! Although my little Gam was from Kentucky, too, she didn’t make anything like these - she wasn’t from Louisville - she was from the Eastern Mountains - Pulaski County. So the foodways and traditions were somewhat different.
She was a good cook, and I still am trying to find her cookie recipes for a date-spice drop cookie and an almond-pecan icebox cookie. Both are delicious. She only made them at Christmas time. {{SIGH}} I don’t know what was wrong with me - when she was alive and “with it,” it didn’t occur to me to get those recipes and some others that are very important and precious to me now. But isn’t it always the way??

But the Ol’ Curmudgeon has successfully reconstructed his mother’s “ginger” cookies. They are delicious. Not crisp, but soft and chewy. Uuuuuuuum!

When the head rules the heart, you are a king. When the heart rules the head, you are a fool. Or words to that effect. Chaim Potok in The Chosen.

Liberals tend to see the world somewhat differently than conservatives. The liberal looks out and sees some inequity and wants the government to kiss it and make it all better. The conservative sees that people should be provided the opportunity to help themselves. The liberal wants government to help people. The conservative wants to enable people to help themselves. The majority in the middle doesn’t give a damn about anyone else. They just want more bread and circuses. The problem with the liberal approach is that using the force of law to make societal changes is like inviting in the wolf to cure your mouse problem. The wolf may get rid of the mouse, but now what do you do with the wolf?

One of the points that just about everyone seems to miss is that a government bureaucracy shares most of the characteristics of the corporation. Especially the bad ones. Any corporation/ bureaucracy will fight to stay alive and to grow. There will be more loyalty on the part of 99% of the employees of either to the parent organization than to any customer/client or code of morals.

One of the problems with letting compassion rule is that the long term consequences of any action are not considered. A small example: When the British started colonizing India they saw poverty, but not extreme, most people could get by. They also saw an appalling infant mortality rate. Being, on the whole, rather decent people the Brits decided to “do something”. They did. They managed to reduce infant death rates significantly. They did not reduce births. They did not expand the supply of food. The result was predictable - poverty and hunger became worse. Now I don’t say that saving the lives of infants is not a totally worthy goal. It is. But the consequences of meddling need to be taken into account.

I was there when LBJ declared war on poverty. We have fought the war. We lost. Humans are animals just like any other. When we are born, we only have the basic instincts for survival. We must be taught to be anything useful. If, in our compassion to “save the children”, we place no restriction on breeding, then people will do what they are paid to do. Breed. We now have several generations of welfare people who know nothing different. The survival strategy is to “dumb-down” and make no useful contribution to our society. The children who show any spark of initiative are persecuted by the other children. School smarts are punished by bullying. Local gangs are a way of life.

Conservatives are told that this is all their fault because they are greedy and do not want to share. Not so. This morass is created by liberals and their misguided compassion. Conservatives would like to see everyone succeed to the best of their abilities. The freedom to succeed also carries the freedom to fail. In the long term those who cannot or will not help themselves must be eliminated from the gene pool. We have rewarded and bred for incompetence and are reaping a rich harvest. I find it interesting that liberals seem to understand that our ecology is a complex thing, and that fiddling with one aspect may have undesirable results. And yet, the very same people do not seem to understand that human society has evolved in the same way to a very complex balance. Now, I agree that we are not simple plants. We can and do change our society to better suit the needs of the day. But we should devote a good deal more brain power to considering results before we charge in and put a band aid in place. If we need an environmental impact study - and follow its conclusions - before we build, why then is there no attention paid to the consequences of social meddling? In the recent immigration amnesty bill debacle, there was only one long term study done. Since it was done by a conservative organization, The Heritage Foundation, the libs just pooh-poohed it. The study showed that this amnesty bill would cost around 3 trillion. Pooh-pooh 3 trillion? They didn’t even see fit to do their own study. No decent scientific refutation of an established assertion. A puzzlement.

In human history, the incompetent became subservient to the producers or just died off. Mostly there was a balance. The main problem with the old way was that it tended to become hereditary. A hereditary caste system will inevitably fail as incompetent or spoiled children fail to measure up to their responsibilities. There is also the boiling frustration of superior people born lower caste who cannot rise to the level of their abilities.  Now - we not only kill off our best in war (it is the productive who serve voluntarily), but the majority of the productive middle-class people have reduced the number of children produced. Why is it the libs, who tell us to have fewer children because we are running out of resources, also tell us we can take in 20 million more illegals as citizens? If we cannot support 20 million more of our own, why can we support 20 million undesirables? Anyway, back to children. The people on the dole are breeding at an alarming rate. ZPG is nowhere near their horizon. More kiddies = more money. Birth control is economically undesirable. If we had tough schools that really taught useful knowledge and discipline and could manage to make productive citizens out of the children of these parasites then it would not be so bad. But if you breed parasites, you will only get more and more parasites that are better and better parasites and who do not contribute anything positive to our society.

I maintain that 10% of the populous is the cause of 90% of our expenditures. The lower 10% of the populous consumes the dole. Provides most of the medical costs. Constitutes the majority of the crime that costs us police time and effort. Is most of the jail population. Don’t give me any shit about discrimination being the cause. Don’t tell me my bigotry has jack to do with one punk killing another over a handful of dope because the libs wouldn’t let us train these people to be useful citizens. Don’t tell me I have anything to do with the weakening of schools so that nothing of value is taught there. I didn’t have a damn thing to with schools failing to maintain discipline or scholastic excellence. That’s all liberal compassion at work.

Libs have got it so that not only can we not paddle a young offender at school, parents are being told that if they paddle a kid at home they may be arrested as child abusers. Now child beating is one thing, but a couple of swats on a well deserving butt is one of the foundations of higher knowledge. Children are animals. They are not miniature people, they are unformed, incomplete people. It is child abuse not to teach, love and discipline as necessary to instill morals and proper behavior. An undisciplined, untrained child will surely become a totally egocentric adult who is totally impulse driven and whose only morality is to serve himself and satisfy his own desires. Sound familiar, “me generation”? Thanks, compassionate libs.

Now, just to give a kick to the other side. We would not see half the problems out there if it weren’t for some of these idiot, loudmouth libs. Most of the productive, reasonable conservative (probably reactionary) people are so caught up in their own lives that they don’t notice anything that is not directly in their faces. Normal human behavior. We do need the libs to point things out. We just need to put the brakes on their impulses until we understand the consequences.

Herself sez: Apologies for missing Thursday - I was “out and about” in greater downtown Hotlanna trying to get “things” straightened out for applying for SS and Medicare (yeah, I’m running a few months late). Anyhoo, it took up the ENTIRE day and I was so wiped out when I got home I totally forgot to post the Ol’ Curmudgeon’s blog,much less my own! But I think you will agree it was worth the wait!

We were watching The Patriot with director’s commentary. For a fellow who made a movie about the American Revolution he had the standard liberal’s misunderstanding of what war is and what negotiation is.

Deep sigh. First off, negotiation requires that the parties at hand be willing to sit down at a table and discuss the issue(s) at hand. Secondly, in the liberal understanding of things they seems to think that both parties will each give a little bit and arrive at a mutually satisfactory settlement.

If the parties hold diametrically opposed views and/or one will not sit down to discuss the matter, then what? Kosovo comes to mind. The liberal view is that the parties should have just sat down and talked out their differences. Fact is, you had Moslem invaders that had been systematically persecuting native Christians for 400 years, and wanted to keep on doing so. You had native Christians (the Serbians) who wanted these invaders and persecutors out. As usual, the libs leading this country had us siding with the Moslems and bombing the Christians. But anyway, where is the negotiating room here? The Moslems weren’t going to leave peaceably. They were not going to stop persecuting the Christians. The Moslems had (as usual) no intention of giving any on that position. The Christians wanted freedom and the Moslems out of their hereditary lands. There was no give in their position.

Liberals seem to think that war is the same thing as a fist fight, and if everyone just went home and slept it off everything would be fine. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. War is not testosterone gone amuck. War is an instrument of national policy. War takes place when negotiations and diplomats have failed. If a nation has a goal which can not be achieved by diplomatic means it must either give up that goal or resort to war as the final choice.

For instance, the Germans of the 1930s entered into all kinds of negotiations and signed all kinds of agreements, which they happily broke and then entered into more negotiations and treaties, buying all kinds of time. Chamberlain was the liberal of his day and proudly proclaimed “peace for our time” after entering into the Munich Agreement which gave a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Germany in return for the German’s promise to be good boys and not do it again. After digesting the big bite for a year and consolidating their position, the Germans invaded Poland. The only way to stop a nation that will not negotiate honorably is war. Otherwise they will do what they please.

The Korean War took place when North Korea invaded South Korea. South Korea appealed to the United Nations for help. North Korea’s position was that they had conquered and would hold South Korea as theirs and would not give it up. The United Nations declared war upon North Korea and invaded to free the South Koreans. The United States troops sent to Korea were part of the UN forces. The United States did not declare a separate war upon North Korea. Contrary to the TV show MASH with its frequent soulful “why are we here” dialogs, most people understood quite well why we were there. It had nothing to do with “stopping the red stain” as Frank Burns so stupidly and piously intoned. Notice the standard Hollywierd liberal ploy of making all liberals reasonable and intelligent and all conservative positions stupid and ridiculous? It had everything to do with honoring the UN resolution to protect an ally who was being systematically conquered and pillaged. That is the same UN which the current crop of liberals wants to have running the planet nowadays. Especially if it puts the US in a bad position. BTW - if that had been a US war and we had finished it, instead of pulling out when the UN said to, we would not have the North Korean problem today. The people of North Korea would not be starving, they would be just as fat, sassy, and wealthy as the South Koreans are today.

Anyone who thinks that negotiation can be successful when one of the parties will not make treaties or hold to honorable terms will deserve what they get. Conquered. Or should we continue to let aggressors do as they damn well please until there is no freedom in the world? A nation that will not fight will not continue to exist. A people that will not fight will not keep freedom.

If we take war off the table, then there is nothing to make rogue nations such as Iran, North Korea, etc. even come to the table. We have to no reason to expect them to even go through the motions of negotiation, much less keep their word if there is no expectation of retaliation and punishment through war.

While no one in his right mind considers war desirable, it is still an instrument of policy that must be available. No pantywaist liberal abhors and hates war as much as the military does. The difference is that our military accepts the role of protector of freedom. The loudmouth pacifistic types seem only to protest those who protect freedom. I never see them protesting those who would take freedom away. When was the last time you saw the Code Pink people protest radical Islam? When was the last time you saw the peaceniks protest an aggressive dictatorship such as North Korea? When was the last time you saw protests against the murderous bombing of innocent civilians by Moslem terrorists such as we see every day on the news?

Them’s the facts, ma’am.

I agree. But I part company with the majority of wishy-washy parents who use that phrase as an excuse to either ignore or spoil their children (or both).

The majority of people in this country seem to think that children should be engaged in perpetual play, preferably of the politically correct kind. Nonsense. The majority of history has the role of children helping with the daily work of the family from the time they can stand and walk. Children worked on the farm in rural areas and worked in the family business in urban areas. They bonded quite closely with the rest of the family, learned valuable life skills, and generally loved their parents and extended family fiercely. This is quite a contrast with the current crop of spoiled darlings that gets away from their families as fast as possible.

In order to correct the horrors of early industrialization and child sweat-shop labor we passed laws to prevent the exploitation of minors and to enable them to stay in school long enough to get a decent education. We swung the pendulum too far, as usual. Most of the kiddies now don’t have any reasonable chores to do around the house, and, even if they do (and they actually do them), they are usually solo without participation of the rest of the family. Most parents are content to let their little darlings sit in front of a TV or a computer soaking up porn (either of the mind or the body). Then later the kids are mall rats with nothing to keep them out of trouble. The parents would be better served by not sitting down after dinner to watch their own boob-tube, but rather to do meal cleanup and household chores as a family unit and then help/supervise with all the kiddies homework - every night. And to develop a hobby which would involve the whole family in something involving constructive activities, preferably with a learning curve involving useful skills that can be passed on to the kidlets.

The idea that life is constant play and that we have to be entertained every waking moment of the day does not produce rational, balanced, loving adults. It produces totally selfish, weak individuals who look for someone else to do the providing. It produces people who cannot successfully relate to others, resulting in failed marriages and damaged children. It results in people who cannot make and hold to the commitment required to be a successful and loving partner and parent. In short, look around at the products of this type of poor parenting. What you see is what you will get if you raise your children this way. Not a pretty picture, is it?

There’s a scene in Cabaret where the landlord is listening to the Nazi propaganda on the radio and one of the characters tries to show him that hatred of Jews is irrational. His response is that everyone knows that there is a conspiracy of Jewish bankers to take over all of Europe, and anyway, all the communists are Jewish. It does not matter to him that this is totally irrational since “everyone knows these things”. History has shown the consequences of this “everyone knows”.

Just about anytime “everyone knows” something it should be a danger signal to anyone who has any intelligence at all. At one time the “everyone knows” in this country was that black people were quite inferior and not capable of any intelligent action. This in spite of the many black artisans such as Cesar Chelor, the celebrated wooden plane maker of Wrentham, Massachusetts. He was freed on the death of his master in 1752. His master, Francis Nicholson said in his will ” . . .As to my Negro Man Cesar Chelor, considering his faithful Service, his tender Care & kind & Christian carriage, I do set him free to Act for himself in the world . . .” Chelor plane are highly prized collectables as they are some of the finest examples of Colonial wooden planes in existence. This in spite of people of great intellectual accomplishments such as Frederick Douglas. And in spite of the great scientific strides made by George Washington Carver. And a ton of others.

At one time “everyone knows” that women are intellectually substandard. Guess they never met anyone like my mother. Extraordinary woman. Or my wife. Plenty of gray cells, and knows how to use them.

At one time everyone knew that the earth was flat.

Just about any time an “everyone knows” is grasped by the majority of people who do not or cannot think for themselves the consequences are not good.

The current “everyone knows” is the global warming business. We see the Congress pass laws based on this “everyone knows” instead of rationally considered consequences. This is so ingrained in the minds of the average citizen that even if evidence shows up contrary to that “everyone knows”. There is the silly idea that the next ice age will be caused by global warming. And of course “everyone knows” that this is the fault of the people of the United States. I suppose that the last several ice ages were the fault of the mammoths on this continent, since there was no US to beat up on back then.

“Everyone knows” that the ice caps are disappearing. Except that they aren’t. Of course, the “everyone knows” crowd says that the fact that the ice caps are back up to size is also a result of global warming, which “everyone knows” is cause by the evil humans.

Nuts. Better check your “everyone knows” meter. It will surely be a disastrous set of consequences as much as any other “everyone knows” in history.

Now you may wonder what an old grump like me could say about dancing. Well, brace yourselves. For about two years in my late twenties I made my living as a dancer and a ballroom dance teacher.

Obviously, my bias is towards what the ballet types sneeringly refer to as “social dancing”. Ah yes, I lead, female follows. Good old atavistic, fun stuff. Ballet types do not seem to regard ballroom or tap or folk as “serious” dancing. On the other paw, I do not regard ballet as dancing. No, I am not disparaging same. What it is, to me, is quite beautiful gymnastics. Extremely difficult, but usually carefully choreographed. Relying more on careful counting and memorization than free-form and rhythm.

What has brought on these musings is watching the Michael Flatley Irish dance DVDs. It seems that every third or fourth generation rediscovers some form of tap, and Irish hard-shoe dancing is certainly one of the genetic ancestors of tap. Irish, tap, folk are almost always exuberant expressions of joyful music with a strong, driving beat and a happy melodic line.

The early Shirley Temple/Bill Robinson (Bojangles) collaborations were sheer joy to watch. Especially, see any of the routines involving stairs. Bill Robinson invented the up and down stairs tap routines back in his Vaudeville days. The reason that his taps sound a bit different than others you may have heard is that his taps are wooden rather than metal. Another one of his innovations.

For tap raised to high art, see any of the Eleanor Powell movies. Gorgeous woman. Also any of Frederick Austerlitz’s movies. Oh yeah, you know him as Fred Astair. For a special treat see the collaboration Broadway Melody of 1940. The dances in that are as near perfection as you will ever see.

Ann Miller’s Too Darn Hot routine in Kiss Me Kate is also superb.

The problem is that by the 1950s MGM trended toward ballet type routines in their musicals. See Gene Kelly’s later works, or even Fred Astair’s later movies and you will see what I mean. Great dancing, but not the joyous fusions of music and exuberant movement of the earlier stuff. Ballet is great, but it is not and cannot be the supremely stimulating rush of a tap or ballroom routine.

I am vaguely surprised that some movie mogul has not tried to incorporate Irish dance into a musical. And I’m not so sure it would work, anyway. It will be interesting to see what the next craze is, not that I’ll live long enough to find out if it takes another generation or so.

When it’s spring and the birds are blooming and the trees are singing, or something like that, and a young man’s fancy turns to… Well, never mind, we know what young men’s fancy is. But an old guy’s fancy may turn to - Lamb Chops! And yes, Shari Lewis was nice for that other fancy.

Yeah, I know, we always thought of lamb as the overdone leg that mama would have sometimes. And only sissies eat lamb and I don’t like lamb. Guys, grow up, get over it. Real men eat whatever they damn well please. I know in the South manly-men don’t eat lamb. But the rest of the world does, and lamb is mighty fine eating. And yes, good lamb chops are expensive. But, if you have a Costco or something similar that does wholesale pricing, and you keep a serious lookout for sales, you just might be able to afford them. You want at least double-cut, and preferably triple-cut. The bigger the cut number, the thicker the meat. Now single-cut (about ½”) is ok for pork chops, but just will not do for lamb. Double-cut is twice as thick. Triple cut is 3 times thicker.

Set the oven for 450°.

Lamb chops, about 2 per person if you are having a good, filling, side dish or two. 3 per if they’re only double-cut. I’m talking about the small sized chops here. About ½ the size of pork chops. You’ll know them when you see them. You won’t usually see the pork chop size. They get reserved for restaurants. Or they come from sheep, not lambs. You don’t want sheep.
Now, you want some good, fresh mint. Yeah, you can use dried, but fresh is better.
You also want a good grade of mint sauce. Cross & Blackwell is the very best. You can make your own if you really want to. Mint sauce is nothing more than an infusion of mint leaves in a sweet leaching liquid. Oh, all right, a herbal vinegar, if you please:
½ cup finely chopped mint
2 tablespoons white sugar
1 cup English malt vinegar
Mix it up in a saucepan, simmer for about 20 minutes, let it cool, decant into airtight containers (old condiment bottles work well).
Take some butter, cold from the refrigerator. Add about 1 ½ tablespoons per chop.
1 clove of fresh garlic per chop, minced. Yes, they’re garlicky. Goes nicely with lamb.
Small bowl food processor or lots of elbow grease.

Put the butter in, add the garlic and get it mixed in. Add just enough mint sauce for flavor and work it in. Don’t put so much sauce in that the mixture becomes liquid. You want this to be rather stiff. That’s why we use cold butter. Work in a good amount of mint. I put in about as much as the mix will hold. Your taste may call for some less. Put the chops in a pan with a grill rack. I always line the pan with aluminum foil, otherwise it’s a mess to clean up. Set the chops on the rack, getting each as close to level as possible. Now, for each chop, dig down with your fingers beside each bone, making a little pocket. Fill the pockets with the butter mixture and keep heaping it on the chops until you run out of topping. Really mound it up. Pop in the oven for 45 minutes for triple-cut. The cooking time can be varied to suit your taste. This should get you done with very little pink. If you like your lamb a bit rarer, reduce the time. I do like mine about medium, but Herself can’t stand underdone lamb.

Of course, you can always pan-fry them. Just treat them like any other kind of meat. You know the drill - Add some olive oil, add some butter. Get the pan hot to where the mix shimmers slightly and the butter is no longer foaming. Ease the flame down between medium and medium-high depending on your range-top. Slide a little crushed garlic in and cook until it is brown, then remove the debris. Add the chops that you have salted and peppered, both sides. Try about 5 minutes a side for double-cut. This should be about medium. If this is too rare for you, just add a bit more time, but be careful of burning. You may need to reduce the heat and go for a little longer time. Anyway, garnish with some chopped mint. Serve with mint sauce.

You can also grill lamb chops, the rules are the same as for any red meat. You might try grilled with some kind of rosemary marinade. The Greeks really like rosemary with their lamb, and they are the experts. Actually, most all the Middle East types deal quite well with lamb. Look for Greek, Lebanese, and so on recipes. They are all the same basic culture, though they will all deny it. And may want to cut your throat for saying so. Alexander had the policy of mingling the cultures. Not to mention the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire - need I go on?

But I’ll get more into Middle Eastern lamb recipes at a later time. Oh hell, I might as well talk a little about kibbe - there are a million spellings. The basic kibbe is:

1 lb. Finely minced lamb. It mostly gets ground in this country - but that is not right. Keep the fat content down low.
1 medium onion, finely minced. Or more, to taste. You can also puree, but I like fine mince better.
2 teaspoons good kosher salt, or less, to taste
1 teaspoon cumin (optional)
Pepper to taste (optional)
½ cup fine burghul - cracked bulghar wheat - soaked for 30 minutes and pressed dry.

Mix the whole mess together. If it is too sticky, try adding a little water.

Now you can bake it or fry it (make that 1 cup burghul for cooked). Deep dish, patties, whatever. Don’t overcook it dry.

But the absolute best way to eat it is raw, like steak tartar. It is called kibbe naeya. I can just see the queasy looks out there. Raw lamb, yech! But it really is delicious. And I wouldn’t lie to you about something as important as food! Of course, you have to have a supply of meat that you can absolutely trust, and that may be hard. If you get clean meat, skim off the surface 1/8″ or so with a clean sharp knife and do your own grinding or mincing you are pretty safe. Anyway, get (or bake) some good fresh pita bread. Get a really good grade of extra virgin olive oil. Greek or Lebanese is better than Italian for this. Put some spicy veggies in the olive oil if you like. Now, tear off a strip of bread, get some kibbe and some olive oil on it. If you’re going to be authentic, use a central communal bowl, and only use your right hand to tear and roll the bread. Depending on the place and local custom, you might have a central dish of olive oil or one per side of the main dish, or even individual dipping bowls. All samey-samey. Chow down and enjoy - it is wonderful!

The current climate in this country at this time (America, early 21^st century) is anything goes, the kinkier, the better. Plain old heterosexuals are regarded as somewhat second class, and/or persecutors of whichever minority is protesting. This is somewhat contrary to the historical rules of most of human existance. Inherent in the human is the drive to procreate, and, speaking for the male, to spread his seed as far and as wide as possible. Societies have evolved rules that are designed to protect women and children so that the society and the species may prosper. Most have developed the one man, one woman, and their children pattern. Where one sex is conspicuously scarce other patterns have been used. In many war torn societies where the men were killed off polygamy was considered ok. The reverse was true in early Polynesian expansion (and other places), when the women were rare, and polyandry was occasionally practiced. Even in those societies where the multiple spouses were ok the standard one woman, one man was the norm. Look around at Moslem societies today. Even though up to four wives are allowed and as many concubines as can be supported, the normal family unit in Moslem countries is still the one woman, one man pattern.

I can only really be an authority on heterosexuality. Yes, I am that square. Monogamy may or may not be natural by our current social lights, but it is the norm over most societies throughout history. Why has this evolved? According to Eastern Orthodox Christian thinking, God does not make souls. God finished creation and then rested. What He did, rather than creating each new soul, was set up a mechanism whereby the parents create the soul in the act of procreation. This is somewhat at odds with Western thought, particularly Protestant. However, this does explain some otherwise puzzling things. If there is a merging of soul-stuff with the sex act, then it becomes apparent that one night stands and irresponsible sex with various partners is dangerous to the soul. If there is a sharing on a real level then there is some shredding of the soul when indiscriminate partners come and go. On the other hand, a monogamous long-term relationship leads to the strengthening of the soul bond. This sounds somewhat preposterous until we have actually experienced this merging and sharing. It takes several years for this to become apparent to us - somewhere between seven and fifteen years is what I observe with most couples. It seems to take thirty to fifty years to fully mature. Check around you. Observe the people that you know that are in a long and satisfying marriage. You can see the external effects of this blending, which takes place over many years. These couples tend to be more satisfied with life in general than those who have never taken the time and effort to develop this long term merging. Also observe those who have not been in a long and faithful relationship. They tend to be much more bitter and cynical about life. I do not know if this soul-bonding is possible in a homosexual relationship. The homosexuals that I have known over the past several years do not seem to exhibit this. It may be out there, but I have not observed it.

It is an interesting phenomenon worth noting that, while birth control is readily available and cheap, the majority of children born in this country are illegitimate. The general dumbing down of our society is nowhere more evident than in our stupid and ignorant disregard of natural law where our own lives and offspring are concerned. There is more venereal disease in the population than at any other time in history. In spite of the current worship of nature, we do not seem to want to learn about or deal with our own nature. Our society seems more interested in brain controlling our children to care more about “Mother Nature” as goddess than about human nature and the proper control of same. People seem more interested in the government taking control of everyone’s life than they are about taking control of their own lives.

The conclusion that I can draw is that there is more to the standard Christian doctrine of fidelity than the do your own thing crowd seems to want to admit. There seem to be good and practical reasons for the morals that have developed and preached for centuries. Not to mention that in my observation the people who lead an immoral life seem to be pretty much less than happy, productive people.

It may be observed that the statement that is made is Exodus 20:5 about visiting the sins of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation is not a statement of a harsh and vengeful God, as many would have it. Genetic damage shows up in subsequent generations. This seems to hold for hateful and abusive behavior as well. Children reflect the genes of their parents. Children reflect the emotional and spiritual damage of parents also. It can take several generations to clear up this damage. Looks to me like Exodus 20:5 is just a flat statement of fact about human life.

Where am I going with this? Not necessarily anywhere in particular. However, if your moral code is “do your own thing” or “whatever feels good” or “I do what I want when I want” I would suggest that you have not formed an adult and informed set of personal morals. If you have rejected any constraints on your behavior then your moral code is that of a child. I do not necessarily suggest that all people need to follow the traditional Judeo/Christian moral code blindly, just because papa said so. However, to reject that set of morals without careful and informed consideration is really quite stupid. One’s moral code should enable one to live with oneself and one’s neighbors in some sort of sane balance.

We have swung the pendulum too far (as usual). We have gone from a society that would condemn and persecute (and perhaps prosecute) anyone who did not adhere (at least publicly) to the standard puritanical set of morals and behaviors of the time to a society that is totally afraid to say that anyone’s behavior is unacceptable, unless one of the political hot topics has been violated. Look at the difference in the treatment of Don Imus and known carriers of venereal disease. Imus was hounded out of his job for making one stupid (but poitically insensitive) remark. Our public health departments are not allowed to make a community aware of a known and active spreader of venereal diseases, much less stop the individual from continuing to infect (and kill) unknowing victims. Look at the difficult time we have with known sexual predators, who could be stopped rather easily if we decided to do so.

The old Western and Alaskan sourdoughs (as the miners and trappers were called) used sourdough for just about everything that had to do with wheat flour. It was a necessary and integral part of life in the wilderness. Sourdough pancakes were a frequent menu item. It is one of the simple pleasures of life.

500 grams of fed sourdough starter (about 2 cups)
25 grams of sugar or 30 grams of honey (about 2 Tbs)
30 grams of olive oil or other oil of choice (4 Tbs) - You can also use butter
1 large egg
4 grams salt (1/2 tsp)
5 grams baking soda (1 tsp)
10 grams warm water (1 Tbs)

A bit of historical note here: About the time of Alaskan exploration by the Americans and Canadians baking powder became available. The sourdoughs were deeply suspicious of baking powder and there was a rumor that if suppressed sexual desire (the salt-peter of its day). A prostitute (so the story goes) wintered at one of the gold mining camps. Unfortunately for her the men had made no strikes and had no money, so they stayed away from her in droves. As the spring thaw opened the adjacent river she hopped one of the first boats out. As she pulled away from the shore she shouted back, “Goodbye - you baking powder eating sons of bitches”. Anyway, use baking soda for the authentic historical kind of pancakes.

Let the sourdough starter sit overnight at room temp and get built up nicely. The next morning add the sugar, salt, egg and oil or butter. Mix this up well and let sit as long as you like while you get the rest of breakfast together. Just before cooking dissolve the baking soda in the warm water and gently fold it into the mixture.

Heat up a cast iron skillet or griddle (or whatever you use). Brush oil lightly onto the skillet with a silicon brush (regular brushes melt). When the heat and oil are just right it only takes seconds to cook each side of the pancake golden brown. You only want pancakes the size of silver dollars or so. Do not make them very big or they won’t cook through before burning. I find that a 1/8c measuring cup is just right. Drop the batter onto the hot skillet with a kind of swirling motion and when bubbles form on the top they are ready to be flipped. It will only take a few before you get the rhythm just right.

Serve them buttered with jam or honey or maple syrup or whatever you like. I like mine just plain buttered with over medium eggs and bacon.

You can also use this same batter with your waffle iron. It will probably take a bit of experimentation to figure which setting gives you the best results with your particular iron.