EGG NOG (Recipe)

CAPTAIN BRADLEY'S EGG NOG
© 11/15/07, 11/26/10. All rights reserved.

(The following is a recipe generously shared with me years ago by a retired Navy captain whose daughter was my first wife’s roommate at Hollins College.)

This is the real deal. Not for children or alcoholics or sissies.
Could be habit-forming. Probably not a good idea for the office Xmas party.
Protect the lamp shades! Drinkers might show their asses and get fired!
Guaranteed to turn any ol' crappy, boring Xmas party into a good time, however!

It makes almost a gallon of liquid, so make room!!

Create a LOT of space in the refrigerator. You will need it later.
Go buy a nutmeg grater and some FRESH whole nutmeg.
You don't want to use that crummy stale powder out of the little can.

Most of the following ingredients should be cold:

INGREDIENTS:
One quart whole milk
One quart whipping cream
One quart whiskey (rum, bourbon, rye, whatever CHEAP--probably not scotch!)
OK--750 ml. if you INSIST on using the metric system!! (Actually a bit more.)
12 TBSP granulated sugar
12 fresh raw eggs, separated
Lots o' nutmeg

ACTION:
Beat 12 egg yolks smooth and mix with sugar in medium bowl and dissolve sugar best as possible.
S-L-O-W-L-Y pour whiskey into yolk/sugar mix to "cook" the yolks while thoroughly stirring.
This step is probably the only thing that prevents illness from consuming raw egg.
You won't care, though. This ain't about your HEALTH!!!
The sugar should thoroughly dissolve.
Set aside.

IN A HUGE BOWL, PREF. STAINLESS STEEL OR COPPER:
Whisk or beat egg whites into thick froth with stiff "peaks." Set aside.
In another big bowl, whip cream into thick froth with stiff "peaks."
Blend egg yolks/sugar/whiskey mixture into whipped cream. Use whisk.
Blend in whipped egg whites.
Blend in quart of whole milk.

AT THIS POINT, the mix will still be very thick and frothy, and it will fill the bowl.
The whiskey taste will be prominent and powerful.
The color will be off-white/creamy.

THEN:
Add more whiskey if you like.
Put into refrigerator and chill after liberal taste-testing. One can't be too careful!
The whites and cream will separate and float over time, so re-whisk before tasting again, then serving COLD!!!
Add lots of nutmeg (preferably fresh-grated from whole nutmegs, as you were instructed) for serious taste augmentation!
Add more whiskey if you like. Just in case.

Get really screwed up! Gain lots of weight! Get thoroughly bloated! Waddle through your Xmas shopping!

Offer to refill guests' cups so you can sneak more for yourself! They will think you are merely a great host! (You selfish pig!)

If you like to live dangerously, keep adding more whiskey as the level drops!!

This thing has serious calories and serious booze effects. Screw the diet!

Seriously tasty. You will never touch that commercial dairy-case crap again!

In fact, you will wait anxiously all summer long for it to be Xmas again so you can make the egg nog!

And, screw Thanksgiving!

PEE-PUHL vs. "STATES' RIGHTS"

(The following was eventually published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch in slightly (& poorly) edited form on December 27, 2007 as "Correspondent of the Day.".)

I offer my commendations for both Bruce Tucker of Keswick, the "Correspondent of The Day" (December 19), and Barton Hinkle's Times-Dispatch column of November 27 addressing the clear meaning of "right of the people" in our Constitution and its Amendments.

The US Supreme Court will soon decide the meaning and significance of the plain language in the Second Amendment (*) as it conflicts with stringent gun-control laws in the District of Columbia. Unfortunately, many gun-control advocates seek to "cherry-pick" the Bill of Rights as Mr. Hinkle suggests. But, the Founders were not as sloppy with their use of language as folks are today!

The subject of the Amendment is not the maintenance of "a well-regulated militia." There is no predicate in that precatory "militia" clause! Proper diagramming identifies the subject ("right of the people") and the predicate ("shall not be infringed"). If disarmament be so compelling, then amending the Constitution is the only legitimate remedy.

Interestingly, John C. Calhoun (initially an ardent nationalist) said that the Constitution did NOT guarantee rights to "the people" individually but only collectively through their anointed proxies, the States!

In "Dominion of Memories," Professor Susan Dunn of Williams College cites Calhoun's arguments as derivative of those made by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. I was surprised to learn that they initiated both the Doctrine of "Nullification" and the Doctrine of "Interposition," the twin pillars of Calhoun's theories of "states' rights." As Mr. Hinkle points out, the states were reserved (not granted) only "powers" under the Tenth Amendment, not "rights." Only individuals have "rights" (as stated in the Ninth Amendment), and not just the recited ones, either!

If there are too many folks out there who should not have guns, then ignoring the plain language and meanings of the Founders at the whim of some political majority du jour is not the proper way to deal with the problem.

(*)  (Re: DC vs. HELLER, 2008, from Cornell Law School:)

In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.

PUT UP AND SHUT UP

(A slightly edited version of the following letter was published in "The Nation," issue dated December 31, 2007.)

Despite my general agreement with Katha Pollitt's observations about the futility of atheist "conversions," I am always troubled by apparent believers presuming us atheists to be evangelists for our own lack of belief.

I don't presume to speak for any other nonbeliever, and there have certainly been those (like Madalyn Murray O'Hair) who have proselytized the atheist "movement," but I really cannot be bothered to concern myself with what anyone else may or may not believe. The only thing that a committed atheist should be prepared to resist is any attempt to infuse faith-based nonsense into our governments. Each of us here has a fundamental right to secular, not atheistic governments. There is a big difference as far as I am concerned. Our governments are not permitted to take religious "sides" or positions under our Constitution. That is the promise not only of the First Amendment but also Article VI. That is so that each of us will be treated fairly by the government, not to "disprove" the existence of that which may not be disproved. (That would take a very flimsy deity, indeed!)

I almost always admit that I cannot disprove the existence of any deity. Why should I care? It is really none of my business what anyone else chooses to believe. Or not. That is what real freedom is about.

It IS my business to preserve that freedom, and I do so by insisting that my governments be secular and that people are not hurt or harassed in the name of religion.
*******************************************
The First Amendment obviously protects government officials in expression of their own individual religious beliefs, but that does not mean they should do so. Whenever acting as government officials, they should keep it to themselves. It is unethical and unpatriotic for them to do otherwise, based upon my reading of Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits a religious test for public office in the US.

HABEASS

HABEASS

© 12/5/07 All rights reserved.

In or about 2005, after the US Supreme Court (the “Court”) threw out two procedures used by President George W. Bush to detain alleged enemy combatants at the federal detention center at Guantanamo on the island of Cuba, the US Congress quickly passed a series of laws intended to address certain flaws found by the Court in those detentions effected merely on the basis of the President’s authority. The Court had said that, without congressional approval, such powers over detainees could not be allowed. The implication was, however, that if the Congress did “bless” such arrangements, the Court would allow them.

Among the many anti-terror provisions promoted by the Bush Administration and recently adopted as law, the Congress prohibited the courts from hearing any detainee claims seeking writs of habeas corpus (Latin literally translated as “produce the body”). Such writs have been part of the Anglo-American legal system since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 CE by King John of England, and they were formally adopted by the Parliament at least 400 years ago. The writ is usually directed to the local sheriff to produce in court a prisoner who is claiming some sort of legal deprivation. In England the sheriff enforced the King's laws, so such a writ addressed to a sheriff was deemed also addressed to the King. It established the primacy of the courts over the government.

It has been argued that the habeas corpus process is unduly cumbersome and may well result in terrorists being released to harm Americans. Other provisions of law so adopted prohibit such detainees from having pesky lawyers or being allowed to know the witnesses and evidence being used against them. It also allows the government to imprison the alleged “terrorists” (solely identified or determined by the government) without charge or trial unless and until the government feels like providing such. It is argued that the fact that these persons are held outside of the actual boundaries of the United States enables these summary procedures to be used against them.

Under the US Constitution as originally drafted and adopted, the Congress is allowed to manipulate the appeals jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court (but not the original jurisdiction, which is specifically established under the Constitution). Thus, it has been argued that the Congress can totally prohibit certain kinds of cases from ever being heard by the Court (such as habeas corpus cases or Guantanamo “terrorist” cases). Since all that was written and adopted, however, the Constitution has been further amended by the adoption of the 5^th Amendment to require that all persons receive due process under the law. Thus, I would argue that the Congress may well restrict and manipulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, SO LONG AS it does not compromise that “due process” provision.

Finally, this week, the Court heard arguments on behalf of certain detainees who are claiming habeas corpus rights and also to be allowed other basic procedural rights like access to a lawyer, specificity of charges and accusations, right to confront witnesses and evidence, and so forth. Such rights are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights to persons inside the US, but they are supposedly eliminated for alleged “enemy combatants” and alleged “terrorists” being held at Guantanamo.  That's not what the Bill of Rights says, though.

On December 5, I was listening to some of the oral argument in a Supreme Court case being broadcast on C-SPAN. I heard the government’s lawyer claim that the new statutory procedures are probably “better” than the habeas corpus procedures as they were understood to exist in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted in Philadelphia. (The Bill of Rights was adopted about 18 months later.)  The lawyer admitted that habeas corpus rights as interpreted today are probably more expansive than the rights granted under the new federal laws for detainees. In any event, in response to multiple questions from the Justices, he further admitted that the government was seeking to ban any use of habeas corpus by detainees, but he said that the new laws would give them “adequate” alternative rights that would ensure no innocent persons would be unfairly held or punished.

Several of the Justices pointed out that the current case had been pending for over six years, and the government lawyer admitted that as well. However, he said, that was due to the uncertainty of the law creating "unexpected delays" in the progress of the cases. He further admitted that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the new laws did not allow any habeas corpus proceedings, so there was no way such appeals should proceed to the Supreme Court. Several Justices inquired how a detainee could get alternative relief and a full and fair review of his case if ultimate jurisdiction was so limited. The government lawyer suggested that the Court could uphold the new laws on “alternate grounds” and spell out for the lower courts how to proceed promptly EVEN IF there was no way to get further review directly.

One of the detainees’ lawyer pointed out in rebuttal that the evidence used against his client was not shown to the accused nor to the lawyer; that even the trial judge’s written opinion had been “redacted” (partially deleted with black lines) which the accused and the lawyer had not been allowed to fully read; that the government and military got to create and validate the “evidence” used against the accused which the DC Circuit Court had said was sufficient for the conviction; that the DC Circuit Court had prohibited the accused from introducing sworn affidavits of foreign nationals not subject to subpoena, which affidavits specifically refuted the “evidence” compiled by the government, on the specious grounds that no further evidence should be considered by the courts; that the trial judge had described the government’s case as “Kafka-esque” in its bias against and unfairness toward the accused.  No big deal.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the trial judge’s decision in favor of the accused, reinstated the detention without charge, without lawyer, without evidence and without due process, and the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court is composed of nine justices who serve for life. Five (simple majority) can decide any case. Five are alleged "conservatives" appointed by Presidents Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The Congress is subject to the provisions of the Constitution just like the President, but the Court has signaled that the problems it found with the earlier presidential procedures can be remedied by the blessings of Congress. Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution spells out specifically that the privilege of habeas corpus “shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” There has yet to be any specific finding by the Congress nor any court of a state of “rebellion” or “invasion.”

In short, there is a major constitutional crisis pending in these matters. It all depends upon the decision of the Supreme Court in these matters. If the Court decides that these accused persons are entitled to some or all of the relief sought, certain people will feel very threatened and certain politicians will try to inflame those fears and exploit them. There could be a substantial revolt against such a decision by the Court since fears and tensions are now almost at fever pitch. That would not bode well for respect for the Court, which has no army to enforce its decisions.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if the Court rules against the accused, then it will validate the short-cut procedures that have been used in this set of cases, and the damage to the Constitution and Bill of Rights is obvious to me. Many of the ordinary people who are citizens of the United States are fierce in their devotion to "The Flag," and they are very critical of those who demur from pledging allegiance thereto. They seem much less devoted to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and to its core principles, which is where their sole allegiance should be, according to Article VI therein. They are virtually intolerant of a lot of “legal double-talk and folderol.” And, they are very intolerant of non-Christian presumed “terrorists” who should be locked up and held until they might “prove” their innocence.

______________________________

AWAY IN A DANGER

Did I say, “Danger”? I guess I meant “manger.”

One of the sure ways to go to Hell for Eternity is to mess with the Baby Jesus. It is too late for me, but perhaps I can dissuade some other youngsters from following my path of depravity. When I was young and reckless (I’m cured now), I was eager to celebrate the Birth of the Baby Jesus each year with liberal use of exploding devices. 
 Back in the 1950’s I was one of several feral boys growing older in rural North Carolina, where firecrackers were absolutely forbidden. It was just a short drive, however, to the Virginia State Line, and the licensed older brother of one of my cohorts was usually willing to transport us there to acquire all manner of explosives then legally sold there, and with a little wheedling, we might be able to purchase some of the really neat Forbidden Fruit sold from, literally, under the counter. Like cherry bombs. And silver bombs (known otherwise by some as “M-80’s”). The really loud stuff.

And in our pious religious zeal, we were only too happy to welcome the Birth of the Christ Child with lots of loud explosions all over several neighborhoods at night, during the Christmas Break from school. I can still feel the cold air hard on my face and plunging into my lungs as we breathlessly prepared our charges and ran like Hell to get away from the dangerous effects AND the risk of apprehension. We knew from experience that we were bullet-proof and would live forever!

Now, I had one friend who was particularly scheming and nefarious in his use of said exploding stuff. There was a great lady who lived just up the hill from my house, and she always decorated her big, beautiful holly bush in the front yard with wonderful colored outdoor lights. It was a reliable icon of Christmas to see those lights go up on the bush each year, and they were truly wonderful. But that did not stop us from "taking steps.”

My friend (let’s not reveal his name here, just for the sake of protecting the guilty), had figured out that the ladyfinger firecrackers (of which we always had pocketfuls) would wedge just nicely in the crease between the bulb and the socket. He then demonstrated that said ladyfinger would explode from the heat of the bulb given enough time. Enough time to easily make our escape. And, of course, that great lady would have absolutely no idea who was sneaking into her front yard under cover of darkness and blowing up her Christmas lights.  No-sir!  As I was the only adolescent male in the neighborhood, we were sure of it!

Now, back in the years immediately following World War II, most Christmas lights were wired in series, meaning that the current for each light had to pass through all the other lights. Thus, if one light went out, the whole string went out. And, unfortunately, those beautiful, multi-colored holly-tree lights were wired in series, so that when the ladyfinger popped, the whole string of lights went dark, gratifying our craven little souls to no end. We were greatly amused at the magnificent power we wielded with such minimal effort. Each year she would put up those lights, and each year we would pop them off at least once. The fact that we were annoying my poor neighbor greatly did not even enter into the equation. This was not about her. We had no beef with her. We just liked to plan and execute. Just like soldiers blowing up Jap or German bridges in war movies.

It never occurred to any of us that most rational adults would readily conclude that we were at the bottom of these pranks. We were impervious to such conclusions. After all, if we were not actually caught in the act, then in our linear minds we had what would later come to be known as “plausible deniability.” We had no comprehension that such an absurd defense would be as equally ineffective then as it is today. It is sobering to reflect on those times and to realize that those national leaders claiming such defenses today are exhibiting no more intellectual sophistication than we were able to muster on those cold winter nights. One must wonder what those folks reflect upon, if anything.

Eventually, we tired of such stuff and quit making those essential runs to Virginia to obtain the contraband necessary for our nasty deeds. I guess we had done just about everything that could be done with fireworks and got bored. But practically all of us were at one time captivated by the notion that having time off from school meant using fireworks. It was a given. It was a true Christmas Tradition!

______________________________

JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS

From "Wilderness: A Journal of Quiet Adventure in Alaska" by Rockwell Kent, 1919:

Doing as one is told is an attractive trait in children and a most unsettling trait in grown-ups.

DEATH, AS DEFINED BY CHILDREN (Song)

(The following is a ditty we used to sing as children for our own amusement that I recently sent to a friend, after commenting on a TV program I saw about pathologists studying dead bodies' decomposition and recording the data therefrom to assist with time-of-death determinations.)

"Didja ever think when a hearse goes by,
That you would be the next to die?
They wrap you in a big white sheet,
And bury you about 6 feet deep.

You're quite all right for the first few weeks,
But then your coffin starts to leak--
The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
The worms play pinochle on your snout!

Your stomach turns a slimy green,
And guts pour out like thick whipped cream!
You sop it up with a piece of bread,
And that's what you eat after you're dead!

BAPTIST, CATHOLIC, JEW (Joke #1)

A Baptist, a Catholic and a Jew are in a lifeboat.
The ship has sunk and the seas are raging all around, and the lifeboat is almost swamped.
The Baptist prays, "Wash me of my sins, Lord, and deliver me from this peril!"
The Catholic prays, "I now confess my sins, Lord; please deliver me from this peril!"
The Jew says, "Oy! Haven't I been punished enough, already?"

Alpha & Omega (2 poems)

exquisite

Breath, oh so hard coming; my

Chest is thick with anticipation.

Sleep is a dear experience; time

Crawls, as in a cannabine fog.

Defining this exquisite excruciation,

Opining as to its "very real sense."

Nonsense! I can no more than babble--

Consequence eludes consciousness.

"UNDERSTAND, NOW, one can't be too hasty in such matters-

On first and second date, stay cool, don't

Drool all over her,

Fool!" Restraint escapes discipline.

She is almost here; I clock her course,

Breezing, breathing, closer in my mind.

Let her presence be as thrilling as her image;

Yet her memorized features hide from my straining brain.

A car door's muffled thud:

Ardor's racing past uncertainty.

Passion jolts my heart as I see her,

Dashing into my arms' tight embrace.

(November 6, 1987)

exit

Breath, oh so hard coming; my

Chest is thick with pain and dread.

Sleep is a dear experience; time

Crawls, as in a cannabine fog.

Defining this exit excruciation,

Opining as to its "very real sense."

Nonsense! I can no more than babble--

Consequence eludes consciousness.

"UNDERSTAND, NOW, one can't be too hasty in such matters-

No first or second dates; don't fret,

Time yet for tears, fears;

Opine as to what happened. Knowledge escapes consciousness.

She is gone now; I clock her course,

Leaving, fading, farther from my mind.

Oh, how her presence was so thrilling, so reassuring;

Now her memorized features hide from my straining brain.

A car door's muffled thud:

Ardor's racing past uncertainty.

Fear and sadness jolt my heart; it is not she,

No longer in my arms' tight embrace.

(May 18, 2006)

"Creator" vs. "creator"

Many folks these days are citing Thomas Jefferson’s references in the Declaration of Independence to “Creator” and to “Nature’s God” as “proof” that the Founders intended for the United States government to be a dedicated Christian government. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration in 1776, and he was also the primary author of a lesser-known document that is memorialized on his tombstone, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

The Statute is still codified in Virginia law as Section 57-1. I would describe its language as “sternly separationist,” but others might be of a different opinion. The Statute is spread below in the "February" chapter of this Blogsite, so you readers may draw your own conclusions.

One of the more interesting aspects of the Statute is the explicit warning from Jefferson that pseudo-moralistic do-gooders would subsequently try to modify the Statute and destroy the strict separation of religion and government contained in it. My delegate, Bill Janis, a self-righteous, disingenuous, pompous Republican ass, attempted to modify the underlying separationist language in the Virginia Constitution by introducing an overt religion-promoting amendment in 2006 that was fortunately killed in a Virginia Senate committee after passing the House of Delegates. He vehemently argued the fraudulent pretext that he was merely trying to promote religious liberty thereby. Most Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates do not respect history. His attempted dirty work is also recited below.

It is simply inconceivable to me that the same person who authored the strict separation found in the Virginia Statute intended to manifest an overt Christian purpose to the American Revolution. That is illogical and also disregards Jefferson’s clear self-description as a “Deist,” not a Christian. Nevertheless, the “Jesus crowd” desperately insists on the foregoing citations as their “proof.”

Keep in mind the following facts:

Modern German capitalizes ALL nouns. Routinely.

Written English was not "standardized" until the advent of public schools and widely distributed texts (like the "McGuffey Reader") beginning in the late 1800's.

Writers of English in the 1700's ROUTINELY capitalized all nouns. This is reflected in the script copies of both the Declaration and of the Constitution, at least the first reference to any noun is capitalized.

I have always believed this was a habitual holdover from ancient Anglo-Saxon which is /was a Germanic language. Perhaps that is just a coincidence, but I think not.

Now, as noted above, American religionists make much of Jefferson's capitalized use of "Creator" endowing the "unalienable Rights" granted by "Nature and Nature's God" etc. as evidence that Jefferson was a practicing Christian who INTENDED to establish a Christian theocracy here with special references to Yahweh. How anyone could assume that the author of the Va. Statute for Religious Freedom could have intended a Christian theocracy is abusurd in the extreme! Obviously, those who so argue have never read Jefferson's Statute. The Statute is unambiguously and viciously secular in its reach and intent!

I happen to think that Jefferson's Declaratory references to "Creator" and "Nature's God" would be routinely written under modern grammar rules as "creator" and "nature's god," but I cannot prove it. I doubt very seriously if Jefferson was referring to the Judeo-Christian Yahweh in the Declaration. I think he'd be stunned to hear the modern religionist arguments to the contrary!

In any event, the religionists can't prove their theories, either! We will likely never know for sure.

There are some other “sacred cows” that need some attention:

In Article VI in the main body of the Constitution there is a specific prohibition of religious tests for public office. Never mind the First Amendment. It also prohibits oaths and affirmations for public officials for ANYTHING other than to support the Constitution. No pledges of loyalty to "graven images" like flags and crosses and swastikas may be demanded of public officials.

Thus, I think professions of religious faith by political candidates are unethical and unconstitutional, and I think journalistic prurience therefor is also unethical!! A journalist may only legitimately raise the issue if a hypocritical situation presents itself. Of course, the First Amendment protects these sorts of utterances, but that does not satisfy the ethical dilemma.

So, I would also submit that the Virginia law requiring public-school students to pledge and their teachers to lead allegiance to a flag is unconstitutional, regardless of the "under God" stuff. In my opinion, Michael Newdow was an arrogant idiot! He set constitutional law back seriously with a very bad precedent.

True patriots should not stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, nor should they tolerate candidate professions of religious belief nor the journalists who make such inquiries. Our loyalties as citizens should be strictly to the Constitution.