A couple months ago, I posted the wonderful Kukla, Fran and Ollie production of “The Mikado,” which they aired on June 7, 1950. (And I posted here.) This comes from the show the very next day – when the Kuklapolitans and Fran do a post-mortem of the operetta. It all starts full of glorious praise…but soon gets detailed in criticism of almost everything, including the camerawork and how the music director wore his hat, as well as Fletcher Rabbit’s diction, Gilbert & Sullivan’s writing, Fran forgetting some words and more, as it all devolves into a disarray of sniping.) But of course what I most loved was that it all begins with a brief scene between Kukla and my fave, the insane Cecil Bill who speaks no known language.
0 Comments
We'll now play a game.
Yesterday, Mike Pompeo named who he considers the Most Dangerous Person in the World (and added that it's "not a close call"). You, dear readers, get a chance to guess who you think that is. Just some perspective to help your decided. Mike Pompeo is a former directors of the CIA. He also served as Secretary of State under Trump. So, he's seen his share of Dangerous People in the World. Literally, face to face. And from deep background. Among the people on the list you can choose from are war criminal Vladimir Putin. Or China's Xi Xinping. Or Kim Jong-Un. Or Turkish dictator Tayyip Erdogan. Or Hungary dictator Viktor Orban whose top adviser quit by calling Orban's speeches the sort of thing you'd hear from Hitler. Or...well, pick any dictator, this is your guess, after all. Okay, are all your votes in? Well, to start the elimination process, no, it's not Putin, Xi, Kim, Erdogan, Orban -- or any dictator. Or terrorist. Or Trump, who Pompeo knows up close. To Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director and former Secretary of State, the Most Dangerous Person in the World -- and "it's not a close call" -- is... ...Randi Weingarten. Really. Honest Okay, so how many of you got that right? "Randi Weingarten???," I hear most of you understandably call out. Yes, you read correctly. Randi Weingarten. Randi Weingarten is the head of the American Federation of Teachers!! According to Mike Pompeo (who, lest we forget, is who handed Afghanistan back to Abdul Ghani Baradar. the co-founder of the Taliban), she is the Most Dangerous Person in the World. And "it's not a close call." Actually, it's even worse than that. And yes, that's possible. Because Pompeo -- former director of the CIA -- went on to talk about who he supposedly believed was "most likely to take this republic down.’ And to Pompeo, who actually worked closely with Trump who literally fomented an Insurrection to take this republic down -- he chose to ignore that and said, "It would be the teacher’s unions, and the filth that they’re teaching our kids, and the fact that they don’t know math and reading or writing." You'd think his throat would have immediately congealed, and his body shriveled and began shaking uncontrollably before it burst into flames, leaving only the remnants of bones and some ashes spread on the ground. But no, he was able to continue on with his pandering, fascist campaign to one day be president. And what's so otherworldly about this is not that Mike Pompeo was so pandering extremist and fascist in his comments, but that he went so blatantly and foolishly and hyperbolically overboard that it's so easily dismissed. And that even all but the most lost and disturbed of the far-right were likely scratching their heads saying, "Who??" And upset that he didn't say "Nancy Pelosi." Or "Alexandria Ocasio Cortez." Or "Kamala Harris." Or "Joe Biden." Or "Adam Schiff." Or "Jack Smith." Ms. Weingarten called the pandering Pompeo "desperate to be labeled an extremist" in his attempt to be elected president and said his comments were either "ridiculous or dangerous." Given that this is right out of the first chapter of the fascist playbook to undermine any other authority figures -- and this case it's schoolteachers! -- I'll go with dangerous. But man, is it ever ridiculous. As is pandering, shameless Mike Pompeo's thought that he will be elected president. And to complete our Food Day here at Elisberg Industries, here's the return of my article I inaugurated two years ago about cranberry sauce. Since we're nearing Thanksgiving, I figured it was a good time to bring back my Thanksgiving-related piece from last year that starts with one of the fun "50 people try to make..." videos from Epicurious. It was perfect for a few reasons -- and one of those reasons mean, too, that this will be a bit different than the others we post here. This is for making cranberry sauce. The main reason this is perfect is because making cranberry sauce seems to scare people off and instead they buy it from a can. Usually the one that's gelatin-style, which is a very unfair thing to do to a cranberry. And the thing is, making cranberry sauce is SO mind-numbingly easy -- I mean truly brain-dead easy, literally not much more difficult than opening a can, though it takes just a little more time -- and it is SO much better than canned that it's almost like eating a different food. Indeed, it tastes like the fruit it is. In fact, cranberry sauce is even easier to make than the professional Epicurious chef describes it at the end, since he says you should keep stirring it all the time, and I've never done that. I stir it a few times at the beginning and a couple times as it cooks, but I don't stand over the pot stirring. Also, this was perfect because it allows me to present a recipe to show how easy it is. And it's perfect too since it lets me present my own twist on the easy recipe that is almost as easy, and (I believe) soooooooo much better. I love making cranberry sauce not only because it's so easy and people are impressed that "You actually made it?!", but also because the end result is so much better than people think it will be. And they don't realize how easy it was. First, here's the video. It's a lot of fun, especially when knowing ahead how bizarrely and ridiculously easy it is -- and delicious. Okay, first, here's how actually easy it is to make.
Ingredients: I package of washed cranberries 1 cup of water 1 cup of sugar Yes, that's it. Pour the water and sugar in the pot, stir and bring the mixture to a slow simmer. Then, dump in the bag of cranberries, stir, cook for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally. And that's all. Really. As I said, that truly isn't much more difficult than opening a can. And it's delicious, and tastes like a real fruit, because it is. You could probably eat it hot, but I refrigerate it until it's cool and gels on its own from the sugar. But here's my recipe to make it even better. You can adapt the amounts according to your taste. You'll note that it uses apple -- I got that trick from my Grandma Rose. I'll explain more about that in a moment. Ingredients: I package of cranberries 3/4 cup of water 1/4 cup of dry sherry 3/4 cup of sugar 1 apple, cut to cranberry-sized pieces. (I generally use Red Delicious) You make the dish almost the same way. Bring the water, sherry and sugar to a slow simmer. (Let it boil to cook the alcohol out.) Mix in the bag of cranberries and the chopped up apples. Stir, cook for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally. And that's it. Ideally, let it cool. And taste it -- if you feel that the apples didn't sweeten it enough for your taste, just mix in some more sugar until it's how you like it. Why apple rather than orange peel and orange juice like many recipes suggest (including the Epicurious chef)? A few reasons. First, orange peel is bitter and orange juice is acidic, and since cranberries are bitter to begin with, I think the sweetness of apples are a better complimentary mix. Second, what Grandma Rose knew is that because apples are so sweet, you can use less sugar (which also brings the calories down). Third, she also knew that the blended flavor of apples and cranberry was especially delicious, almost like strawberry (or strawberry-rhubarb). And finally, the main reason Grandma Rose liked to use apples is because they have natural pectin, so it creates it's own "gel." So, way to go, Grandma Rose! And to those concerned about the alcohol from the sherry, know that boiling the sherry cooks the alcohol out of it. But if you don't want the sherry, fine, leave it out and just use a cup of water. But I think it adds a rich flavor. But that's how incredibly easy it is to make cranberry sauce. And to make it even better. This is one of those times when I need a breather, so we’re going All Food today. This morning I’m going to write about something that people who bake most surely know intimately. And even people who don’t bake likely will think, well, yes, of course that makes sense. But making sense and “Really?? That much difference??” are two different things. More to the point, this didn’t occur to me, and I’m sure I’m not totally alone. To be clear, I don’t bake much. If I did, this wouldn’t be the topic of the day. I cook semi-okay, but I only really bake two things with any regularity – pumpkin bread and pumpkin pie. You can probably pick up on the theme. Yes, I love pumpkin. One constant in my various cooking adventures (and the eating end of things) is that I try to keep my fat intake down for health reasons. In fact, when I make my “pumpkin pie,” I just make the filling. Much as I love pie crust, it’s overwhelming in fat. So, I basically make a custard. It’s very good, and when made with non-fat evaporated milk, an entire pie is something like only 500 calories. (And when topped with non-fat whipped cream, it’s rich and delicious.) It’s thin, without the height you get when a crust is involved, but it’s the pumpkin part I love. So be it. I’ve been making both these dishes for many years, probably 20-25 years. Another health change is that I use egg white Egg Beaters-type products. It’s fine, and the end results are still quite good. Within the past year, though, I’ve started getting eggs on occasion after a very long time. (That was always another reason I used Egg Beaters in my baking – I didn’t eat eggs, so I just didn’t have them around, and most of the carton would go to waste.) But as much as I was absolutely fine with the flavor of Egg Beaters in my baked items, I wasn’t crazy about them scrambled. And of course, you can’t make fried eggs, which I do sort of, kind of like a little. So, I read up on eggs and saw that one or two eggs a week is perfectly fine, so I figured it was worth getting once in a while. Now, I have a couple eggs on the weekend, and maybe egg white dish during the week. Which brings up to the baking part of our show. Now that I had eggs around, I figured I’d use them in my pumpkin bread first. And it was revelatory. The pumpkin bread was far more moist and richer than it’s ever been. I brought a loaf over to my cousin and his wife – and they almost wolfed down half of it while I was there, and asked for the recipe. Hmm, I thought, I appear to be onto a good thing… And then I made the pumpkin pie, with real eggs, not Egg Beaters. O my heavens. I could tell the moment I took the pies out of the oven that there was a different. They were as thick as any pumpkin pie I’d seen. It turns out that they weren’t thin in the past because there was no crust to support them and give them height – it was because they weren’t being made with actual eggs and the egg yolks that come with them. And rather than being a bit soft and crumbly, the filling with compact. I didn’t have to oh-so-caaaaarefully transfer a piece to my plate without some collapsing and having to reshape it. (Something I thought occurred because there was no crust underneath to support it.) Now, a bit, thick piece of pumpkin pie cuts and transfers with ease. And…tasty as the pie was before, the flavor now is rich and delicious. It is no longer like eating tasty pumpkin pie filling – it’s like eating a piece of pumpkin pie. Yes, crust would be even better. But I don’t miss it. (And honestly, I usually don’t eat most of the crust when I get a piece of pie…) By the way, for those who count such things (I really don't, just the fat), the calorie and fat content is still incredibly low. For this large slice (cut six pieces to a pie, not eight) -- with the whipped cream -- it's only around 200 calories and 1-1/2 grams of fat. For comparison's sake, a regular slice of pumpkin pie this size with crust and as much regular whipped cream would be about 600 calories and 30 grams of fat. And (for my taste) it's delicious. Is it as good as a standard piece of pumpkin pie? Hey, there's no crust, how could it be??! But everything other than the crust -- y'know, the whole pumpkin part of the pumpkin pie -- that's personal taste, but I truly don't think it would disappoint. And this is why I have a piece every night. But separate from the point here. I digress... The point is the eggs. So, back to the matter at hand. Yes, as I said, I know that all this about the eggs is “Well, duh” territory for bakers. And it's something that likely sounds obvious to many non-bakers. And even to me now. But – I didn’t think the difference would be this significant and even this noticeable. And it is. Noticeable even from the moment I took it out of the oven. [UPDATE: In response to a question, I posted my recipe with tweaks below in the User Comments section.] And that’s today “Well, duh” episode of Chef’s Corner. If you didn't see "Last Week Tonight" with John Oliver last night, the Main Story was on the FIFA organization handing the rights to hold the World Cup tournament in Qatar, a nation widely known for its significant human rights abuses and repressive government. The report is very interesting, detailed and gives Oliver (who acknowledges his deep love of the sport) a continuing opportunity for humor. On Sunday, Kevin McCarthy told Fox "News" that he vowed to keep his promise to remove major Democratic voices – Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell – from having committee assignments, as well as Ilhan Omar, clear retribution for when Democrats voted to keep Marjorie Taylor Green from serving on committees. Of course, McCarthy is a bit premature since he has to convince his own GOP caucus to actually vote him Speaker first (likely, though no sure thing), but that’s just a pesky detail. And then, with Republicans holding only a tiny margin in the Houses, he’ll have to convince virtually the entire Republican caucus to support kicking these three Democrats off committees. Possible, but no sure thing. To put this in perspective and show the vast difference between the two circumstances, when Democrats blocked Greene, she was so deeply toxic that they actually got 11 Republicans to agree and vote with them. Should McCarthy get a chance to do as he promised, I feel certain, as in 100% certain and will take any bet for any amount, that he will get zero Democratic votes.
"I'll keep that promise," McCarthy said. "I will not allow [Swalwell] to be on Intel. You have Adam Schiff who had lied to the American public time and time again. We will not allow him to be on the Intel Committee either." Well…that’s sure not an especially compelling argument for doing something so historically drastic. Offering specifics of what he means by “lying time and time again” would help. But to make things easier for McCarthy, I’m not even suggesting he provide examples of “lying” -- time and time again -- that are so egregious it deserves being removed from all committee assignments. But it would be cool if he would give (or could give) examples of any “lying to the American public time and time again.” Of course, the added problem for McCarthy is that, putting aside these three Democrats, if he's now making the case that not “lying” is his new standard for a House member to serve on a committee, then House committees are going to be pretty barren places. Most especially with Republican election deniers flooding the halls for the past two years. (A bit of history reminder: Republicans were upset with Schiff, who led the first of two Trump impeachment trials, when they cried he had lied in describing what was said on Trump’s blackmailing call to Ukraine president Zelensky. However, given that Schiff himself said very clearly that he would not be giving “the exact transcribed version of the call” (since there is, in fact, no transcript of the call, so it is near-impossible to actually quote it exactly) and instead said specifically he would only be explaining “the essence of what the president communicates" to Zelensky -- in no reality is that by any definition “lying.” Let alone “lying time and time again.” Was there hyperbole and exaggeration in what Rep. Schiff then related? Probably. Was it “the essence” of what Trump said? Most assuredly, because it's on the record and even Republicans don’t refute it. And it’s for this that Kevin McCarthy claims that Adam Schiff not only “lied,” but “lied to the American public time and time again.” And wants to keep him off all committees for it.) Why in the world McCarthy wants to kick Eric Swalwell off is anybody’s guess, other than petulance and not liking the guy. Or the reason is "just because." Or it's okay in the fascist playbook. As for removing Ilan Omar from committees, McCarthy suggested that she was too antisemitic to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I would suggest that if Kevin McCarthy wants to keep an elected U.S. representative off a committee because of suggested “anti-Semitism,” he instead had better start providing a list of actual examples to prove his issue, rather than just hint (wink-wink) at something, so that people who hate her can smarmily draw their own conclusion to support their hatred. (By the way, I think she is too relentlessly critical of Israel. But that isn’t anti-Semitism. Nor is she wrong all the time about her criticism.) Most surprising, though, is that McCarthy would want to go on the record saying that House Republicans considered anti-Semitism a negative. This not only would likely come as a huge surprise to many House Republicans. But most important of all is to understand that because McCarthy's "vow" is retribution for Democrats -- and 11 Republicans -- having voted to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from committees, there were very real, very public, very specific and very many reasons for that action. She wasn’t kicked off for “lying time and time again.” She wasn't kicked off for lying at all. She wasn’t kicked off because Democrats didn’t like her (though they abhor her). She was removed from all her committees because of her detailed and documented -- as NPR described it -- “history of trafficking in racism, anti-Semitism and baseless conspiracy theories, along with her support for online comments encouraging violence against Democratic officials prior to taking office.” And again, 11 Republicans joined Democrats in voting to remove her committee assignments. And they all, from both parties, did so because of a long and specific history of racism, crazy and dangerous conspiracy theories and…and…and advocating violence against Democrats!! That is the extensive standard Democrats required before kicking an out-of-control member of Congress off her committees. Including, y’know, like encouraging violence against fellow members. By the way, if Kevin McCarthy does get enough votes to become House Speaker and if he does put forth this proposal to kick all three Democrats off committees, I would suggest – with the razor thin margin Republicans will have – it’s not at all a sure thing that he will be able to hold the GOP caucus together and get enough votes to take away committee assignments from Democratic leaders Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, but also not just an easy target to Republicans like Ilhan Omar. Not just knowing how respected Schiff and Swalwell especially are, but knowing that it risks serious payback against any of them. But there’s also an even larger issue here. If Republicans go ahead and kick Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar off committee assignments, it will only serve to add cyclonic spins of the death spiral the Republican Party is currently going through, pulling them down into a deep, dark hole in the bowels of the earth. The Republican fascist base may love it, but this is the sort of anti-democratic thing pretty much the rest of the country gets aghast at. Indeed, even if there were some independents on general principle who didn’t want Marjorie Taylor Greene to be removed from committees, I’m sure that they at least understand why it was done, knowing what her history of outlandish, crazed, conspiracy theory, QAnon-supporting, racist, violence-promoting actions were. But I'm sure they will have absolutely no idea why Republicans would be kicking off Schiff, Swalwell and Ohan. They will see it for what it is – a fascist, political effort to undermine democracy, trying to discredit your political opponents…in the midst of Republican efforts to impeach President Biden, Vice-President Harris, Attorney General Garland, Secretary of State Blinken and investigate the FBI, DOJ, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the president’s private citizen son. And now add that just yesterday, Republican Jim Jordan (R-OH) suggested that they might want to investigate the just-named Special Counsel Jack Smith – who hasn’t even started his job yet, so he couldn’t possibly have done anything to investigate, other than be the internationally-admired, leading prosecutor for the World Court of war criminals. Which, for all I know, Republicans today are against. This will not go over well with the American public. After all, we saw how disastrously it went over in the Midterms when extremists were unilaterally defeated. When the GOP’s expected “red wave” turned into a trickle, on the verge of even losing seats in the Senate. And Republicans saw it to. Yet they are not just doubling down or tripling down on that debacle, including still pushing abortion bans, but throwing the entire deck on the table and going all in – on a hand that doesn’t even have as much as a pair of deuces. With all those cards turned face side up for everyone to see. Even if Kevin McCarthy (assuming he actually does become House Speaker, and then is able to keep the position) only proposes this action but it goes nowhere, it will be deeply problematic for Republicans because it will show further – and on the record – what their leadership wants in its efforts to undermine democracy. And it will add weight to how the public sees all their fascist actions, while doing absolutely nothing to actually deal with inflation, crime, the environment and all issues they cried about during the Midterms that truly affect America’s daily lives. But further, even if McCarthy backs off from cooler, wiser, saner heads and doesn’t ultimately propose such a lamebrained scheme, knowing how it will be perceived and deeply backfire, he will then anger his support among the extremist-right in Congress for going back on his “vow.” And so the GOP death spiral continues. Round and round it goes, sucking the party down in the dark bowels of the earth. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|