Share it

Monday, April 14, 2014

Yahoo really wants me to do this

Yahoo, in an apparent effort to reduce spam, is requiring people who are sending links to other email addresses to also include some text. Because I send a lot of links from my Yahoo account -- the one I use for my usual stuff -- to my gmail account -- the one I use for my blog stuff -- I have to always includ some kind of text in the message to go with the link. Given  the National Security Agency's recent admission that it intercepts essentially all of our email, and NSA Director James Clapper's defense of NSA actions, I think it is only natural that my text is always "Eat me, Clapper." On the one hand, it enables me to escape the Yahoo spam trap. On the other hand, I can only imagine the file building on me over at the NSA.

Why, yes, it is more food porn, why do you ask?

While I was neither barefoot nor pregnant, I did spend a significant portion of the weekend in the kitchen, which I suppose makes me an oppressed woman. Or does it? Hell if I know. I do know, however, that I cranked out a casserole that is pretty damn good and worthy of a food porn episode, so here it is.

Naturally, it all starts with the ingredaments. You will need six boneless, skinless chicken breast halves, 1-1/2 cups of chicken broth, 1/2 cup dry white wine, 1-1/2 tsp salt, 1/8 tsp pepper, 1/2 tsp curry powder, 1 medium onion, chopped, 2 ribs of celery, sliced, 12 ounces of mushrooms, sliced, 4 tbsps butter, 1 package of Uncle Ben's Long Grain and Wild Rice, 1 cup sour cream, 1 can cream of chicken soup, and 1/2 cup sliced almonds:


Start by browning the chicken breasts:


While that's going on, chop up the onions and celery:


Toss that in with the breasts to sautee a bit:


Next, combine the chicken broth with the wine, salt, pepper and curry powder, and add it to the browned chicken and sauteed vegetable in an oven-safe casserole dish (large) and cover and simmer for about 30 minutes.


 Meanwhile, slice the mushrooms:


then heat the butter in a skillet:


 and toss in the mushrooms, sauteeing them over medium heat until lightly browned:


Remove the chicken, vegetables and broth from the heat, separate and let cool:


Cut the chicken into bite-sized pieces. Use the broth as the liquid to cook the wild rice, per package instructions. If not enough broth is left to meet the instructions, add a little water:


While you're waint for the rice to cook, stir together the soup and sour cream:


Combine the chicken and vegetables:

 
Stir in the mushrooms:


Stir in the rice once cooked:


Mix it all up right:


While you're stirring shit in, stir in the soup-sour cream mix:


Mix that all up right, too:


Top that stuff with the slivered almonds and bake it covered for 45 minutes. Then uncover it and bake it for 15 more minutes. If it seems to be drying out, add a little water:


It is most excellent. Bon appetit.





Sunday, April 13, 2014

A random act of food porn

So, I wasn't doing anything in particular the other night except fixing dinner, so I decided it was a good night for some food porn. Hell, it's always a good night for some food porn. In any event, I decided to fix some pork chops with roasted apples and onions. I think you'll like it.

You start with 1 tbsp of canola oil, 1-1/2 cups of pearl onions, 1/2 cup chicken broth, 2 cups of sliced gala apples, 4-6 pork chops, bone-in or out, I don't care, but about a half-inch thick, 1/2 tsp pepper, 1/2 tsp kosher salt, 2 cups cooked rice, 1/2 cup chicken broth, 1/2 tsp flour, 1 tsp cider vinegar, 1 tbsp butter, divided and 2 tsps thyme:


To start, heat the oven to 400 degrees F. Heat a large oven-proof skillet on medium high, add half the canola and swirl to coat. Slice those apples, like so:


Once that pan is hot, toss those onions in and cook until lightly browned, stirring once. 


Add the sliced apples, put the pan in the oven for 10 minutes or until onions, apples are tender.


 Meanwhile, stir up 2 tsps butter, thyme, ¼ tsp salt, ¼ tsp pepper.


 Stir that into the apples and onions, and set aside.


Heat a separate skillet over medium high heat. Sprinkle port with remaining salt, pepper.


Add remaining oil to pan, swirl to coat. Add pork to pan.


Cook 3 mins each side or until desired doneness.


Remove pork from pan, keep warm. Combine broth and flour in a bowl, whisk together. 


Add mixture to the pan the pork was cooked in, bring to a boil stirring constantly.


Cook 1 min or until reduced approximately in half.


 Stir in vinegar and remaining butter. Serve pork with sauce and apple mixture:


It's pretty fucking good.








I am beginning to believe that our long national nightmare is at last over

No, Barry is still president and Eric Holder is still attorney general, and both of them are refusing to abide by the oath they took to faithfully execute the laws of the United Sates. On the other hand, it appears that spring, uninterrupted by further bouts of snow, ice and freezing stuff, is at last at hand. The weather has been glorious for several days, and the lows at night are in the 50s, not the 30s. My flower beds are reflecting this new state of affairs:


The tulips are just getting started, but there they are:


The bushes -- Mrs. Wolves bought them, and she doesn't know what they're called, so why should I? -- are reviving after a tough winter, too:


Yeah, they're supposed to be yellow. The bush in the middle is supposed to be tinged red, but not until later in the season. Anyway, stuff is busting out. You'll probably see more as the season progresses.

This doesn't happen very often -- like, ever

For quite some time in the early days of this blog, Canada simply refused to come by. Eventually, somebody from Canada visited, and the floodgates opened. Canada now is a top-five point of origin for visitors to Eff You. Thanks, eh?

But the really amazing thing today is that Canada is the leading visitor to Eff You by a 2-to-1 margin over the U.S., which always is the leading source of Eff You visitors. Not sure why Canada has surged so today, but there it is. Just thought I would comment on it. Not suggesting you should care and, in fact, if you don't care, please refer to the title of the blog. And thank you for dropping by. Perhaps you'll care about the next post. Maybe not. But you won't know if you don't come back by, now will you, hmmmmm?

Friday, April 11, 2014

Jay Carney, fraud, sure, but Jay Carney, Communist?

Joltin' Jay Carney, the president's lead paid liar, is widely known for his cognitive dissonance and his absolute refusal to acknowledge that the things he is saying have little or nothing to do with the question asked, or even with the truthEven the mainstream liberal media has been commenting on it of late. That doesn't mean that certain media members of the Democrat propaganda machine aren't still giving in-print blow-jobs to important administration types like Carney. In fact, they still serve up unintentionally hilarious tidbits like this, which purports to show a typical breakfast moment in the Carney household:


First of all, if you believe there is an egg in the air in front of those folks in real life, I have items for sale in which you might be interested, including bridges that lead to Manhattan. Speaking as a former short order cook, 1) he who flips eggs that high breaks yolks, and b) that is the biggest motherfucking egg anyone has ever seen that didn't come out of an ostrich. Photoshop, anyone?

But second, and more important, please note the Soviet propaganda posters on the far wall, conveniently highlighted in this alternate version of the same photo:


Um, Jay? Call your decorator and ask for a more democracy-friendly artwork scheme. Sure, maybe Jay's a collector. And maybe his kid is the most talented ostrich-egg-using breakfast short-order cook this side of Sydney. And don't collectors usually collect things they admire? Just sayin'.

Hat tip to The Week for the photo and article reference.

Of course, the photoshops in the fauning article go far beyond some kid's mad kitchen skilz. Apparently, Jay doesn't have the personal library necessary to look impressive -- or even literate -- stacked up on his shelves, so Washingtonian Magazine obligingly Photoshopped his bookshelves to make it look like he had lots of deep-thinking books (Jay used to work for Time Magazine, a sure sign that he is not familiar with deep thinking), replicating his mad-skilz-chef son's pinky in the process:



The Twitter commentary on the article at Twitchy is priceless.

I suppose that, given his job as a propagandist who is required to twist, ignore or dispute the truth daily, it is entirely possible that Jay actually does admire Soviet propagandists and, thus, is truly just a collector. The question then becomes, does he collect these posters because he admires fellow liars, or because he admires fellow Communists? Beats me.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Sure, all politicians lie, but only stupid ones use easily debunked lies

Or, in the case of Barry and the boys, the use of already debunked lies. Barry seems to think that harping on a wage gap between men and women will help Democrats in the midterm elections. Weird position, considering that even liberal "news" bastion CNN concedes that Barry's White House has a problem in this area.  Other media outlets were even more critical in reporting the White House's failures in an area Barry seems determined to make a midterm campaign centerpiece:
When the White House announced this week that the president had signed executive orders beefing up efforts to fight pay disparity between men and women, the president's men were caught flat-footed when a skeptical press challenged both the 77 cents on the dollar meme and the White House's own 88 cents of the dollar reality.
“Today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns…in 2014," said President Obama at the White House on Tuesday. "That’s an embarrassment. It is wrong.”
But the White House was promptly embarrassed by having to defend its own wage gap. Women at the White House earn just 88 cents on the dollar of a man's earnings. White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged this, but he argued that when you control for key differences the gap disappears.
"What I can tell you is that we, as an institution here, have aggressively addressed this challenge, and obviously, though, at the 88 cents that you cite, that is not a hundred, but it is better than the national average," Carney said. "And when it comes to the bottom line that women who do the same work as men have to be paid the same, there is no question that that is happening here at the White House at every level."
But critics were quick to point out that controlling for differences is precisely what the 77 cents on the dollar figure fails to do, and why it is, in fact, misleading. The Washington Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler promptly awarded the president two Pinocchios for the statement because the 77 number accounts for nothing, even though men and women take vastly different career paths.
This kind of amateurish inaccuracy has been a consistent feature of this White House since January 2009. They don't care what the truth is, they care what they believe. Look at this equal pay crap. Just as a starting point, the numbers themselves are simply long-discredited horseshit:
First of all, if you actually do the math on weekly earnings, the 77 cent number is just outdated. Women who worked “full time” in 2013, according to easily retrievable BLS data, made 82 cents (not 77 cents) for every dollar earned by men working full time ($706 per week versus $860).
But this is also an inapt comparison, because “full time” includes people working as few as 35 hours a week and as many as…well, as many hours as one can work in a week. Surely, we shouldn’t assume discrimination at work (and discrimination laws are the answer) if some or all the pay gap is the result of differences in hours worked. Again, according to BLS data, the average woman working full time works 94 percent as many hours as the average man working full-time. (The “hour gap” gets slightly larger if you only consider, say, workers over 25.) Once you account for the “hour gap,” full-time working women make 87 percent of what men make for the same amount of work.
For what’s left of the gap, before we assume employers are deliberately paying women less because they’re evil, we should factor in other things that put women at a disadvantage. To name just two that various legitimate studies incorporate, there are career interruptions (mothers are far more likely to suffer these than fathers) and then occupational/educational choices. If women are less likely to choose the most lucrative college majors (they are), or more likely to leave the workforce for a time to raise children (also true), they’ll end up making less money than male counterparts who don’t do those things, even if employers don’t discriminate at all.
Even the White House had to admit the numbers Barry is citing as Gospel could not actually be defended. This, of course, is a result of the fact that even government studies debunk the numbers the White House insists upon using:
There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables include:
A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.
A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.
Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.
Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on
wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage
benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.
And still Barry and his boys use horseshit numbers. Is there any reason to believe them on anything?