I have never understood it when people complain about leftover turkey on Thanksgiving. With our size family, we never have enough for my taste anyway. And besides, turkey tastes great and we don't eat it the rest of the year.
My favorite leftover meal is turkey tacos. It is more than just substituting turkey for chicken or beef. How it is prepared is what make them good. This is my own recipe. If anyone else makes them like this, I have never eaten them.
First, you need a mixture of white and dark meat. Ordinarily I prefer white, but when you shred the turkey, it is a little less important. However a mixture gives you a little stronger flavor and helps use up the dark meat.
Shred the turkey in a food processor. You need enough to fill about 1/2 inch of a large frying pan. Heat some oil in the pan first. You need more than a mere coating to protect the pan, you want enough oil to cook the meat. Then add the turkey. Add as much onion (fresh or powder) and chili (crushed or powder) as those eating will like. Cook the turkey, stirring frequently, until it is thoroughly toasted.
Cooking the turkey like this will make it tasty, but dry it out. At this point add a cup or two of liquid. You can use turkey soup if you made some from the carcass. Otherwise make some chicken bullion. This will put the moisture back in the turkey while preserving the flavor of the frying. Turn down the heat and let the turkey absorb the liquid.
Put on tortillas with whatever else you like to put on tacos. I don't add a lot of extras so as to not overwhelm the wonderful flavor of the turkey. If you use cheese, let it be mild. If you properly seasoned and moistened the turkey, you won't need any taco sauce either.
Try it out. They are a big hit around our house and is a wonderful way to use those turkey leftovers.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Sarah Palin Phenomenon
I am intrigued at the buzz surrounding Sarah Palin. A previously-unknown governor of a small state was elevated to VP candidate and suddenly she is the new darling of the right (especially the religious right). Why the attraction?
First, we cannot put aside the fact that she is pretty. I'm not being sexist here. Taller, more attractive men have always had some advantages in running for president. Though they will never admit it, people want to like what they see when they cast their vote. I can't help but believe that if Palin looked like, oh say, Rosie O'Donnell, her support might be a little less.
Second, she is simply well-known from her VP run. I believe that it would not take me long to round up two dozen Republicans who have more and better political experience and who support the same positions that she does. But they are only known locally and she has been in the national spotlight. This gives her a significant advantage.
Third, she is a conservative woman. When most of the women in politics range from center to the extreme left, this uniqueness attracts interest. I believe this was a major factor in John McCain's selection of her.
Fourth, she espouses all the "right" positions that energize conservatives. There is no ambiguity as to whether she is conservative enough.
Fifth, she belongs to the evangelical wing of Christianity. For those in the religious right, she is the proper kind of Christian. No more having to wonder if they should support Mitt Romney--a man with the "right" positions, but a Mormon.
Will this translate into the presidency or even the nomination for that office? I doubt it, which will be the focus of a later post. But she will not go away quietly and her supporters will have to be contended with.
First, we cannot put aside the fact that she is pretty. I'm not being sexist here. Taller, more attractive men have always had some advantages in running for president. Though they will never admit it, people want to like what they see when they cast their vote. I can't help but believe that if Palin looked like, oh say, Rosie O'Donnell, her support might be a little less.
Second, she is simply well-known from her VP run. I believe that it would not take me long to round up two dozen Republicans who have more and better political experience and who support the same positions that she does. But they are only known locally and she has been in the national spotlight. This gives her a significant advantage.
Third, she is a conservative woman. When most of the women in politics range from center to the extreme left, this uniqueness attracts interest. I believe this was a major factor in John McCain's selection of her.
Fourth, she espouses all the "right" positions that energize conservatives. There is no ambiguity as to whether she is conservative enough.
Fifth, she belongs to the evangelical wing of Christianity. For those in the religious right, she is the proper kind of Christian. No more having to wonder if they should support Mitt Romney--a man with the "right" positions, but a Mormon.
Will this translate into the presidency or even the nomination for that office? I doubt it, which will be the focus of a later post. But she will not go away quietly and her supporters will have to be contended with.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Lure of Celebrity
Now it seems clear that the whole "Balloon boy" story was a hoax. I originally saw the story while the balloon was still in the air and was concerned. When I heard later, however, that the family had been on reality TV, I (along with many others) was immediately suspicious. This is just the kind of coincidence that just doesn't happen.
Andy Warhol's famous saying is that one day everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes. I wonder if he could have envisioned the world of reality television. Not only are people becoming famous for essentially doing nothing, there are a bunch of them actively seeking this life. While some appear on a single show and then go home, others have been on several reality series and try to be part of more.
I think this is a kind of sickness. If the media would cooperate with us, the best punishment for the family in Colorado would be to pack up the cameras, go home, and promise to never mention these people ever again. Don't embarrass them, ignore them. Sadly, it won't happen, but I can dream.
Andy Warhol's famous saying is that one day everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes. I wonder if he could have envisioned the world of reality television. Not only are people becoming famous for essentially doing nothing, there are a bunch of them actively seeking this life. While some appear on a single show and then go home, others have been on several reality series and try to be part of more.
I think this is a kind of sickness. If the media would cooperate with us, the best punishment for the family in Colorado would be to pack up the cameras, go home, and promise to never mention these people ever again. Don't embarrass them, ignore them. Sadly, it won't happen, but I can dream.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Health Care Debate
Lost in all the shrillness of the health care debate is one unmistakable fact: The current system is broken. Too many people have poor access to affordable health care. Even those who have good coverage are being charged a higher percentage of the premium costs. In the meantime, health insurance companies are making very large amounts of money.
President Obama said in a speech this week that we cannot afford the status quo. I agree completely. I have personally lived in that nether world between having health care and being eligible for Medicaid. It is a scary place to be.
In their hatred of all things Obama, conservatives have forgotten that there is a real problem. Or maybe they all have cushy middle class jobs and don't know there are a lot of others who cannot get insurance. A government-run medical insurance would have all the problems of any government-run program, but it might be better than the obscenely profitable system in place now.
Regardless, conservatives need to look beyond the rhetoric and see the need. Relying on an unregulated private sector is not working. So now is the time to come up with a solution. That is, if you are really interested in governing and not posturing.
President Obama said in a speech this week that we cannot afford the status quo. I agree completely. I have personally lived in that nether world between having health care and being eligible for Medicaid. It is a scary place to be.
In their hatred of all things Obama, conservatives have forgotten that there is a real problem. Or maybe they all have cushy middle class jobs and don't know there are a lot of others who cannot get insurance. A government-run medical insurance would have all the problems of any government-run program, but it might be better than the obscenely profitable system in place now.
Regardless, conservatives need to look beyond the rhetoric and see the need. Relying on an unregulated private sector is not working. So now is the time to come up with a solution. That is, if you are really interested in governing and not posturing.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Obfuscating the Real Issues
The silver lining in the whole Joe Wilson debacle is highlighting an important issue. Unfortunately, I think that everybody gets it wrong. When the congressman called out You lie, it was at the point where President Obama asserted that his health plan would not cover illegal immigrants.
Technically, Obama was right and Wilson wrong. However, I do understand Wilson's point. Given the history of court decisions, it is entirely possible that a judge somewhere could decide that it is unconstitutional to exclude illegals from the government health care option. Critics ascertain that Obama is being coy by claiming he is not including them while knowing that eventually they will be.
This is not impossible, but it does go against all of the president's previous rhetoric regarding the rights of illegals. So, while it is possible that they would end up being included by court decree, Obama was not necessarily being cynically untruthful.
Actually this debate misses two points:
1. The anti-immigrant forces continually contend that illegals use government services but don't pay taxes. I haven't seen recent numbers, but I remember a study from the 1980s (when this debate was at one of its cyclical high points) that showed that many illegals overpaid taxes. This was because they had taxes withheld from their checks, but because they didn't file tax returns, they didn't receive refunds to which they might have been entitled. Further, they had Social Security taxes withheld for which they would never receive a benefit. If this still holds true, then even if illegal immigrants became eligible for the government health plan, they might well be paying for it--at least at the same pace others in their economic class would. People may still object on principle, which I respect, but the cost to citizens might not be as significant as one might think.
2. In essence, most illegal immigrants already receive government health care, directly or indirectly. The vast majority of illegals are working poor. So if they have phony documents, some may qualify for Medicaid. Who pays for that programs? Taxpayers. In this case, the immigrants that some worry about getting government-paid health care are already getting it. So it's really a wash. Not all have the documentation to get Medicaid. But hospitals who accept any government insurance (nearly all of them) cannot turn anyone away from receiving treatment. If they can't pay, then the hospital either eats the cost or (more often) taps into a state fund that pays for indigent patients. Again, where does this money come from? Taxpayers. In short, I don't think that covering illegal immigrants in a government health play would change the amount of money that taxpayers pay for their health care. The difference would only be which account it comes from.
I am not trivializing the debate over immigration. This is a serious subject that needs better resolution than we have now. My point is that it is a distraction to the real debate about if health care should be reformed, if so how, and whether there should be a government-run plan as part of it. To focus on illegal immigrants is to ignore the real issues and is a shame. Next time, I want to talk a little about it.
Technically, Obama was right and Wilson wrong. However, I do understand Wilson's point. Given the history of court decisions, it is entirely possible that a judge somewhere could decide that it is unconstitutional to exclude illegals from the government health care option. Critics ascertain that Obama is being coy by claiming he is not including them while knowing that eventually they will be.
This is not impossible, but it does go against all of the president's previous rhetoric regarding the rights of illegals. So, while it is possible that they would end up being included by court decree, Obama was not necessarily being cynically untruthful.
Actually this debate misses two points:
1. The anti-immigrant forces continually contend that illegals use government services but don't pay taxes. I haven't seen recent numbers, but I remember a study from the 1980s (when this debate was at one of its cyclical high points) that showed that many illegals overpaid taxes. This was because they had taxes withheld from their checks, but because they didn't file tax returns, they didn't receive refunds to which they might have been entitled. Further, they had Social Security taxes withheld for which they would never receive a benefit. If this still holds true, then even if illegal immigrants became eligible for the government health plan, they might well be paying for it--at least at the same pace others in their economic class would. People may still object on principle, which I respect, but the cost to citizens might not be as significant as one might think.
2. In essence, most illegal immigrants already receive government health care, directly or indirectly. The vast majority of illegals are working poor. So if they have phony documents, some may qualify for Medicaid. Who pays for that programs? Taxpayers. In this case, the immigrants that some worry about getting government-paid health care are already getting it. So it's really a wash. Not all have the documentation to get Medicaid. But hospitals who accept any government insurance (nearly all of them) cannot turn anyone away from receiving treatment. If they can't pay, then the hospital either eats the cost or (more often) taps into a state fund that pays for indigent patients. Again, where does this money come from? Taxpayers. In short, I don't think that covering illegal immigrants in a government health play would change the amount of money that taxpayers pay for their health care. The difference would only be which account it comes from.
I am not trivializing the debate over immigration. This is a serious subject that needs better resolution than we have now. My point is that it is a distraction to the real debate about if health care should be reformed, if so how, and whether there should be a government-run plan as part of it. To focus on illegal immigrants is to ignore the real issues and is a shame. Next time, I want to talk a little about it.
Monday, September 14, 2009
This is a hero?
Apologies for not posting recently (at least to my one fan, Jeff). My new job left me needing to make a new schedule. Hopefully, I will post more regularly.
You have heard by now about Congressman Joe Wilson's You lie outburst during President Barak Obama's speech to Congress about the Democrat's health care bill. Under normal circumstances, it would be discussed for a couple of days and Wilson would go back to obscurity.
But we don't live in normal times. The Democrats will probably use their power to censure the congressman in some way. And the conservative wing of the Republican party are turning him into a hero.
What Joe Wilson did was rude and completely out of line (in my next post, I will discuss the actual issue). He did apologize, which should end the issue. Censure is probably unwarranted. If I were Nancy Pelosi, I would quietly send out a message to all congressmen reminding them that the US Congress is not like the British Parliament (those guys are nuts) and that any future actions by anyone would result in some clearly defined penalty.
The Republicans, likewise, should just move on. Their guy apologized and they should move the focus to the issues that they have with the president's plan.
Amazingly, though, there are conservatives who are lionizing Wilson for his brave stand against the evil Obama. A guy who once attended our church now lives in DC and works for the congressman. His wife posted on her facebook page how proud she was and other conservative Christians chimed in with their approval.
Are you kidding me? Tell me what would have happened had a Democrat done something similar to President Bush. You know that Rush Limbaugh would have demonized him and Bill O'Reilly would have lamented the decline of respect for the presidency. Tell me I'm wrong.
This, of course, is just the continuation of the hatred of all things Obama. It has nothing to do anymore with what is right or logical. It has only to do with attacking what they view as the enemy of all things right and holy. And it grieves me to see Christians leading the way with torches and pitchforks.
There are important issues to discuss. The health bill may be the worst thing to ever be proposed. But let's discuss the issues, not make a hero out of a hothead who doesn't have the self-control (isn't that what the Bible promotes) to know when to keep his mouth shut. Conservatives need an articulate voice (I heard Wilson Sunday on Fox News--not articulate at all) not a guy who is famous for being rude.
You have heard by now about Congressman Joe Wilson's You lie outburst during President Barak Obama's speech to Congress about the Democrat's health care bill. Under normal circumstances, it would be discussed for a couple of days and Wilson would go back to obscurity.
But we don't live in normal times. The Democrats will probably use their power to censure the congressman in some way. And the conservative wing of the Republican party are turning him into a hero.
What Joe Wilson did was rude and completely out of line (in my next post, I will discuss the actual issue). He did apologize, which should end the issue. Censure is probably unwarranted. If I were Nancy Pelosi, I would quietly send out a message to all congressmen reminding them that the US Congress is not like the British Parliament (those guys are nuts) and that any future actions by anyone would result in some clearly defined penalty.
The Republicans, likewise, should just move on. Their guy apologized and they should move the focus to the issues that they have with the president's plan.
Amazingly, though, there are conservatives who are lionizing Wilson for his brave stand against the evil Obama. A guy who once attended our church now lives in DC and works for the congressman. His wife posted on her facebook page how proud she was and other conservative Christians chimed in with their approval.
Are you kidding me? Tell me what would have happened had a Democrat done something similar to President Bush. You know that Rush Limbaugh would have demonized him and Bill O'Reilly would have lamented the decline of respect for the presidency. Tell me I'm wrong.
This, of course, is just the continuation of the hatred of all things Obama. It has nothing to do anymore with what is right or logical. It has only to do with attacking what they view as the enemy of all things right and holy. And it grieves me to see Christians leading the way with torches and pitchforks.
There are important issues to discuss. The health bill may be the worst thing to ever be proposed. But let's discuss the issues, not make a hero out of a hothead who doesn't have the self-control (isn't that what the Bible promotes) to know when to keep his mouth shut. Conservatives need an articulate voice (I heard Wilson Sunday on Fox News--not articulate at all) not a guy who is famous for being rude.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Contributing to Society
I am struck by the contrast between a couple of famous deaths. Today it was announced that Senator Ted Kennedy died. The last of a political dynasty, he was way too liberal for my taste but there is no denying that he dedicated his adult life to public service. Though there are arch-conservatives who possibly are delighted that he is gone, there is a sense in which society is poorer for having lost him.
Then there is the model who was killed by her reality-show ex-husband. Now her death and his suicide are quite sad for them and those who knew them. However, can it be said that society is any worse off because of their departure?
I think the answer is No. It seems that the only concern of these two is how to gain fame and fortune from their good looks. They didn't have real jobs or careers that would make a difference in the life of another human being. They lived for themselves alone.
Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that society is better off without them or that I am in any way glad they are dead. But I just think that the contrast between how they chose to live their lives and how Ted Kennedy chose to live his is striking. Years from now, Kennedy will be remembered in some fashion for his contributions and the others will be completely forgotten. Why? Their real level of contribution to others.
Then there is the model who was killed by her reality-show ex-husband. Now her death and his suicide are quite sad for them and those who knew them. However, can it be said that society is any worse off because of their departure?
I think the answer is No. It seems that the only concern of these two is how to gain fame and fortune from their good looks. They didn't have real jobs or careers that would make a difference in the life of another human being. They lived for themselves alone.
Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that society is better off without them or that I am in any way glad they are dead. But I just think that the contrast between how they chose to live their lives and how Ted Kennedy chose to live his is striking. Years from now, Kennedy will be remembered in some fashion for his contributions and the others will be completely forgotten. Why? Their real level of contribution to others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
