The Best Sweet Potato Recipe Evah

Since my last post was titled SUH-WEEEET, and tomorrow is Thanksgiving, it occurred to me to share with you all the best recipe you will ever (no joke) find for sweet potatoes.  It was passed on to my by a vegan (substitute margarine and soy milk) friend from Louisiana while hiking in the Chiltern hills of jolly old England with a golden retriever named Bailey.  Thank you, Kathy!

No more messing with marshmallows and pineapple slices–ick!–throw those horrid things out!  Didn’t anyone ever tell you?  Marshmallows are for campfires!  And save the pineapple for juicing into Mai Tais (best time–about 45 minutes before your guests arrive).  This is sweet potato heaven for the sweet potato purist:  butter, sugar and pecans (a splash of milk and vanilla round it all out).

You can start tonight (that’s what I’m doing–mashing as I’m typing) and put the dish in the oven with the turkey tomorrow.  Please let me know if you try this–and how much you LOVE it!!

Sweet Potatoes with Pecan Topping
4 to 6 medium sweet potatos, peeled and cut into chunks
1/2 cup brown sugar (or sweetner of your choice)
1/2 cup butter
1 teaspoon vanilla
1/3 cup milk or cream

Topping:
1/3 cup melted butter
1 cup brown sugar
1/2 cup flour
1 cup pecans, chopped

Boil sweet potatoes in salted water 20 minutes until soft.  Drain and place in mixing bowl with brown sugar, butter, vanilla and milk.  Mix until smooth (mixer or masher, whatever you prefer).  Place in casserole dish that has been prepared with non-stick spray.

Make topping:  melt butter and combine with remaining ingredients.  Sprinkle on top of potato mixture.  Bake 25 minutes at 350 degrees.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING, ALL!!

SUH-WEEEET!!!

Hey readers–check it out!  Yours anonymously truly

just got published over at Daily Bail!!

{happy dance time ;) }

Krugman, You Are So NEXT!

Global warming “science” is going down hard.  Thank you, UK Telegraph and Washington Times, for providing actual COVERAGE of this topic.  Anderson Cooper is too busy teabagging to report on it.  (Oh no I di-int!  Well, OK, yes I did, but he said it first!)

Regardless of the true extent of the lying going on at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England, the fact remains that this organization is an EPIC FAIL.  Why?  Because they loose data (sorry to link to a blog article, but the original admission at the CRU website is “unavailable” at this time, yeah, right).  Poof.  They just ‘loose’ it–don’t know where it went!  If anyone wants to verify the models they run using the same data, they can’t because the data is gone.  A little too convenient, don’t you think?  This is pretty much half of their charter–to store climate data–and they can’t even get that right!

Hmm,  let’s think about those employees at CRU.  What would directors of a free market institution do to the ones in charge of the data storage division?  Um..um…{wait for it}…oh yeah, that’s right–FIRE their *****!  Then they’d go kick the butts of the liars and fabricators.  Then they’d probably apologize to shareholders, sell off all their assets and close up shop.  Ah, the free market really is a thing of stark beauty.  I can’t wait to see what machinations the directors at CRU go through before being forced to shut down.

Meanwhile, Clueless in Chief continues to operate in complete oblivion.  What’s new?

Truth prevails.  Fabrications always catch up to fabricators.  Krugman, you are so NEXT!

Again with the Elephant

It’s the elephant in the room again.

As we start another fresh Monday morning, looking forward to a shortened work week and a wonderful holiday coming up, everyone from CNBC to XYZ is talking about how great the stock market is doing.  People are blabbering on about ‘animal spirits’ (click here to find out what that really means) or even a ‘recovery’ to explain what’s happening.

Bunk.  I’m here to talk turkey, I mean, elephant with you guys.  That elephant that everyone is ignoring A-GAIN:  the big fat ugly smelly old Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve controls our nation’s interest rates.  (For all you beginners, that means the free market doesn’t control it.)  I read a comment somewhere recently where someone was complaining about the .09% interest rate her bank was giving in her checking account.  I haven’t checked my bank rates lately–it’s too depressing and is there really any point?–but I’ll bet dollars to donuts it is something similar.  Something WAY below the rate of inflation, anyway.  (Heck, they were even toying with the idea of a negative interest rate for awhile!  Punishing people for saving–now that’s irrational!)  Everyone knows you are loosing money if you keep it in the bank (or cash).  Yes, you’ve got to keep some there, but people are not stupid (or animal/irrational)–they put their money where it at least has a fighting chance or retaining it’s value:  in the stock market.

So there you have it: abysmal interest rates are compelling people to put their extra money into the stock market.  It’s a new bubble, courtesy of the Federal Reserve—AGAIN!!!  It’s history repeating itself.  When are we going to stop feeding the ravenous elephant in the room, stop ignoring its smelly mess and kick it’s greedy butt out of the room?

Screaming Numbers

Why the Stock Market Should Crash by Charles Hugh Smith at seekingalpha.com

The current politics of experience is so warped by misleading statistics and orchestrated propaganda that it feels strange to state the obvious and find it is “that which cannot be spoken” — the credit-dependent, consumer-dependent U.S. economy is going down, and going down hard, and the trillions of dollars borrowed and spent by the U.S. government and Federal Reserve to crank up a recovery have failed completely, utterly and totally.

mmmm  mmm  mmm

Go read it. Every word.  I don’t mean to scare you, but it’s important to be realistic and know which ignorant TV pundits to tune out.  This article is very data driven.  Screaming numbers.  Listen to them.

mmmm  mmm  mmm

A-Ghast and A-Gaspin’, Glass-Jawed Gasparino Goes for the Gusto

Wow!  What is happening over at CNBC?  Wednesday they had this guy Gasparino calling for the Goldman Sachs CEO to step down.  Thursday morning it was Elizabeth Warren with another stellar report on TARP oversight.  Today (Friday) their morning crew was actually discussing Fed transparency intelligently.  And they keep playing that clip of Geithner sputtering and stuttering in defense of his job.  ROFL!  Seems like CNBC is getting it–somewhat–finally.

Well, following is my foray into funky financial in-forming.  I don’t know why it all makes me ache to alliterate—maybe it’s the subversive Suessian subtext of the silly skylarking from these supposed adults, maybe I’ve been watching too much CNBC, maybe I’m getting the wacky world of Dr. Seuss confused with CNBC.  Whatever it is, these are interesting times.

Let us start with the clip.  Partial transcript below.  So sayeth CNBC:

[Tuesday, Nov. 17] Goldman Sachs announced a 500 million dollar charity initiative aimed at helping small business.  Today, [CNBC on-air editor] Charley Gasparino…is calling for Goldman Sachs’ CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, to resign.

After a substantial spanking from Janet Tavakoli who disparaged him as a ‘glass jawed financial entertainer’, The Gasper may have finally grown a pair.  Attending Directorship.com’s Boardroom Leader’s Forum, 2009, scrutiny replaces credulity and analysis replaces stuffing your face with foie gras et les petits filets (I am assuming they don’t have Subway cater les sandwiches to these events).  Gasparino finally gets it and gets growling:

I’m completely serious.  Because, it’s like, enough is enough with this guy [Goldman’s Blankfein]….First off…he basically said, OK, we’re going to do this charity thing where we were first to report they were going to do a large charitable contribution.  I didn’t think it was going to be this large—500 million of shareholder money is going to go to this initiative. And that raised a lot of eyebrows among CEO’s who I spoke with last night. They thought at the very at least if you’re going to do that, you know, maybe shareholders should have some say in that.

So now you’re looking out for the little guys, Charlie?  Gee, thanks–it’s about time.  But let’s move on:

Put that aside for now; think about what he did.  He apologized for the risk taking, and their contribution, I guess, to the financial crisis.  This is after spending–Goldman Sachs and Lloyd Blankfein–spending the past year telling us that they were completely hedged…in their AIG exposure, that they didn’t need the government money.  And it’s all turned out to be something way short of the truth. I don’t want to say it’s a lie, it’s–that may be a step too far, but it’s spinning beyond belief. There was just a Fed study that came out that showed that their explanation for their exposure to AIG was wrong. OK?  They DID need a bailout from the federal government.  They DID benefit from the bailout of AIG, and Lloyd Blankfein and his PR machine has been spending the last year trying to tell us that’s not the case.

Charlie: what, pray tell, IS something that is not the truth?  A ‘mistake’?  And Blankfein managed the company so poorly, with so little foresight and care, making such huge mistakes that it ‘HAD’ to have help?  So tell me–is that why he was being honored as “2009 CEO of the Year” and his firm, Goldman Sachs, as “the best performing and best governed company in the Fortune 500”?  [I am not kidding.]  Most normal people have been seeing for months this does not add up.  At least you are starting to get it now, Charlie.

And then they turn around, basically…as they made 20 billion dollars of bonus money, accumulated this, basically as a commercial bank (and by the way, Melissa, try to get a loan from Goldman Sachs or, you know, open up a checking account there, it’s not really going to happen), they turn around and do this ridiculous charity thing.

…I’m speaking to a lot of small businesses people….  They don’t believe that any of this money will be dispersed.   They’re telling me it’s a joke, and that, check in a year from now, on how much of that 500 million dollars actually gets to the right people.  So, put it all together, it’s a big bunch of spin, and it’s about time that he just leaves.

…that is after the fact… that, let’s face it: you know, how many more times do we have to hear he’s doing God’s work?

Host Melissa Francis tries to claim Blankfein made a lot of money for shareholders, but The Gasper grabs that thought and grinds it into garbage (here’s where it gets really good):

He ‘made a lot of money’ on a subsidy.  [Oh, yeah, the editor repeats:  a subsidy!]  …Goldman Sachs is considered a commercial bank.  Because of that they are deemed “too big to fail”, they have the Fed back-up. Because of that they can borrow cheaply and they have access to cheap credit .  It’s simple as this, listen, if he really wants to help, you know, make the world a better place, he can go…he and Warren Buffet, who is behind this plan, both of them should go to the federal government and say “We no longer need your subsidy”. By the way, I believe the federal government, and I have to check this…has guarantees on their debt as part of…the federal bailout mechanism.  They should go, Warren Buffet and Lloyd Blankfein, should go to Obama, go to the Obama administration, go to Geithner and say “We no longer need your subsidies”.  And by the way, that would be better for the taxpayers than any of this stuff, because what small businesses DON’T need is a handout from Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffet. What they need is lower taxes.  They need an environment of business where they can basically survive….. Listen, the joke’s up on him.  He spent the last year saying that Goldman was a bit player in this thing and now he’s apologizing.  So, my view is, it’s time to leave.

Well done, Gasper, welcome to the real world.  Good call.

(Well, He Did Say It Was Free)

If you get this one you are about as far gone as I (and that is sad, really):

From Zdeno in the comments at EconLib:

How many neo-keynesian economists does it take to change a lightbulb? Wait for it….

… Answer: Two. Paul Krugman learns how to do it from Scott Sumner, while Brad Delong deletes any comments that disagree with his technique. Oh no I di-int.

(Shamelessly lifted from Free Advice.)

Stop Dreaming

A great new video from Aravoth (h/t commenter Ken @ DailyBail):

Enjoy.

Chalk One Up for The Kitty

At least part of the story is getting straightened out now:  Another Media Black Eye: Second Cop — Not Kimberly Munley — Brought Down Fort Hood Killer, by Greg Mitchell.  There are actually many stories coming out in smaller outlets about the misreporting.  In his article, Mitchell asks “…what else will turn out false about Fort Hood claims from military…?”

Me too.

Connect the Dots

Most problems can be understood if we connect the dots.  Much of the time we cannot connect ALL of them.  The burden becomes too heavy.  We think we cannot carry such a load and so we choose to carry only a part of it, which in turn means we are not getting the big picture.

Plus it is difficult.  People want a simple answers, naturally; they want to figure out which team is ‘the best’, which side to cheer for.  Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.  If you are ‘independent’, you at least try and figure out which party you are closest to.  It’s not as easy as that.  Believe me, I wish it was, but it is so not that easy.

Here’s an example:

Ron Paul can connect the dots.  Rudy Guiliani cannot.  There were loud cheers for Guiliani.  Which man would you have cheered?  Are you kind of lost as to why Ron Paul said what he did?  There are more dots–let’s keep connecting.

Most people think the US needs to be everywhere, head off problems, intervene, and be proactive in order to defend itself.  They completely miss the other part–the painful part: the unjustified aggression we are inflicting upon the world.  Their fear and patriotism clouds their ability to connect the dots.  Fear and patriotism make people emotional.  Intellectually speaking, emotion weakens.  A nation can be colossally powerful in weaponry yet weak in intellect–in reasoning.  It is a dangerous state for everyone, including the nation itself.  For the individual, being intellectually weak means one cannot carry intellectual burdens.  This renders one unable to connect the dots and understand the big picture in a rational manner.

If you do not get what Ron Paul was talking about, please consider watching this:  Beyond Treason.  It’s a very long video in 9 parts.  The link is to the first part on YouTube.  You will find the other listed on the right of the YouTube page.

If you watch it you will think about it.  You will think about depleted uranium.  You will think about what it has done to our soldiers–what our government has done to our soldiers.  You will think about what it’s done to the people and places where it was used.  You will think about how long four billion years is.

Think about how people in our government know this.  Are you starting to see more dots you want to connect?  Keep going.

Finish up with reading this article I linked to in a previous post:  Conservatives’ Blind Support of “Our Troops”:  In Defense of the Big Lie, by Kevin Copenhagen.  It just cannot be posted and read enough.

It is a lot to ask you to take this long of a journey, but this connects everything:  terrorism, the economy, corporatism, and our government.  Perhaps 90 minutes is not too much to ask.  These are all just pieces and I invite readers to critique them or add their own pieces.  Maybe we can all put this picture together.