Why I deleted comments from my previous entry

I don't really want my blog to turn into a discussion of the good and bad sides of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't want anything in my blog to turn into a discussion of the pros and cons of any religion. Because if it did, I'd have to come down hard on the followers of Jesus the Nazarene and that could just get ugly.

I have friends of many faiths. I even have friends who are atheist. I don't criticize their faiths and they don't criticize mine. My entry was related to issues of separation of church and state, not a criticism of my co-worker's faith. Feel free to criticize one another elsewhere. Not here.

Some days I just can't take it

(I'm having a helluva time formatting this morning.)

One of my co-workers expressed disgust upon learning that the courts no longer require witnesses to swear their oaths on bibles. To my reply, that not everyone recognizes the same--or ANY--bible, she said in a dismissive tone, "But 86 percent of the population wants us to use the bible and the other 14 percent are the minority."

I tried to stay calm. I explained that the law is to protect that 14 percent. After all, I said, if the jury is composed entirely of members of that 86 percent and the only witness is a member of the 14 percent, and that witness refuses (as has ALWAYS been our right, although in some states that's been glossed over) to swear on the bible...do you think there's a chance an innocent defendant will be wrongly convicted?

"Why would anyone refuse to swear on the bible?" she asked. (Note that I am failing to capitalize the word bible because I consider it descriptive, not a title...) "Well, take me," I suggested. "I'm not Christian. Do you think I am somehow rendered honest because I swore an oath with my hand on the Christian bible?" "It's not going to hurt you to do it," she argued.

When one of my co-workers (a Jehovah's Witness, who is interestingly enough most often my ally in religious arguments) shook her head at me, I said, "I think we're just going to have to disagree on this," and I walked away (with the Jehovah's Witness who dislikes this other co-worker in the first place...)

And this particular co-worker is extremely liberal. Hates Bush. Hates Republicans. Hates the fact that we've sent American kids overseas to fight in defense of Big Business. Hell, she hates Wal-Mart. She had never heard of "The Rapture" before; she's THAT much not a fundamentalist. How can the rational among us hope to score any points with the conservatives in the Radical Right when the liberals in the moderate left retain this degree of blindness?

There, I've bitched and now I can feed the dog and leave for the office feeling refreshed. Not consoled. Just a little refreshed.

Article on outsourcing in InfoWorld magazine this month.

Fascinating article. The magazine is not particularly political in orientation. It's just a comment on outsourcing.

I don't have permission to copy the article so please click on the link and read at the magazine's website.

Is extreme outsourcing and consolidation worth it?

By Ephraim Schwartz

Who’s not supporting the troops now?

From today’s NY Times.

More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation

By DAVID S. CLOUD and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, April 13 — The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster. Also Thursday, another retired Army general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," General Swannack said in a telephone interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."

Another former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Mr. Rumsfeld on Wednesday. Mr. Rumsfeld long ago became a magnet for political attacks. But the current uproar is significant because Mr. Rumsfeld's critics include generals who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership.

There were indications on Thursday that the concern about Mr. Rumsfeld, rooted in years of pent-up anger about his handling of the war, was sweeping aside the reticence of retired generals who took part in the Iraq war to criticize an enterprise in which they participated. Current and former officers said they were unaware of any organized campaign to seek Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, but they described a blizzard of telephone calls and e-mail messages as retired generals critical of Mr. Rumsfeld weighed the pros and cons of joining in the condemnation.

Even as some of their retired colleagues spoke out publicly about Mr. Rumsfeld, other senior officers, retired and active alike, had to be promised anonymity before they would discuss their own views of why the criticism of him was mounting. Some were concerned about what would happen to them if they spoke openly, others about damage to the military that might result from amplifying the debate, and some about talking outside of channels, which in military circles is often viewed as inappropriate.

The White House has dismissed the criticism, saying it merely reflects tensions over the war in Iraq. There was no indication that Mr. Rumsfeld was considering resigning.

"The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters on Thursday.

Among the retired generals who have called for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster, some have emphasized that they still believe it was right for the United States to invade Iraq. But a common thread in their complaints has been an assertion that Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides too often inserted themselves unnecessarily into military decisionmaking, often disregarding advice from military commanders.

The outcry also appears based in part on a coalescing of concern about the toll that the war is taking on American armed forces, with little sign, three years after the invasion, that United States troops will be able to withdraw in large numbers anytime soon.

Pentagon officials, while acknowledging that Mr. Rumsfeld's forceful style has sometimes ruffled his military subordinates, played down the idea that he was overriding the advice of his military commanders or ignoring their views.

His interaction with military commanders has "been frequent," said Lawrence Di Rita, a top aide to Mr. Rumsfeld.

"It's been intense," Mr. Di Rita said, "but always there's been ample opportunity for military judgment to be applied against the policies of the United States."

Some retired officers, however, said they believed the momentum was turning against Mr. Rumsfeld.

"Are the floodgates opening?" asked one retired Army general, who drew a connection between the complaints and the fact that President Bush's second term ends in less than three years. "The tide is changing, and folks are seeing the end of this administration."

No active duty officers have joined the call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. In interviews, some currently serving general officers expressed discomfort with the campaign against Mr. Rumsfeld, which has been spearheaded by, among others, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who headed the United States Central Command in the late 1990's before retiring from the Marine Corps. Some of the currently serving officers said they feared the debate risked politicizing the military and undercutting its professional ethos.

Some say privately they disagree with aspects of the Bush administration's handling of the war. But many currently serving officers, regardless of their views, say respect for civilian control of the military requires that they air differences of opinion in private and stay silent in public.

"I support my secretary of defense," Lt. General John Vines, who commands the Army's 18th Airborne Corps, said when questioned after a speech in Washington on Thursday about the calls for Mr. Rumsfeld to step down. "If I publicly disagree with my civilian leadership, I think I've got to resign. My advice should be private."

Some of the tensions between Mr. Rumsfeld and the uniformed military services date back to his arrival at the Pentagon in early 2001. Mr. Rumsfeld's assertion of greater civilian control over the military and his calls for a slimmer, faster force were viewed with mistrust by many senior officers, while his aggressive, sometimes abrasive style also earned him enmity.

Mr. Rumsfeld's critics often point to his treatment of Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, who told Congress a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops," rather than the smaller force that was later provided. General Shinseki's estimate was publicly dismissed by Pentagon officials.

"Rumsfeld has been contemptuous of the views of senior military officers since the day he walked in as secretary of defense. It's about time they got sick and tired," Thomas E. White, the former Army secretary, said in a telephone interview on Thursday. Mr. White was forced out of his job by Mr. Rumsfeld in April of 2003.

Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold of the Marine Corps, who retired in late 2002, has said he regarded the American invasion of Iraq unnecessary. He issued his call for replacing Mr. Rumsfeld in an essay in the current edition of Time magazine. General Newbold said he regretted not opposing the invasion of Iraq more vigorously, and called the invasion peripheral to the job of defeating Al Qaeda.

General Swannack, by contrast, continues to support the invasion but said that Mr. Rumsfeld had micromanaged the war in Iraq, rather than leaving it to senior commanders there, including Gen. George W. Casey Jr. of the Army, the top American officer in Iraq, and Gen. John P. Abizaid of the Army, the top officer in the Middle East. "My belief is Rumsfeld does not really understand the dynamic of counterinsurgency warfare," General Swannack said.

The string of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's removal has touched off a vigorous debate within the ranks of both active-duty and retired generals and admirals.

Some officers who have worked closely with Mr. Rumsfeld reject the idea that he is primarily to blame for the inability of American forces to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. One active-duty, four-star Army officer said he had not heard among his peers widespread criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld, and said he thought the criticism from his retired colleagues was off base. "They are entitled to their views, but I believe them to be wrong. And it is unfortunate they have allowed themselves to become in some respects, politicized."

Gen. Jack Keane, who was Army vice chief of staff in 2003 before retiring, said in the planning of the Iraq invasion, senior officers as much as the Pentagon's civilian leadership underestimated the threat of a long-term insurgency.

"There's shared responsibility here. I don't think you can blame the civilian leadership alone," he said.

Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army general, called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation in March.

The criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld may spring from multiple motives. General Zinni, for example, is in the middle of a tour promoting a new book critical of the Bush administration.

General Riggs, who called for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation in an interview on Thursday with National Public Radio, left the Pentagon in 2004 after clashing with civilian leaders and then being investigated for potential misuse of contractor personnel.

But there were also signs that the spate of retired generals calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's departure was not finished. Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, who is retired from the Marine Corps, said in an interview Thursday he had received a telephone call from another retired general who was weighing whether to publicly join the calls for Mr. Rumsfeld's dismissal.

"He was conflicted, and when I hung up I didn't know which way he was going to go," General Van Riper said.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting for this article.

The Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld

Exerpted from Slate Magazine.

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Glass Box
You know, it's the old glass box at the—
At the gas station,
Where you're using those little things
Trying to pick up the prize,
And you can't find it.
It's—

And it's all these arms are going down in there,
And so you keep dropping it
And picking it up again and moving it,
But—

Some of you are probably too young to remember those—
Those glass boxes,
But—

But they used to have them
At all the gas stations
When I was a kid.

—Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

A Confession
Once in a while,
I'm standing here, doing something.
And I think,
"What in the world am I doing here?"
It's a big surprise.

—May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times

Happenings
You're going to be told lots of things.
You get told things every day that don't happen.

It doesn't seem to bother people, they don't—
It's printed in the press.
The world thinks all these things happen.
They never happened.

Everyone's so eager to get the story
Before in fact the story's there
That the world is constantly being fed
Things that haven't happened.

All I can tell you is,
It hasn't happened.
It's going to happen.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

The Digital Revolution
Oh my goodness gracious,
What you can buy off the Internet
In terms of overhead photography!

A trained ape can know an awful lot
Of what is going on in this world,
Just by punching on his mouse
For a relatively modest cost!

—June 9, 2001, following European trip

The Situation
Things will not be necessarily continuous.
The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous
Ought not to be characterized as a pause.
There will be some things that people will see.
There will be some things that people won't see.
And life goes on.

—Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

Hart Seely writes for the Syracuse Post-Standard newspaper. He is co-author of 2007-Eleven and Other American Comedies.

What lovely people we have guarding our security

Between this guy using his position to impress what he thought was a 14 year old girl enough that she'd enjoy porno with her and these guys using their jobs to smuggle various illegal substances...I guess we're as safe as we could be.

Cynical? Moi?

How can they say there's no racism?

Well, this certainly doesn't help how our "War on Terror" is perceived worldwide. How can we be convincing when claiming that racism doesn't enter into the equation when we get crap like this in the news?

Terrorism prosecutor is charged with lying

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

March 30, 2006

Richard Convertino, whose 14-year career as a star federal prosecutor earned him commendations for winning high-profile cases, now faces federal prosecution himself, accused Wednesday of lying to a jury to win terrorism convictions in the first trial to result from the federal 9/11 probe.

A federal grand jury indicted Convertino, 45, and State Department security officer Harry Raymond Smith III, 49, who had been assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan, charging them with misleading a jury in the 2003 terrorism trial in Detroit.

Convertino, who resigned last May to enter private practice, flatly denied the accusations, reiterating his claims that he is being targeted for criticizing the Justice Department about its commitment to the war on terrorism. He is suing his former superiors.

"This indictment is purely vindictive. ... If they believe they can scare me off, they've picked the wrong guy to be their scapegoat," he said.

Smith's lawyer, Matthew Leitman of Troy, also denied the charges and noted his client's service to his country.

Both men are accused of lying about the existence of photographs that could have damaged the prosecution's case in the terror trial, which resulted in two convictions that were later set aside at the request of Convertino's bosses.

Had the photos been presented at trial, they could have undercut claims that a sketch found in the terror defendants' apartment was intended to be used for an attack on a Jordanian military hospital.

The indictment also says Convertino lied to a judge about a drug defendant's cooperation in this and other terrorism investigations so that Convertino could get a substantial reduction in the man's sentence.

Convertino and Smith are charged with conspiring to obstruct justice and make false declarations, obstruction of justice and making a materially false declaration before a court.

If convicted, Convertino -- who prosecuted Detroit mob cases and NBA star Chris Webber for lying to a grand jury about money he received as a college player -- could face 30 years in prison and a $1-million fine. Smith could face 20 years in prison and a $750,000 fine. No arraignments were set.

Photos in question

The case revolves around the convictions in June 2003 of two North African immigrants, Karim Koubriti, 27, and Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi, 40, for conspiring to provide support to terrorists.

A year later, the charges were dismissed at the request of the U.S. Attorney's Office, which said Convertino withheld key evidence and allowed witnesses, including Smith, to mislead the jury.

During the terrorism trial, the prosecution maintained that a sketch found in Koubriti's flat was a terrorist targeting diagram of a military hospital in Amman, Jordan. In support of that theory, Smith testified that the sketch was consistent with what he, Convertino and FBI case agent Michael Thomas found when they toured the site. Thomas was given immunity to testify before the grand jury.

When defense lawyers asked Smith whether he had taken any photos of the site, Smith said no. Wednesday's indictment, however, said Smith took photos of the site in March 2002, but they didn't turn out, so he asked a colleague to reshoot them. The indictment said the photos were turned over to Convertino, who failed to correct Smith's testimony or disclose the photos.

Although witnesses at the trial said a dead tree was depicted in the sketch, the photos showed no such landmark, records show. That could have raised doubts that the sketch was of the hospital.

Convertino also is accused of misleading U.S. District Judge Julian Cook in July 2003 about the extent of cooperation that drug suspect Marwan Farhat provided to the government. The indictment didn't name Cook and Farhat.

Farhat, who pleaded guilty to drug charges, was in line for a 9- to 11 1/4 -year sentence. Convertino persuaded a reluctant Cook to sentence Farhat to eight months, which was covered by the time he had served in jail, and seal the records.

This week, a defense lawyer charged in court papers that Convertino engineered other huge sentencing reductions on behalf of drug dealers who assisted the government, then had the proceedings sealed to hide what he had done. He has denied those accusations.

Deputy federal defender Richard Helfrick, who represents Koubriti, said his client -- who was later indicted in alleged insurance fraud -- was pleased to learn of the indictment and plans to be there when Convertino is arraigned. Koubriti is out on bond pending the fraud trial.

Meanwhile, Imad Hamad, regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the indictment is proof the system sometimes catches its mistakes.

"I don't think anything can make up for the injury that was caused to the innocent men who were caught in the middle of this prosecution," he said.

Contact DAVID ASHENFELTER at 313-223-4490.

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.

On Friday, Congressional Quarterly got funny

This was in Friday's mid-day update from Congressional Quarterly. I am used to them being blunt but not sarcastic. I confess, I put in a good bit of time snorting over this.

Let's see * maybe the motto at the Department of Homeland Security should be: "Do as I say, not as I do." CQ Homeland Security reports that the federal agency charged with guarding the nation's cyber infrastructure has again received a failing grade for monitoring its own computer systems. DHS received an "F" on the annual Federal Computer Security Report Card released yesterday by the House Government Reform Committee * the third consecutive year it has flunked. The report card is produced in conjunction with the Government Accountability Office and based on reports submitted by agencies on their compliance with various information security requirements in the Federal Information Security Management Act. DHS needn't feel too embarrassed, however. The government-wide grade was a "D+", as it was last year.

I have no idea

why the subscribe icon turned out so weird looking. So if that doesn't work and you really want to join the fun, email me privately at peasantwitch AT hotmail DOT com.

The Marc Maron Show Cookbook

Anyone who wants to work on producing the Marc Maron Show Cookbook, please join the list we set up for it.

Subscribe to maronades
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

A more reliable source

According to a clip I heard on "The Al Franken Show," Bill O'Liely is claiming that Air America Radio is about to lose its affiliation with its New York flagship station, WLIB. I haven't been able to find the original source of the story but I did fine this, at Billboard's website. (I'm including full text because there was no other convenient way to do this.)

Air America On Defense For Second Time In Two Weeks
March 07, 2006
By Chuck Taylor

Air America found itself on the defense for the second time this week following reports in both the New York Post and New York Daily News today (March 7) implying that the liberal talk network was about to lose its New York flagship station, WLIB-AM.

The Post, in particular, seemed to offer a sensationalist slant to its reporting of the alleged loss of WLIB. Reporter John Mainelli wrote, “Air America is close to losing its New York flagship station, knocking Al Franken and his liberal colleagues off the air on the second anniversary. Losing its New York outlet would be a serious blow to the fledgling liberal radio network. Air America's options for a new home are not promising. All of the city's other strong-signal stations are spoken for, leaving only weak-signal ‘fringe’ stations that do not cover the entire city and suburbs.”

Danny Goldberg, CEO of Air America Radio, responded late Tuesday morning to “recent reports via the conservative media” in a staff memo in which he said, “Air America’s ratings in New York went up substantially in the fall 2005 book. Air America’s New York audience is large, growing and valuable. In every conceivable scenario, Air America will continue to be on in New York City.”

He went on to stress that Air America Radio is on track to be stronger still in the coming year and years: “Our audience is bigger, the total number of affiliates carrying our programming is greater, and the amount of revenue we are generating is increasing.

“It is vital, when analyzing chatter about Air America to consider the source,” Goldberg continued. “In almost all cases, the people who say bad things about our company’s business are conservative ideologues who have a particular interest in damaging Air America, for one reason and one reason only: the political opinions expressed by our on air talent. Bill O’Reilly alone has mentioned Air America on 37 separate occasions since our programming went on the air. Al Franken has offered to debate O’Reilly in any number of forums including on “The O’Reilly Factor” and O’Reilly has declined.”

This is so darned cute!

I may have to make some penguin sweaters. I can't find any pictures but it sounds adorable. I hope someone is still taking them for sale (I realize they aren't needed for the penguins anymore.) And I need an Opus doll to dress in one.

On a more serious note, this was posted in a friend's Live Journal. Read it and marvel at the time frame in which it was written ( August, 1995.) Summary/first paragraph:

"THIS MAY BE YOUR FIRST NOTICE OF THE COMING AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CIVIL WAR (ARCW). If so, you should date and preserve this warning. Then your distant descendants (maybe the "Daughters of the ARCW") can have something to be smug about--in the unlikely event that they, and this notice, survive the fires, and anybody can still read

After reading about the attempt by Missouri legislators trying to make Christianity the official state religion (Constitution be damned, apparently...) I'm getting more and more worried about where this country is going.

Vice Presidential Weapons Technology

Having sworn I would not take my eye off all the other things going on in the news that are being covered-up by the Cheney shooting incident....I got this joke from an old friend and adapted it for mass consumption.

Vice Presidential weapons technology sure has gotten high tech in recent years. Why, in Gerald Ford's day, the Vice President could only bean his friends with golf balls. And he had to wait until he ascended to the Presidency to do it! Cheney has access to immediate gratification, and to bird shot. Much more effective.

I dare not imagine what the next Vice President will have access to!

Credit to Gerry Stout, of Valatie, NY. We won't go into the Cheney/Darth Vader/Kor/Rumsfeld chorus line that started all this.

For the past hour, "The Ed Schultz Show" has been discussing Cheney non-stop. Which means Big Eddie has lost an hour that could have been spent analyzing the Hurricane Katrina response report. I really do appreciate Ed. But it was hour two before a caller managed to get him off the topic of Cheney-quiddick or Shotgunica-gate or whatever you want to call it.

Vigilance, people. Vigilance!

Rumsfeld, unh! Good God, Lord, What Is He Good For?

So today, the sleeziest looking man in Washington (according to my dedicatedly Republican co-worker) had this to day about Hugo Chavez:

"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally —....

And just as G.W. Monkeyboy was apparently elected legally.

To be honest, I put more faith in Chavez' electoral numbers. But that's just me.

The Truth About Cindy Sheehan's Arrest Last Night

For those of you who think you know, from reading the short sentence and a half about the incident in the Associated Press report, what really happened leading up to the arrest of Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union fantasy show last night, here is Ms. Sheehan's side of the story.

NBC News reported that she actively refused to cover up her t-shirt. Read the real story before you decide how you feel about the situation.

YWCA opposes Alito confirmation

My sister sent me this (12 page) statement from the YWCA about Judge Alito. When the freaking YWCA comes out against a judicial nominee, you gotta know there's something wrong going on.

The difference between me and a slug...

Yup, I slept on the couch for two nights running because it was too much work to get up and go to bed. Typical weekend here in the House of Sloth. (At least I fell asleep in front of the news instead of in front of HGTV this time. Not as embarrassing when I wake up.)

I was a busy little baker yesterday, however. These rolls are so damn good, but next time I'll increase the yeast because they didn't rise all that high.

Batter Rolls
Makes 1 dozen

3/4 cup milk
1/4 cup sugar
1 teaspoon salt
4 tablespoons (1/2 stick) butter
1/2 cup warm water
5-6 teaspoons yeast (equivalent to 2 packages)
1 egg
3 1/2 cups flour

Heat milk; stir in sugar, salt and butter, then set aside to cool for a few minutes. Place warm water into large bowl. Sprinkle yeast over water and stir until dissolved. Add milk mixture, egg and 2 1/2 cups flour; beat until smooth. Stir in enough remaining flour to make a soft dough. Cover bowl with plastic wrap and refrigerate 2 hours to overnight.

Remove from refrigerator, punch dough down, and spoon into greased muffin cups. Cover and let rise in warm place until doubled, about one hour. In the meantime, preheat oven to 375 degrees. When dough has risen sufficiently, bake for 10 to 12 minutes or until starting to turn golden.

Mysteries

Here's a thought to ponder. Ever watch "X-Files" or "CSI" and wonder why they carry wimpy little dollar store flashlights instead of the maglights that every real cop on the planet carries? Well, here's another part of that same mystery.

How come the investigators of "CSI" enter a home that has been thorougly gone through already, that has been sealed as a crime scene, and instead of turning on the overhead lights or even desk lamps they walk through illuminated only by flashlights?

Yeah, I need a life....

But at least the week is ending on a high note.

What I made for New Years Day dinner

Black Eyed Peas with Roasted Root Vegetables
Serves 6

1 1/2 cups black eyed peas, sorted and rinsed
1 teaspoon dried thyme
2 sprigs fresh rosemary, or 1 teaspoon dried
2 carrots, peeled and cut into 1/2 inch slices
1 medium rutabaga, peeled and cut into 1/2 inch slices
1 large parsnip, peeled and cut into 1/2 inch slices
1 large red onion, peeled and cut in eighths
2 tablespoons olive oil
2 cloves garlic, chopped
salt and freshly ground black pepper

Combine peas with 6 cups water, thyme, and rosemary. Bring to a boil, reduce heat, cover and simmer about 1 hour, until tender.

In the meantime, preheat oven 400. Put vegetables and onion on a large piece of aluminum foil, drizzle with olive oil, and sprinkle with garlic and salt. Wrap tightly and place in baking dish. Put in oven and roast 30 to 40 minutes until they look caramelized when you peek. (Browned, not yet blackened.)

Combine peas with vegetables and mix well. Taste for seasoning and adjust as desired. Serve hot. Reheats well.

Note: If using fresh rosemary sprigs, be sure to remove the small woody parts from the peas before serving.

What I made for New Years Day dinner

While I did go out and enjoy some really wonderful dim sum on New Years morning with a lovely group of people plus a phone call to Morty (the little Jewish guy who lives inside the head of my friend Dennis who is African/Native American and has no Jewish in him at all other than Morty...) I also spent the evening with some other friends and this was my half of our joint dinner effort for the New Year. Yummy stuff!

Black Eyed Peas with Roasted Root Vegetables
Serves 6

1 1/2 cups black eyed peas, sorted and rinsed
1 teaspoon dried thyme
2 sprigs fresh rosemary, or 1 teaspoon dried
2 carrots, peeled and cut into 1/2 inch slices
1 medium rutabaga, peeled and cut into 1/2 inch slices
1 large parsnip, peeled and cut into 1/2 inch slices
1 large red onion, peeled and cut in eighths
2 tablespoons olive oil
2 cloves garlic, chopped
salt and freshly ground black pepper

Combine peas with 6 cups water, thyme, and rosemary. Bring to a boil, reduce heat, cover and simmer about 1 hour, until tender.

In the meantime, preheat oven 400. Put vegetables and onion on a large piece of aluminum foil, drizzle with olive oil, and sprinkle with garlic and salt. Wrap tightly and place in baking dish. Put in oven and roast 30 to 40 minutes until they look caramelized when you peek. (Browned, not yet blackened.)

Combine peas with vegetables and mix well. Taste for seasoning and adjust as desired. Serve hot. Reheats well.

Note: If using fresh rosemary sprigs, be sure to remove the small woody parts from the peas before serving.