CleverDonkey.com …Musings, Commentary, Opinions, and Drivel

Back when I was in college, I had a professor who had worked peripherally on the Viking Mars lander project in the 70’s. He said that before the probe was launched, the teams had decided that if the chemical and biological tests came out a certain way, that would be declared a positive test for ‘life’ on Mars. Lo and behold, the tests came back with the positive result. They all rocked back on their heels, told the White House, and were told in no uncertain terms to not release a statement saying there was life on Mars until there was absolute certainty – a prudent response.

The team went back over their protocols and said, hey, look, the test was positive, what do you want us to do? The powers-that-be then asked for some details, and it turns out that there were three separate and distinct experiments to test for ‘life’ using different methods, and the scientists had agreed that if any one (or more) of them came back positive, that was ‘life’. Well, what had happened is that only one had come back positive, so the powers-that-be said, nope, you only got one positive result out of three so that’s not enough to make such a momentous call.

Over the intervening decades, further analysis of the ‘failed’ tests resulted in a hypothesis that they had failed because at that time we didn’t know that the Martian surface contained a certain substance…my feeble memory wants to say some kind of chlorate? In any case, when the two failed tests were re-modeled taking into account the now-verified existence of this substance in the Martian soil, the two tests also came back positive.

So, for me, my original early 1980’s college class sowed the seeds of doubt for me, and I felt that there was a pretty good chance there was at least some kind of microbial life there. The intervening re-analysis of the two previously-failed experiments solidified this belief, for me, but again who was I to think I knew better given the lack of any unambiguous confirmation from the powers-that-be. However, from the late-80’s on, I have been pretty sure that a) there was life on Mars and b) the powers-that-be knew it but didn’t want to unleash the sociological impact that such an announcement could potentially engender, and so figured they would gradually work up to the announcement, and hopefully keep the info ambiguous enough to delay things long enough for it to become someone else’s problem.

Which brings us to today, when NASA announced the confirmation of flowing liquid salt water on the surface of Mars. The scientist releasing the findings (Lujendra Ojha of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta) had this to say:

“If the water is completely saturated with perchlorates, then life as we know it on Earth wouldn’t be able to survive in that sort of concentrated water. But if the water only has a tiny percentage of perchlorates in it, then I think we should be fine.”

First, aha, it was PERchlorates, not chlorates as I incorrectly recalled above (but I was close!). Second, I think this announcement is another step in laying the foundation for flat-out stating that there is life on Mars. Maybe not exactly as we know it on Earth, but even here we are finding extremophiles that our changing our definition of “life as we know it” every day.

So, my take is that this is as far as the powers-that-be are allowing the scientists to go with their announcements for now. If I were a betting man, I’d put a few large down that at this very moment some scientist somewhere is looking over video from the probes of Martian microbes getting jiggy with it, and that at some point in the future when the powers-that-be finally agree to lift the curtain and we’ll find out that a lot of clandestine research has been happening while we were kept in the dark.

I can’t know for certain, seeing as how I’m just a dumbass with a blog and a dilettantish interest in science. However, given that President Obama is entering the last year of his final term, and won’t have much to lose by making an announcement, and won’t have to hang around to clean up any collateral sociological messes, I could see him striding down the I-Killed-bin-Laden hallway, stepping up the mic, and letting the cat out of the bag in the waning months of his Presidency. Then he gets to go down in history as the President who first announced life on another planet. That’s gotta be tough to resist, presuming I’m reading the tea leaves correctly.

In any case, flowing liquid water on Mars is a tremendous announcement in and of itself, and strongly supports the potential for life on Mars.

I can’t wait.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Where to begin with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show? From a personal perspective, I remember the time before his tenure as host of The Daily Show, and it was a very different time. Yes, there was political satire, but it fell primarily into one of two varieties:

Toothless: Johnny Carson, Saturday Night Live, etc.

Cancelled: The Smothers Brothers, Dick Cavett, etc.

The one semi-exception was David Letterman, who over the years became more outspoken when calling out BS simply because his stature combined with his I-don’t-really-need-this-job-anymore attitude gave him latitude that few others had. But his was a variety show, and the political commentary was intermittent and brief.

For you youngsters who have always had The Daily Show around, it might be hard to imagine, but back in those days politicians were essentially untouchable, and were allowed to spout their BS without much of a challenge, except by their opponents who, by virtue of also being politicians, knew better than to lift the curtain and show the backstage tomfoolery involved in staging political theater.

If someone or something got too far out of hand, the ‘serious’ journalists would jump in (e.g. Woodward and Bernstein, 60 Minutes, etc.) and break the story, but the day-to-day flow of baloney went relatively unexamined by the average American.

But then along came Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. When Stewart took over as host he transformed the show into something that had never quite existed previously – a show dedicated to politics and humor, with a primary focus on clearly pointing out the enormous truckloads of BS that are the main ingredient in US (and global) politics.

Not only did the show x-ray politics, but it was also activist when it needed to be, such as when Stewart lobbied heavily for benefits for the 9/11 first-responders on the eve of a critical Congressional vote, and very likely changed the outcome of that vote through his actions. Stewart also acted to improve, every so slightly, the level of political discourse, such as when he went on CNN’s Crossfire, eviscerated the hosts over their ridiculous political-jousting theater, and then kept the heat on until the show faded into cancellation a few months later, with the head of CNN directly called out Jon’s criticisms as a factor.

But he was always self-deprecating, and quick to mock grandiose claims about the impact of his show. I think this was partly due to natural modesty, but also partly due to the fact that The Daily Show could only do what it did if it was ever the underdog. If he and the show had become full of their own power and began wielding it un-ironically they would have lost their edge.

Personally, I was familiar with Jon prior to The Daily Show primarily from his recurring appearances on The Larry Sanders Show, where he played a slightly fictionalized version of himself who was gunning to take over Larry’s show, to great effect. I mean, on Larry Sanders he stepped into one of the all-time great television shows filled with heavyweight talent in the prime of their show’s arc, and went toe to toe as if he were a natural – because, as it turns out, he was.

The good news is that Jon leaves us with an amazing legacy:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver – a brilliant show, where Oliver eschews the grind of a nightly show to produce a weekly show that delves more deeply into single issues. I was going to try to pick a favorite segment, but I can’t, just go watch them all (if you haven’t already).

The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore – Larry was fantastic as a ‘reporter’ for The Daily Show, usually billed as ‘Senior Black Correspondent’. I haven’t seem much of his new show, but wouldn’t expect him to be any less effective than he was on The Daily Show.

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert – as we all probably know, Stephen Colbert is taking over the Late Show from retired David Letterman. The Colbert episodes have not yet begun to air, and The Late Show has traditionally been a variety show with only hints of politics. I’m looking forward to seeing what he does, and also think that his previous effort, The Colbert Report, was also a game-changer with him playing a 100% straight-faced parody of a rabid dogmatic in order to point out the foolishness of dogma.

The impact of The Daily Show goes beyond those three. Jon Stewart changed the DNA of politics. In the ‘good old days’, news programs had to adhere to what were known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine‘ and the ‘Equal Time Rule‘, which meant that if your news show got political, you had to be sure your provided all sides fairly and all candidates with equal air time.

Stop for a minute and think about that – it used to be the law of the land that news programs were required by law to provide a fair assessment of issues, and to provide equal air time to all legitimate candidates. The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987, and while the Equal Time rule is still in effect, it has so many exceptions that about the only thing it would apply to is if a network gave a candidate free air time to say and do whatever they wanted.

Within a decade of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine we ended up with the launch of Fox News, the eventual left-i-fication of MSNBC, and the splintering of ‘news’ into infotainment, politics, gore, scandal, celebrity gossip, and whatever else gave ratings, public good be damned.

But in that sea of crap, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show evolved to serve as a reliable narrator and commentator, separating the BFDs from the BS, while puncturing the inflated windbags of punditry. There are those who say the show had a liberal bias, and while I think it had a liberal sensibility I also think the show was fair in calling out BS wherever it was to be found.

I think the assessment of The Daily Show as a purely liberal platform came primarily from the fact that the show’s rise to popularity occurred during the Bush administration, when Republicans held all the power and led us into two controversial wars. In that situation, you’re going to spend 95% of your time going after those with the power, because while it’s fun to mock inept, powerless losers sometimes (which The Daily Show did regularly to the Democrats), it’s not a recipe for long-term success if it’s your primary focus.

I know The Daily Show will be coming back with a new host (Trevor Noah), but I know nothing about him and know that he’ll have to be amazing to get my attention. I hope he is, but he’s stepping into some very big shoes and I hope he has the right stuff.

So now it’s goodbye to Jon. For years the evening routine of my house included watching The Daily Show the vast majority of the time. Now there will have to be a change, and I don’t like change, especially when it’s changing something that couldn’t possibly be made better. Good night, Jon, I hope you take some time to relax from the grind, rest on your laurels, and reflect on your accomplishments. If you come back to the airwaves I’ll be sure to give you a look. #JonVoyage

 

 

• Leave a comment... (0)

Dear Dave,

In my youth I was a big fan of the Tonight Show, and watched Carson most nights. Then one day something strange happened – a new show appeared after Carson, with a new guy doing a new kind of show. The show was raw and unpolished compared to Johnny’s show, as was the host, a laconic smart-ass from Indiana called David Letterman.

But the show was funny. Laugh-out-loud funny, back in the day before LOL was a tingling on anyone’s typing fingertips. So my routine changed – whereas I used to stay up to at least see Johnny’s monologue, I started making sure I stayed up to see yours, which in many (if not most) cases led to me watching a good portion of the rest of your show.

And your show struck a chord with me. I mean, hit the nail right on the head. I love absurd humor. I don’t hold celebrities in reverence, and prefer to see jerks and idiots treated as such, as long as they are willing participants. Your show became the double-edged sword of entertainment – anybody who was anybody needed to go on your show, because it was good business. But, they got no guarantees that they would be treated to softball questions or fawning segments, but instead got pulled off-script and into who knows what.

And it was great television. One segment that was particularly memorable for me, and which I think illustrates the kind of thing I loved most about your show, is your visit to the GE headquarters with a fruit basket to say ‘hello’ after they purchased your employer, NBC:

It was kind of a dick move on your part to show up in the GE lobby unannounced with cameras and a fruit basket, but it was also genius. And the message it sent to everyone (stars, agents, guests, executives) was that the show was first and foremost about being entertaining, and that everyone involved with or participating in the show needed to understand that the guy in the host chair had no hesitation to publicly piss off his new bosses, who sign his paycheck, so imagine how little he’s going to care about fluffing your ego when you’re in the guest chair.

Interestingly, over the years I derived a certain set of manners that you exhibited on the show, that belied your reputation:

• You were unfailingly nice to children and did your best to make them feel successful and comfortable
• You were unfailingly acerbic to jerks and idiots and did your best to make them feel ill at ease and unsuccessful
• A guest’s reputation as a human being, not as a ‘star’, dictated your treatment of the guest
• You treated your audience as if they were intelligent beings, and did not pander to a least-common-denominator that might improve ratings at the cost of toning down the show
• Sometimes…well, sometimes you were just a jerk, but aren’t we all, sometimes?

In short, the ethos embodied by your show aligned quite comfortably with my image of myself. It felt, to me, that you represented me in the larger world of entertainment in a way that nobody had done before, or since. As much as I loved Johnny, I couldn’t relate to his suavity. You, on the other hand, retained just enough of your Indiana goofball roots to be recognizable to me.

So I became a loyal viewer. I’d estimate that I watched at least half of your shows at NBC – and this was in the age before TiVo so that meant I stayed up and watched it when it aired. I saw Top Ten lists, a guy under the stairs, Larry ‘Bud’ Melman, small town news, a suit of suet (and of velcro, and of Alka-Seltzer), stupid tricks (both pet and human), flirting with Meg across the street, and the NBC Bookmobile.

I saw you interrupt the Today show from your office window using a bullhorn, I saw you give Darlene Love a career rebirth, I saw Carson walk on your show just after announcing his retirement, I saw Sonny and Cher reunite. I saw a lot of things that made me laugh.

Then, instead of inheriting the Tonight Show crown that was rightfully yours, the pinheads at GE went with someone else. Although I still think that was a boneheaded decision, it seems that things worked out okay for you, and the truth is it had little impact on my day-to-day life, other than sympathetic outrage at the injustice of it all.

So, you moved to CBS, and brought most of the staff and sensibilities along with your. The show was different – more polished and glamorous, yet, but still retaining that goofball essence.

I followed you to CBS, and there I saw More with Les (Moonves), I saw Mujibur and Sirajul, I saw Rupert Jee, I saw a box that contained either potatoes or Gavin MacLeod, I saw you determine if things would float, I learned the definition of ‘Variety Meats’, I saw your mom make pies and travel the world, and I saw you determine if something was…anything. I saw you face your mortality with a quadruple bypass. I saw you embrace fatherhood. I saw you help start the healing after 9/11.

Over the years I saw you do nothing more or less than to single-handedly transform the entertainment industry. Your shows pulled back the curtains and let us see the sausage of entertainment being made. Sophia Loren won’t be on your show? Send a remote camera to ambush her in her Live at Five dressing room across the hall, then argue with her mother who blocks the door as you chastise Sophia for smoking in the background.

The network forces you to have the most recently voted-off Survivor cast member on your show? You do the minimum – they are always a remote guest (never in the studio), you refer to them as the ‘latest loser’, and you have your staff hit them with inane questions like, ‘Did you see or touch any monkeys?’ So, you fulfilled the letter of the law while simultaneously thumbing your noses at the network by marginalizing their precious tie-in marketing ploy.

Politician John McCain cancels on you at the last minute, saying he had to rush back to DC for an important vote? Well, you catch him on the internal CBS feed still in town getting mic’ed up for an appearance on a news show, and call him out on his lie publicly that night (and cause him to come back, take his medicine, and apologize).

In short, you were meta before meta was cool. Every single current late night show is based on your format and sensibilities. Hand-held, hall-walking cameras are now ubiquitous (30 Rock, The Office, every Aaron Sorkin show, etc), but that’s a shtick that was perfected on your shows.

Today all of those things seem like standard procedure for any cutting-edge show, but you were the ice breaker and the game changer, and set the standard for iconoclastic entertainment that persists to this day.

Outside of my blood relatives, my relationship with you is the longest I’ve had in my life. Yes, it was mostly one-way, with you entertaining me, and the only impact going the other way would have been my membership in your viewership demographics, and since we were never a Nielsen household even that impact was by inference only. But you were still a constant in my life, and I could always watch your show and feel a little better about things.

But no longer. Wednesday is your last show. I’ll be tuning in, as I have been for most of the ‘farewell’ shows over the last few weeks. Watching this parade of notables express their heartfelt feelings about what you have meant to them has made me feel better about you leaving, because I know that you’re hearing from them the things that I (and millions of other fans) would like to say to you.

Dave, you were the funniest asshole on television, and you had a heart of gold underneath your curmudgeonly exterior. Thanks for all the laughs (and tears) over the years. I’m going to miss you.

Scott (a random fan)

• Leave a comment... (2)

3.5/4 stars

We went into Kingsman with moderate expectations – I had heard some interesting buzz, but the thought of Colin Firth as an action star left me a bit incredulous.

However, I stand corrected. Kingsman is one of the more surprising and entertaining films we have seen in a *long* time. It is a funny, charming, exciting, and at times hyper-violent homage to the spy films of the 60’s and 70’s, updated with the effects and production values of the biggest of Hollywood blockbusters. On top of all of that, the acting has that impeccable British air to it, where you can tell that the cast members were actors first and celebrities second, unlike the all-too-common reverse of that in the US.

Leading the acting gravitas is Sir Michael Caine, playing Arthur, the mysterious head of a mysterious organization called Kingsman, composed of mysterious latter-day knights who mysteriously protect the world from mysterious mysteries.  And let me tell you, nobody plays a Michael Caine-like character better than Michael Caine.

Then we come to Colin Firth, usually known (to me) as the cuddly and befuddly love interest in some offbeat rom-com. Well, he is completely different here as the archly mannered and highly lethal (and highly believable) Kingsman known as Galahad. His nemesis is Valentine, played by Samuel L. Jackson with a deprecating lisp that hides the enormity of his mysterious plan.

Throw in some gratuitous Mark Hamill and a great supporting cast of newcomers and unknowns (at least by me) and you’ve got a terrific ensemble. The story is fairly original, and turns in directions that I did not see coming, which was quite refreshing.

It’s difficult for me to talk about the film without giving away key plot elements, but I’ll try to minimize the spoilers. The core of the movie is an evil plan that has worldwide implications, and also has the complicity of much of the world’s leadership, making it that much more difficult to stop.

The team of Kingsman fighting the evil plot are sort of a Non-Governmental Organization of Righteousness and Justice, dispensed by well-tailored members/knights with equal doses of wit and whoop-ass. Speaking of, this movie has one of the more intensely violent sequences I have seen in a mainstream film, so watch out. It’s actually well-done and integral to the plot, but that doesn’t make it any less surprising or disturbing, so be prepared.

Put it all together and this is one entertaining film. Marie and I have now seen it twice, and I’ve actually seen it solo as well. Given that we have a 4 year old and parental-movie-nights are a precious rarity, it says something that we chose to expend multiple of them on this film.

So, if you’re in the mood for a big action movie that’s also a well-crafted film, this could be the ticket. Highly recommended.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Today we said goodbye to Ruckus, our beloved rescue. We had him genetically tested and it came back that he was 75% Rottweiler and 25% Standard Poodle. I’m not sure how accurate those things are, but it fit. He was strong, smart, and handsome, and he was a great, deep soul.

Figuring out the smart part took me a while. Rux was cool and calm almost 100% of the time. Yes, as a puppy he was a galloping galoot who loved to get into mischief, but when Weagle passed away and Rux became the alpha, he matured almost overnight into a gentle guardian. What I had initially interpreted as him being a goofus was actually just him having fun while there was fun to be had, while it was not yet his job to maintain the safety of the pack.

But once he took over he developed a regal bearing. Not superior. Never menacing. Cool, calm, collected, and capable. He was benign with visiting dogs even when they misbehaved. He was an angel with children, and we never for one second had any concern with him around David when he was a baby – Ruckus loved him from the moment he came home.

He was also at his happiest when Annalisa was at the house, and the pack was complete – he would greet her enthusiastically each visit, then snuggle in next to her for as long as he could.

He was brought down by a 1-2-3 punch over the last few weeks. First, we learned he had Addison’s Disease when he collapsed in the throes of an Addisonian Crisis. As we nursed him back from that they discovered a splenic tumor. And, finally, his hind legs simply stopped working to the point where he couldn’t even get up.

Sadly, prior to his decline we had recently made the decision to get a new puppy that we could bring in for Rux to train up to become the new security chief of the house. We had just gotten to the point of making a choice of pup when Rux’s health started to fade, so we held off on introducing a new puppy into his convalescence. So, speaking selfishly, we have lost out on having Rux pass down his teachings to a new pup.

But, he did confirm that we love Rottweilers, particular after how great Weagle was, and our next dog will almost certainly be mostly or all Rottie. They are marvelous dogs, and any issues with Rotties will almost certainly be issues with the owners, not the breed itself. On the rare instances when I had to travel solo, it was comforting to know that Ruckus was at the house protecting the family.

He was a good dog. He almost never barked, except in extreme instances. He never snapped or growled, again, except in extreme circumstances. He had a built-in genetic drive to hoooooooowwwwwlllll any time he heard sirens – we never did figure out where that came from, he just started doing it as a pup and continued throughout his life. He loved almost everybody he met, and they loved him almost universally.

I can’t believe that he’s gone now.

Goodbye, Ruckus, we’ll miss you.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Note that this article has been updated to reflect refinements that have been introduced to our popcorn process over the years. They are tweaks, but make the popcorn even better!

First and foremost, we have switched from Orville Redenbacher popcorn to Kernel Seasons. It tastes better, and also is GMO free.

Second, we pop our popcorn in coconut oil now, which lends a fantastic taste element which will also be familiar, because many (if not most) movie theaters use coconut-based oil for popping.

Third, we use clarified butter instead of just melted butter. This makes a *huge* difference in taste and texture. The clarified butter contains virtually no moisture, so the popcorn stays perfectly crisp, and the butter flavor is concentrated as well. See the sidebar on the right below for tips on how we make clarified butter for popcorn.

Below is the original article, with edits made to reflect the above three changes:

My favorite food is popcorn. I have loved it since I was young, and I have spent a large portion of my adult lifetime refining my recipe to the point where it is perfect to me, and it seems to be popular with those to whom I serve it. There is nothing magical or difficult about the making of this popcorn, nor are the ingredients exotic or hard to find. Any reasonably handy kitchen person should be able to make it with no problem. However, the exact combination of process and ingredients has been perfected through almost 20 years of refinement, and I wanted to share it with my fellow popcorn lovers (and also maybe win a few converts to the manual process).

The Gear

To make Perfect Popcorn, you need the right equipment. First and foremost, do NOT use a popcorn popper of any kind. They all trap too much steam, which makes the popcorn soggy instead of crispy. Even those with vented tops still have slant-side domed lids, which increase the condensation of steam inside the popper before it can vent. Perfect Popcorn is made in a pot on the stove, using a manual process. Trust me, it’s worth it.

The pot I use is a heavy, expensive 9.5 quart stainless steel pot from Dansk, which I got as a gift from my in-laws, and have used several times a week ever since (thanks Sherry and Bill!!) The bottom is heavy, and contains a copper disk sandwiched between the inner and outer stainless steel layers. The pot you use should be as thick and heavy as possible to ensure even heat distribution and to eliminate scorching. Scorching is the kiss of death to popcorn, as even a few scorched kernels will assault your nose and taste buds, busting your popcorn eating groove. Also, if you can, stay away from non-stick pots, as their surfaces also promote the condensation of steam, and most are not heavy enough to ensure proper heat distribution.

Next, you need a tiny metal saucepan in which to melt your clarified butter. The one I use is large enough to hold about 2 cups of liquid, and has a handle on one side and a pour spout on the other side, making it easy to use. Picture a standard 2 cup glass measuring cup, and it looks kind of like that, only stainless steel. In a pinch you can use a glass measuring cup.

I also recommend having a trivet of some kind for serving the hot popcorn in the pot. Serving the popcorn in the popping pot helps it stay warm, but it introduces some serving logistics, such as not scorching your table top. My preferred setup is to eat my popcorn at the coffee table. I set a heavy cotton placemat on the coffee table, and then set a large, round cork trivet on top of that, for insulation. When I serve the popcorn, I simply carry the hot pot out to the coffee table and set it on the cork trivet.

[stextbox id=”info” caption=”How To Make Clarified Butter for Popcorn” float=”true” align=”right” width=”400″] Here’s how I make clarified butter (used for popcorn and other things):

• Take 4-6 pounds of salted butter (four to six boxes, sixteen to twenty-four typical sticks of butter) and place it in a heavy saucepan.
• Heat on low heat for approximately two hours. You want the butter to melt and then gently bubble. The bubbling is the water boiling off.
• You can heat longer and the butter will brown up, giving it a nice, nutty flavor that I actually prefer – typically 3-4 hours will do it for the browned clarified butter.
• Strain through a strainer lined with paper towels into a heat-safe bowl or dish. This will remove the milk solids that have gathered at the bottom, and absorb the foam off the top.
• I then pour it into large mason jars and store at room temperature. It keeps for a long time, not sure how long but I’ve kept it for months without issue. It should keep like vegetable oil, which lasts quite a long time.

Note that above directions make way more clarified butter than is needed for one batch of popcorn, so if you like you can take one or two sticks of butter and do the same thing (in a smaller pot). Also, many recipes for clarified butter recommend using unsalted butter, however I prefer the taste of the salted butter – it’s your preference.

Also, clarified butter can be used for cooking. It heats nicely without smoking or scorching so you can use it for frying at higher temperatures, unlike butter. I try to keep some on hand at all times. It’s perfect on popcorn because it has virtually no water, so the popcorn stays completely crisp and does not get soggy.[/stextbox]

The Ingredients
The ingredients are very simple:

Kernel Seasons popping corn
Organic coconut oil
Clarified butter (or ghee) (see sidebar for directions ====>)
Salt

That’s it. I *highly* recommend Kernel Season’s popcorn, as it has a distinct qualitative advantage over every other brand I have tried, including Redenbacher, Newman’s Own, and Jolly Time. Also, please use real butter. If you’re on a diet, either eat less of the popcorn, or skip it all together, but please, please don’t use any other margarine or spread type substances. They *all* contain large quantities of water, and water kills good popcorn. (Also, if you don’t use real butter, please don’t associate your concoction with me in any way. Thank you.) I’m not providing exact quantities for a reason, which is that the proportions will depend on things like the size of the pot, and your own personal tastes. There are quantity guidelines in the Preparation section below.

Preparation
The following preparation instructions assume a 2 cup steel butter melting pot and a 9.5 quart heavy steel popping pot, and the stovetop settings are what works best on my electric stove. You may have to adjust to your stove and/or tastes. If you use a glass measuring cup for your clarified butter, make sure that it is safe for the stove top.

First, put the small pot containing 1/4 cup of clarified butter (or more or less depending on your tastes or mood) on a small burner on medium-low and allow it to begin warming. If you are using a stovetop-safe glass measuring cup for your butter, wait 3-5 minutes before starting the next step, as the butter takes that much longer to heat up in a glass measuring cup.

Now, place the large pot on a large burner set on medium, and add enough coconut oil to cover the bottom up to about an eighth of an inch deep when melted. To give some perspective, you want the oil to be deep enough to cover about ¾ of a popcorn kernel, but not to totally submerge it. Now drop in two kernels (you can also use these to judge your oil depth) and cover the pot. Swirl the clarified butter a little bit while you wait for both kernels to pop. Once they have popped, add enough popcorn to obscure the bottom of the pot, and then put the lid back on. Add the popcorn right after the two kernels have popped, or the coconut oil may get too hot and you will end up with scorched and/or half-popped kernels. Pick up the pot and give it a couple of swirls to ensure that all the kernels have been coated with oil. In a minute or two the popcorn will start popping. Give the popcorn pot an occasional swirling shake to keep things moving.

The popping will increase to an almost constant state, and then will begin to slow down. You need to be very careful here, because you want as much popcorn to pop as possible, but even 15-20 seconds too long on the burner will result in scorched popcorn. Once the popping slows to 1 or 2 pops per second, immediately remove the pot from the heat (don’t just turn the heat off) and remove the lid to allow the rest of the steam to escape. Now pick up your clarified butter pot  and carefully drizzle about a third of the butter onto the top of the popcorn in an even spiral pattern. Then sprinkle on a little bit of salt, and pick up the popcorn pot and give it two or three good shakes to bring the unbuttered popcorn up from the bottom. Drizzle another third of the butter on top, and add a little more salt and shake the pot one last time. Now add the rest of the butter and a little more salt. Avoid excessive pot shaking, as each shake will also release heat, and you want to retain as much heat as possible, as hot popcorn tastes the best.

Serve and eat immediately! I eat it right out of the popping pot, when possible. Sometimes that’s impossible, such as eating it in bed, where the hot pot would just be too dangerous, but serve it hot whenever possible, it makes a lot of difference.

The process described above takes me less than 15 minutes, from start to finish, assuming the pots are clean and dry, and that the ingredients haven’t gone missing, and you have clarified butter on hand. That’s a very small time investment for a wonderful, wonderful snack.

Pop(corn) Philosophy
The popcorn described above is not a diet or health food. It is an indulgence, and should be consumed in moderation. But, whatever you do, please don’t substitute ingredients…for instance, canola oil cooks differently, and (as I mentioned above) any margarine-like product will drown your crunchy popcorn into a chewy mess. Only make this popcorn when you mean it, and when you can afford it, calorically. And make sure to enjoy it while it’s hot…that’s when it’s at its most perfect. And if you can’t finish it all, simply cover the pot and leave the popcorn out for the next day. If covered, it won’t get stale, and it actually tastes wonderful. And, contrary to some perceptions, butter does not go bad overnight. It actually takes almost a week at room temperature for butter to turn.

Also, a quick word about microwave popcorn – microwave popcorn is the fruit of the devil. Yes, it is quick, easy, and convenient, but so is Spam (the lunch meat product, not the email). There are those who really like Spam, just as there are those who really like microwave popcorn, but most are settling for less than what they want simply for the convenience. I think that if you give my popcorn a chance, you’ll never go back to nuking it.

• Leave a comment... (7)

DISCLAIMER: I have no specific knowledge of car remotes nor the short or long term effects of coating them in a rubberized substance, and the consequences could be dire (void warranty, damage, remote-freak-out, etc).  This post represents steps I took for my own remote.  They may not work for you and may have unintended consequences, so if you decide to try something like this it is at your own risk!!!  

We recently purchased a new vehicle (2012 Toyota Sienna), and I found that whenever I had my key chain in my pocket (which is always), I would regularly activate different, random remote buttons on the fob.  Some mornings I would go out and find the car unlocked (when I knew I had locked it), other times I’d find one (or both) of the side doors slid open.

I’ve had car remotes on my key chain for decades, and while on some rare occasions (like climbing under the sink to fix plumbing) I might incidentally have activated the remote, it was only once every great while (e.g. every year or two).

But with the Sienna remote it happened multiple times a week, sometimes multiple times a day.  Something as simple as getting up out of a chair or even just putting my keys in my pocket would result in an unexpected (beep) followed by a slow (and, seemingly, mocking) mechanical response from the van.

I searched the Web and also solicited advice in related forums, but the universal feedback I got was ‘take your keys out of your pocket when you get home’.  Er, yeah, gee, I had never thought of that (rolls eyes).  The lone helpful suggestion I got was to try to find a silicone cover for the remote.  I searched online for one, with the thought being that adding some thickness around the remote such that the buttons were a bit more inset would reduce the frequency of unintended activation.

Unfortunately, while there are plenty of places that sell covers for Sienna remotes, none that I could find sold one with our particular button configuration.  However, I still liked the idea of somehow reducing the sensitivity of the remote with some type of rubberized coating.

It occurred to me that a potential solution was to use Plasti-Dip.  I’ve used the black version in the past for coating tool handles, and I even dipped a USB drive into it to block the blinking LED it had that bothered us in the car (it holds music and plugs into a port on the dash of our other vehicle).

I searched online and found that they also made a clear version.  I could picture in my head that dipping the remote in Plasti-Dip a couple of times would create a thicker protective rubberized coating that might reduce incidental button presses.

I’ll stop here and refer to the disclaimer at the top of this article.  Although I consider myself a handy guy, I have no specific knowledge that doing this to my remote (or yours) is advisable, and I undertook this as somewhat of an experiment, knowing that the result might be a $100+ dollar mistake (if I ruined my remote), or maybe even worse if my remote shorted out and opened and closed our doors all night and/or repeatedly activated and deactivated the remote starter and/or did something unexpected by sending electronic screaming gibberish at the van until it exploded or levitated or something.

The good news is that it worked as expected, at least so far.  If you look at the top-right picture, that’s the setup I used for coating and drying the remote.  I had a small cardboard box and a refrigerator clip magnet, and left the small ring on the key itself.  I then opened the Plasti-Dip, dipped the remote up high enough to cover all the buttons, and then connected it to the magnet with the ring to let it hang and dry between coats.

I did four coats, letting it dry for 30 minutes between coats per the instructions on the can.  The final result can be seen to the left.  As you can see, after four coats the Plasti-Dip isn’t quite clear, it’s a little bit cloudy, but the remote’s icons are still easily readable.  The buttons press with a little effort, and I have to press hard right in the middle of each button to activate it, but that was the whole point.

So far (after a full day) I haven’t had any accidental button activations, and I can tell that as long as the coating remains intact that this is going to greatly reduce and potentially even eliminate my pocket beeps.

Longevity is going to be a big question.  The coating feels pretty solid, but after hundreds of button presses who knows if it’ll hold up.  I’m also concerned about the eventual need for a battery change, but my strategy is to use a razor to slice around the outside edges where the seam is and open it up like a clamshell.  My thought is that I’d re-dip it after the replacement to sort of seal-up the cut seam, but that’ll be a game-time decision.

Bottom line is that, long term, the coating may split or crack, battery changes may be a chore, and/or something else may go wrong, but for now it’s working exactly as designed, and I’ve got my fingers crossed.  I’m planning to come back here and post updates as events warrant.

Also, if any of you try this (or have tried it in the past) I’d love to get your feedback in the comments below.

• Leave a comment... (2)

The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is the latest MacGuffin in the decades-long struggle to figure out health care in the United States.  Meaning, in the current debate it appears that the key to solving health care lies in enforcing and/or fixing and/or repealing Obamacare.  However, I think our focus has been misdirected from the true underlying issue, which is that over the last several decades we have moved to a health care infrastructure that is primarily for-profit.

To illustrate, picture if you will a theoretical health care organization, let’s call it Proactive Preventative Health Associates (PPHA).  Now picture that PPHA lives up to their name in that they proactively manage the health of their patients and foster proven preventative measures to significantly reduce the incidence of manageable health issues (cardiovascular problems, diabetes, cancer, etc).

If PPHA is a for-profit organization, their success in creating a healthy customer base will result in a reduction of profits, and the better PPHA does at reducing or preventing recurring, long-term, expensive health care issues the worse they will do as a business entity, until such time that they could conceivably put themselves out of business by being good at what they do.

If PPHA is a non-profit organization, however, the improvement of the health of their patients means they are successful, and frees their resources to focus on more urgent or needy patients and issues, because there are no stockholders or investors watching the bottom line.

So, a for-profit health care organization has two conflicting and irreconcilable motivations.  First, the (assumed) goal of maximizing the health of their patients, and second, the fiduciary goal of maximizing the health care expenses and profitability of their customers.

These two adversarial forces cannot be reconciled – they simply cannot.  Health care and profits do not go together, because if they are combined we are creating a situation where those who we trust to keep us healthy will actually be motivated to maximize our healthcare spending.

These are not theoretical noodlings, fyi.  If you were to read this article, you would find a case of a for-profit hospital that was allegedly sedating patients until they had trouble breathing, and then performing unnecessary tracheotomies at great expense (and profit).  Not only would this constitute fraud, it also may have resulted in the deaths of patients who would have otherwise survived.

Less sinister, but also illustrative, this article discusses (among other things) a study that indicated that for-profit nursing homes appeared to use significantly more sedatives and significantly fewer staff to manage those in their care.  While this might be good news to a profit-motivated investor, it would be disheartening if it were your mother they were keeping sedated because it was cheaper than creating an active and engaging environment for her.

You may find the concept of a completely non-profit health care infrastructure to sound bizarre and potentially socialistic.  While it would be a radical change, it is not without precedent in our everyday lives.

To wit, picture again another theoretical organization – Premier Fire Fighting Services, Inc. (PFFSI).  PFFSI is a for-profit firefighting service that exists in your community instead of your current Fire Department.  PFFSI charges for every fire they put out, and the bigger the fire the larger the charges (and profits).  Also, other than instances where lives are in immediate danger, PFFSI has no requirement to help you if you don’t have approved fire insurance that they accept.

Now, if PFFSI worked hard in the community to educate the populace on proper fire safety procedures, and worked with governmental agencies to enact and enforce stringent fire codes, they would cripple their business and reduce their profits.  But from society’s perspective, if a fire is allowed to burn then it can spread, causing even greater damage, so it is in the shared interests of society to respond aggressively to any and all fires, lest they spread and cause damage (physical, emotional, financial) across the larger community.  This is, again, not a theoretical noodling, and an eerily similar situation is discussed in this article.

Similar things happen with the privatization of prisons, where within a few short years we already have prison companies bribing judges to send more children to youth detention, in some cases ruining lives with false charges and life disruption, all for a few dollars.

Now, in any endeavor there will always be people who will break laws in order to make money.  However, in the case of health care (and fire fighting and prison operation), there are common ethical, societal, and fiduciary responsibilities that are directly at odds:

• The service is necessary for a functional society
• The service is unavoidable by any realistic means
• The goal of each service should be to minimize the need for such service
• If the service is for-profit, there is no motivation to reduce the need for such services, and there is a great motivation to increase (sometimes fraudulently) the consumption of such services

Bottom line – my take is that we need to step back from the debate over Obamacare and discuss the larger issue of profit-motivated health care, and if that’s the paradigm we want driving our health care.  Remember, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, directly profits monetarily if an individual remains healthy (and/or their house doesn’t burn and/or they don’t get sent to prison on exaggerated charges).

However, we as a society profit greatly, albeit indirectly and immeasurably, if the use of these services are minimized.  Once we have reduced (or eliminated) the profit motive from direct patient health care, we will then be positioned to tackle the subsequent issue of how we address health care for all Americans.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Disclaimer: the article below represents the noodlings of a dumbass who is talking about things way over his head, but which he nonetheless found interesting as a mental exercise.

There’s an old saying that ‘politics makes strange bedfellows’, meaning that the alliances and enmities that occur in politics are often highly situational and transient, resulting in kaleidoscopic political theater where it’s difficult to tell the players without a constantly updated program.

When you add money to the mix, it tends to accelerate the wackiness even further.  I think that two recent political theater productions are both ultimately being driven by economics. There’s another old saying that if you want to understand something in the political (or business) world, your best bet is to ‘follow the money’, so here’s my decode based on that precept of two recent omnipresent political issues:

Issue #1: The Sequester
Remember a couple of years ago when the US faced a debt-ceiling crisis, and ultimately the compromise was to extend the debt ceiling, with the proviso that a ‘poison pill’ called the ‘sequester’ would kick in if the Executive and Legislative branches couldn’t come up with a mutually agreeable budget by 2013? Good times.

The sequester was essentially a set of automatic spending cuts that hit at the sacred cows of all the players, meaning the Republicans put the defense budget on the table, while the Democrats put entitlements on the chopping block, etc, and if the two sides couldn’t agree on a more rational budget, these automatic cuts would trigger. The goal was for the cuts to be so painful for both sides that they’d be forced to put aside partisan bickering and actually cooperate for the good of the country.

Well, that didn’t happen, and the sequester has begun to kick in, causing budgetary pain throughout the government. Each side is loudly blaming the other, but nobody seems to be doing anything meaningful to fix things.

But stop for a moment and consider, what if this was the exact goal from the outset? Think about it – we (the United States) needed to drastically reshape our governmental spending, and it needed to cause pain for areas which are staunchly defended by either the Democrats or the Republicans (or both).

If the two sides had cooperated and jointly passed a bipartisan budget that instantiated these sweeping cuts, they could be vilified by challengers in the upcoming elections because they were ‘soft’, and ‘compromised’, and ‘sold out’ the ‘core values’ of their own constituency.

But with the sequester, the cuts are getting made by some mysterious ‘automatic’ process, while both sides get to blame the other for being obstinate. So in the upcoming elections, the incumbents can say, hey, put me back in the ring to go another 15 rounds against those evil other guys who forced the sequester by being big dummies and hating everything that *we* stand for! I’ll show ’em this time!!

That’s a pretty good story. I bet it will be very useful in fundraising and electioneering. It also allows the incumbents to have done two (and likely three) things:

1. Enact deep, painful, but necessary spending cuts.
2. Blame the other guys for the whole thing.
3. Keep your key donors, raise a war chest, and get re-elected?

I have to say, this explanation fits the facts very well. It would not surprise me if there had been backroom deals where both sides said, look, we agree we need to make cuts to these programs, but neither of us can be seen as agreeing to not protect our turf, so let’s set up this automatic sequester to do the dirty work, and then blame each other…all in favor? Ay, ay, ay, ay, ay, ay, ay…

My guess is that it is very likely that this was both political theater and political judo of the first caliber. First, the staged production of fighting the good fight, while secretly supporting the automatic cuts, then the judo of using the appearance of righteous battle against an evil enemy to raise funds and get re-elected. It’s beautiful, from a certain perspective, if true.

I’m not a betting man, but if I were my money’d be on this scenario being closest to the truth in regards to the sequester.

Issue #2: Marriage Equality
The second issue that I think is being decided, in the final analysis, by political economics is marriage equality.  At the end of the day the objections to gay marriage have primary basis – the teachings of the Bible, or more specifically, currently popular interpretations of the Scriptures.  All the other arguments (gays shouldn’t marry because they can’t produce children, gays are more likely to be child predators, etc) are only held by nincompoops (sorry, ya’ll), but the one that can’t be dismissed out of hand as idiocy is the *moral* objection, the one that says gays shouldn’t marry because it’s *wrong*.

However, “wrong” is defined by society.  Yes, some members of society are also religious and bring their beliefs and faiths to the equation, but at the end of the day the “rightness” and “wrongness” of something is decided through the accumulated opinions of the entire society.  When I was a kid in my church it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays, and now nobody even thinks about as a serious transgression (if they think about it at all).  Similarly, people regularly work on Sundays and aren’t presumed to be hell-bound.

So, over time, long-held beliefs change, even those that are thought to be indelible by those who believe them.  There comes a tipping point when the changes and advances of society topple old ways of thinking.  I’m not saying that every case of this is for the better, but overall it is the nature of progress.  I think that Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” – Thomas Jefferson, also inscribed on his memorial

And I think we are now at a tipping point on gay rights in this country, particularly in relation to marriage equality.  It has been a long discussion, and when I look for reasons that *now* seems to be the watershed moment I think it comes down to political economics.

First and foremost, the majority of the US population now supports marriage equality, according to almost all non-partisan surveys.  In and of itself, that doesn’t make something right.  I’m sure there was a time when the majority of Americans were against mixed-race marriages, for example, and that didn’t make that belief ‘right’.  However, it did make it politically expedient to be on the same side as the majority of Americans, because to get elected you have to have a constituency that will vote for you over the other person, and being a societal windsock is part of being a politician.

Secondly, and most importantly in my opinion, I think that those with the deep pockets have changed their outlook on this issue.  The few businesses where leaders have espoused anti-marriage-equality sound bites have found themselves mercilessly skewered for their positions, to the point where even the most vocal proponents of ‘traditional marriage’ have to be feeling the need to keep it to themselves lest they be cast as backwards-thinking, bigoted theocrats to the point that it impacts their bottom line.

Additionally, businesses want to get on with the business of business, and part of business is being able to be a competitive employer who can attract and keep talent.  Being able to legally provide full recognition of benefits to same-sex spouses allows businesses to draw from a larger pool of talent, and to retain key employees who may be tempted to leave for more rainbow-colored pastures.

In addition, in today’s economy it frequently takes two stable incomes that are joined by the legal bonds of marriage to support a typical American lifestyle.  Big things like buying a house, financing a car, planning for retirement, etc make for better business when dealing with a legally married couple, where both incomes are considered and can be held accountable for debts and/or contribute to financial nest eggs that are jointly shared by marriage.  The same is true for the littler things, like building up a household that’s based on both the emotional *and* the legal commitment that is ‘marriage’.

Lastly, I think that the engine of government can see that providing full recognition to same-sex couples allows for the kind of societal stability that it is in the interest of government to cultivate.  The business aspects described above are not only good for business, but are also a good foundation for society.  Those of us who today are part of husband-and-wife couples know that maintaining a household is work, raising a family is work, balancing work and life is, well, work, and having a dependable emotional, logistical, and financial partner can make all the difference in the stability of life by helping to share and balance the risks inherent in living.

Stable, prosperous, and happy households create a more stable, prosperous, and happy society.  Isn’t that what we all want?  Some of you may be offended by the lifestyles of your neighbors, but are you really un-offended by all your current neighbors?  Doesn’t one of them drink too much and one of them doesn’t take care of their yard and another one can’t hold down a job and another one dates women who are much too young for him and another one never pays attention to her poor kids who just want to be loved and another one’s family always has downcast eyes from the emotional abuse and another one is old and alone and sick and essentially abandoned by his family and another one is always glassy-eyed with a plastic smile from the overuse of prescription medications and on and and on and on.

Meaning, there are sinners all around every neighborhood who aren’t breaking the law and have the full rights of marriage despite their sins.  Why is this one case different?  I think that society, as a whole, has realized that it is in the best interests of society to allow the stabilizing construct of marriage to be undertaken by same-sex couples.  I also think that this has become the new reality, and the politicians who want to be re-elected are having to recognize that fact if they want to stay relevant (meaning stay in office).

There will be a few holdouts who may have some temporary success in speaking to and for the large but diminishing pool of voters who still care enough to try to obstruct marriage equality, but that’s ultimately a losing game, I think, and the money is now on the other, more fabulous, side of the fence.

So…?
Ultimately, what I write here will have little to no impact on the turning of societal events.  However, I wanted to take the time to point out what feels to be a tipping point on some major issues of our time.  Usually these are only seen clearly in hindsight, but with the acceleration of information flow brought about by the internet, it’s getting to where we can see these watershed moments after shorter and shorter intervals, to the point that we can reasonably discern when we are in the middle of an upheaval that will introduce profound changes to our society in this country, and I think that’s the case on these two issues.

For those who think I’ve extrapolated too much, too far, and/or too wrongly, you should try reading what I had to say about the potential coming coalition between Muslims and Christians.  🙂

• Leave a comment... (0)