A Recipe

California Walnut, Turkey and Rice Salad
(from www.mealsforyou.com)

We served this at supper last night and it definitely hit the spot – a tasty summer salad.

3 cups cooked brown rice
2 cups cooked turkey, white meat, diced
1/2 cup celery, diagonally sliced
1/4 cup pineapple chunks, drained
1/4 cup mandarin oranges, drained
1/4 cup water chestnuts, drained and thinly sliced
1/4 cup scallions, thinly sliced
1/4 cup chopped walnuts
1/2 cup lowfat lemon yogurt
1/2 cup low fat mayonnaise
1 tsp. lemon rind, grated
1/2 tsp. curry powder
6 cups lettuce, try romaine, spinach, Boston or mache

Directions: Combine the first 8 ingredients in a large bowl. Whisk together next 4 ingredients. Add the dressing to the salad mixture and toss to coat. Cover and refrigerate. To serve, spoon 1 cup of salad over 1 cup of the lettuce leaves. Because this recipe serves 6 we doubled it.

Our Notes: The Equuschick made the salad; she does not think water chestnuts are fit to eat so they were not included in the dish. This made the HeadGirl very happy and the DHM somewhat sad. Of course, the HeadGirl also wishes that the celery had been omitted, but one can’t have everything in life…
Instead of lemon yogurt we used plain yogurt flavored with lemon juice. We did not have it with the lettuce but this was a pure oversight and will not happen again. We were interrupted by a serious thunderstorm that necessitated the rearrangement of the livestock. By the time we got in to eat supper the lettuce had been forgotten.

Jennyanydots suggested the addition of more mandarin oranges. This is purely subjective, however. We happen to really like mandarin oranges. 🙂

-We should have noted that this amount served nine with generous leftovers- several of us had it for lunch the next day. So I would say the above amount is enough for about 12 if you serve this as a main dish, which we would. We had it again quite recently, and the Equuschick kindly added the water chestnuts to my portion. They were a scrumptious addition.- the DHM

reposted at The Common Kitchen

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Responses

Our D.C. Trip: Memorial to Robert Shaw and the Massachusetts 54th

While in D.C. we went to the National Gallery of Art, as I mentioned here.
We split up inside the museum, so we didn’t all see the same works of art. Pipsqueak, the First Year Boy, the Headmaster and I saw this one. Those who missed it wished they’d seen it.

Click on the link, and then you can see it, too, and read all about it. It was the FYB’s favorite NGA exhibit, even better than St. George and the Dragon paintings (his previous favorite works of art).

After you’ve spent some time at the above website, looked over all the pages, read all the links, looked at the picture and zoomed in on parts of the sculpture, go watch the movie Glory. We have TVG, and I’m very glad, so if you do not have TVG and you do not watch movies with swearing, you’ll want to pass on this suggestion. Better yet, come on over to our house and watch it here.

Glory is rated R for violence [the HeadGirl hastens to add that language is also a factor in its rating. Our family has TV-Guardian and thus it wasn’t much of a factor for us. ]. It’s a movie about a group of soldiers during a war. War is bloody business, and this movie doesn’t attempt to pretty it up. I’m not pacifist, but as I told the girls when we watched it last night, if you’re going to be in a position to vote for men to go into battle, you ought to at least have some concept of what you are asking them to do on your behalf. I believe in the concept of a just war, but there’s no such thing as a ‘clean’ war. I Thank God for men like Robert Shaw and the Massachusetts Fifty-fourth, and for the brave American military serving all over the world today, and I don’t ever want my girls to be complacent about what war is like, however necessary it may be.

Anyway, the first really bloody event in the movie is, I think, the worst, and it’s pretty ugly. But this movie depicts such a noble story and such an important part of our history that I think it was worth watching. I’ll let you know when gentle JennyAnyDots forgives me for having her watch it.

So visit the NGA website above, watch Glory, and keep watching, all the way through to the end of the credits. If you’re like us, that will make you want to come back and look at the NGA site all over again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Happy Birthday

To one of our favorite mystery authors. See Semicolon to find out more.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fili-Bluster

Via Lucianne, this article on filibusters. Be sure to read the comments over at Lucianne, too. One of them asks If judicial filibusters are part of our 200 year old history, where are all the previous ones?

The only one that can be found is this one (From the Krauthammer article above):

“This technique is defended by Democrats as traditional and rooted in history. What a fraud. The only example that comes close is Lyndon Johnson’s nomination in 1968 of (sitting) Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. But this case is muddied by the fact that (a) Fortas was subject to allegations involving conflictsof interest and financial impropriety, (b) he did not appear to have the votes anyway, and (c) the case involved elevation on the court, not appointment to the court.” (emphasis the DHM’s, because, after all, the point here is that the minority are not seeking to be heard, they are seeking to rule and control, and Fortas, unlike Bush’s nominees, never had the support of a majority)

However,

“In 2000, a small number of Republicans tried to filibuster two Clinton judicial nominees but were defeated in that attempt not only by Democrats but also b y Republicans voting roughly 3 to 1 for cloture.”

Says Krauthammer,

“One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.

The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal.”

About the way the Democrats have altered the custom of two centuries and now cry foul because the Republicans are (finally) reacting in such a fashion as to restore the previous custom, Rick Santorum says,

“Some are suggesting we’re trying to change the law, we’re trying to break the rules. Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It’s the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 “I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.” This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused.”

The Volock Conspiracy objects to this comparison to Hitler, but it seems to me that Santorum was very specific about the limitations of his comparison and I think the hubris fits. The two circumstances each involve two parties being in a place they should not be and pretending righteous indignation towards those who would removed them from where they do not belong and return them to their rightful place. In one case the situation is physical, in the second, it’s political and theoretical. On the other hand, I guess I’d have to agree that the SEnator should have known that people would stop listening when he invoked Hitler, regardless of context, and for that reason his comparison was impolitic.
But I digress. The filibuster issue is more important than whether or not Santorum’s choice of words was the most clever political analogy ever made.

REturning to the filiblustering, From this WaPo article we have:

“Sen. Richard M. Burr, North Carolina Republican, took exception to the defenses of the filibuster made by Mr. Kerry along with Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey.
“This afternoon, Senator Kerry claimed that it is dangerous for the Senate to limit filibusters on judicial nominees,” said Mr. Burr, noting that Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Lautenberg joined Mr. Kerry in that defense. “But on January 5, 1995 … all three of those senators voted to change the Senate rules to eliminate all filibusters, to eliminate all filibusters on nominations, motions, legislation — everything.”
If the Democrats who supported that 1995 measure had prevailed, Mr. Burr said, “we’d have had up-or-down votes on these judicial candidates.” “

Patterico has suggested an interesting compromise. Says he,

“I’d like to announce my own compromise proposal: the 70-30 Option. Under this proposal, Republicans will cave on 30% of all judicial nominees filibustered since 2000. We’ll even agree to include in that group the most qualified minority Bush has nominated to date. In return, Democrats must agree to confirm the rest, including all future nominees.”

I like his plan. He even suggests which nominees to give up. If you click on the link above, you can find out who they are.

If you haven’t already read the articles in our Filibuster Primer, there’s still time. REad them all. Wow your friends with your grasp of the issue, your historical knowledge, and the depth of your understanding.

Keep up to date on the issue by following the blog at Captain’s Quarters. As Captain Ed says, “Expect to hear a lot about compromises over the weekend, though. Don’t be surprised on Tuesday if the cloture motion passes for Owen and then again later for Brown. The Democrats really only have time as their ally if they can put off Frist’s motion — and the only way for them to do that now is to start confirming Bush’s nominees. They can save the filibuster on judicial nominations now only by not using it, a position that their earlier indiscriminate use has forced onto them.”

Indeed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Recipe Carnival

The Carnival of the Recipes is up, and just reading over it is making me hungry, very, very hungry. Looks delicious!

Updated seconds later: While still hungry and trying to distract myself, I found this post at Kathryn Judson’s Suitable for Mixed Company:

Thanks to Ask Jeeves for Kids, I stumbled across The Food Timeline website today. It has lots of links, for anybody interested in food and food history… –

Ooooh, go read it (the actual post is short) and then click on her links. There’s a digitized cookbook for medieval food, Shakespeare food section, an online cookbook from 1545- “Recipes & additional text from the 16th century culinary manuscript, A Propre new booke of Cokery,” and ever so much more.

Thanks for the help, Kathryn. Now I’m really distracted!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Response


  • The Common Room on Facebook

  • Amazon: Buy our Kindle Books

  • Search Amazon


    Try Audible and Get Two Free Audiobooks

  • Brainy Fridays Recommends: