It's Election Day

It's no secret whom I will vote for today.  Not only is the Obama/Biden sign in the front yard a dead giveaway, it is well known to many that I first declared my support of a Democratic candidate 64 years ago.  An oft-told family story bears this out.

The election of 1948 was held on November 2, the day after my second birthday.  That was the election in which Thomas E. Dewey was expected to beat incumbent Harry Truman, but in the end the President prevailed.  On election night, my grandparents had a lot of friends and family over, and there was a lot of talk about the election. At one point, one of Grandma's friends turned to two-year-old me and said, "And who did you vote for?" to which I replied, "Twuman."

I guess before that I would have considered myself an Independent.

That wasn't what I meant, but okay

There was a serious traffic accident up on a nearby corner this morning which I did not witness but heard about.  I got to thinking how lucky I am not to have been involved in any serious automobile collisions, and that reminded me of one particular mishap to which I was a party -- not a car crash, just a car bump.

While backing out of a space in the parking lot of the apartment building where I lived, I came into contact with the left front bumper of a big old Buick in the row behind me.  I remember having been in a hurry, so I might not have been watching as carefully, but the real cause was that this old car was parked all crooked with its left front sticking out about three feet.  One could easily surmise that whoever put it there had come home drunk.

My car wasn't hurt at all, but there was a lot of damage on the Buick.  There were bumps and scrapes and scratches galore, and the front fender -- on the side I hit -- was crumpled.  This could not possibly have resulted from my little tap at 1.38 miles per hour, and even if I had caused any damage, it would have been indistinguishable from all the rest.

I was tempted just to drive off, but there were a lot of windows in those apartments which might very well have had a lot of people looking out of them, so I decided the right thing to do was to leave a note.  I know better than to sign a piece of paper that says, "I hit your car," so I simply wrote, "Call me about your car," and left my name and phone number.

When I returned home several hours later, I saw that the old Buick had been moved -- it was neatly tucked back into its space, perfectly between the lines.

And the owner never did call me.

When less is not more

Coca-Cola is trying to pull a fast one, hoping nobody will notice.  Their soft drinks come in a variety of vessels of various materials and in various sizes and shapes.  The favored beverage at our house was the six-pack of Diet Coke in 24-fluid-ounce (710 mL) plastic bottles.

Inflation and economic disaster have combined to raise the price of said six-packs to nearly double what they were, say, five or six years ago -- enough to cause sticker shock.  Recognizing this, Coca-Cola has resorted to Frito-Lay's old trick of providing less for the same price.  The 24-ounce bottles are no longer available in any Wal-Mart, Target, Meijer or Kroger store I have visited in the last ten days.  The only six-packs of bottles they now carry are 16.9 fluid ounces (500 mL), for which they are asking the same price as before.

Frito-Lay, which, incidentally, is owned by Pepsi-Cola, has been doing this for years with their various chips.  They reduce the size but keep the price the same.  Later, they bring out a bigger bag, touting the "New Larger Size!" which has a new larger price.  Eventually that size will become standard, and then they play the trick over again.

Remember when a bag of Ruffles weighed a pound?  The one I bought yesterday is 9-1/2 ounces.  They do have a "giant family size," but it's only 13-1/2 ounces, probably because at the current price, a one-pound bag of Ruffles would cost more than $7.25.  Talk about sticker shock.

The only thing Coca-Cola has said about this size gimmick pertains to the bottles for vending machines, which will also be smaller.  They say it is in response to the general public's interest in reducing the amount of soda pop we consume.

Uh-huh.

Roe vs. Logic

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Murdock, who is running for U.S. Senate, is the latest Republican to catch hell for his comments about abortion.  He echoed the sentiments of a Missouri woman who defended Todd Akin (the "legitimate rape" guy) by saying that even if the result of rape, pregnancy was a gift from God.  (See my posting of August 23 titled "Sometimes I just have to.")

And I have to again, because I got to thinking that there are people like me who are completely pro-abortion and people like Murdock who are completely anti-abortion, and yet there are also people who are semi-anti-abortion, which is illogical at best.

Some of these people apparently have a hard time making up their minds about abortion rights.  Take, just as an example, Presidential Candidate Romney who used to say he was pro-choice, then decided he was completely anti-abortion to the point of wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade.  He now says he would make an exception in the case of rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother.

Really? Why? If you believe that life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. And if you believe abortion is murder, how can you possibly justify condoning it for any reason?

Abortion is a moral issue, and you cannot compromise on a moral issue.  Regardless which view you take, it is either right or it is wrong.  I guess saying that it is usually wrong but sometimes right is what you do when you want people to vote for you.

Why wait, indeed?

I heard on the radio yesterday that new legislation signed into law by Michigan Governor What'is'name will allow veterans to obtain fishing and hunting licenses for free.  It's not a monumental thing, but still, it's a nice gesture that pleased me.

Preparatory to writing about it here, I looked for information online to be sure I had my facts straight, and I didn't.  It's only for disabled veterans, only residents of Michigan, and only those who are "100% disabled," meaning veterans who have been "determined by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to be permanently and totally disabled as a result of military service."

If you recover from your wounds, you have to cough up the price of the license, I guess, which, as far as I can determine, would be somewhere between $15 and $30 to hunt and around $8 to fish.

I found that 3,000 disabled veterans applied for such licenses in 2010, so there will be some folks saving some money, but not extending it to any veteran anywhere makes it not quite so bright a moment as I thought, but we're grateful nevertheless.

As a semi-amusing side note, I Googled "cost of Michigan hunting and fishing licenses," and the very first site returned was this:

Why Wait? Buy Your 2011 Michigan Hunting and Fishing Licenses Now
www.michigan.gov/.../0,4570,7-153-10371_10402-254467--,00.ht...Cached

Move Over, Mrs. Butterworth

While drizzling syrup on my pancakes this morning, I recalled that my mother used to make her own pancake syrup out of corn syrup, maple extract, and butter.  I never asked her why she did that, but because she was nothing if not frugal, I always assumed it was because it was cheaper than buying commercial brands.  I know she would have considered real maple syrup much too expensive.  In fact, she never bought real butter either; she would have used margarine.

Anyway, thinking about that again, I did some price comparisons using Wal-Mart's web site, and it seems that Aunt Jemima, Mrs. Butterworth, and Log Cabin pancake syrups are all about the same price per ounce as Karo corn syrup, so that wouldn't save anything -- plus, maple extract is expensive.  So now I'm not sure that economy played a part.

I suppose it is possible she actually preferred her own syrup to the store-bought kinds.  To see how home-made maple-flavored syrup stacks up against Aunt Jemima, I guess I'll have to make some.

Or not.

It goes with ALMOST everything

Every day I get at least one email, often more, from Betty Crocker or Pillsbury or Kraft or somebody like that because I am signed up for all kinds of emailings that relate to food and cooking.  This morning I got one from Mr. Food that included pictures of corn muffins and cornbread.  They looked so good, it made me want some.  I have resolved that our supper tonight will include cornbread and, unless vetoed by my partner, probably also beans and franks.

Or, more accurately, beans and corn dogs; that is, the version of the latter that my mother invented which involves baking hot dogs embedded in the cornbread batter.

Just out of curiosity, I Googled "what goes with cornbread" and was led to several Internet food forums where somebody asked that same question, to which the ubiquitous answer was:  everything.  That presented a challenge  I could not pass up, and after serious contemplation, I am able to provide the definitive answer to the opposite question:

What does not go with cornbread?  Dumplings.