My excellent uncle sent me his recipe for cassoulet, and guess what? This version is not so difficult and there's no cheese cloth required. What's more, it came from a blog entitled "The Amateur Gourmet." I could spend hours reading blogs such as that.
Last night's roast did not come out well, sadly. But at least I have learned that I do not like that particular cut of meat, though it might do well for a sweet and tangy BBQ loose beef recipe that Keith happens to adore. It had that kind of rope-y quality to it.
Keith and I are currently in the middle of an argument. I don't normally blog about arguments until after they're safely concluded, for all kinds of good reasons, like impaired judgement and not wanting to record the gory details for all posterity. That being said, I feel that I can safely blog at this point without going off on an ill conceived rant that I would regret later.
I'm pretty sure what started it is the fact that Keith took an ice cube out of his drink and pressed it to my unsuspecting and entirely innocent thigh as we were sitting on the couch watching TV. This tee'd me off. Especially since he held it there and he's too strong for me to wiggle free from immediately.
He was just being playful but I really wasn't in the mood to play. I have to say, that's pretty uncommon. Usually I can give out as much as I take. But not just then for some reason. Instead, I stormed into the kitchen, declaring passionately that I wished he was going to be gone longer. (He had to supervise some extra duty guys until midnight.)
He did not take this well. He left without kissing me goodbye, which is a major breach of our particular marriage protocol.
Now, Keith and I argue a lot. We always have and we always will; it's just the result of our passionate, prideful natures. We're both really strong people, each in our own way and we each made it through some really awful situations in the past that sometimes cloud the present.
Because of this, I've learned a lot about arguments; why they start, where the intensity comes from and how they end. I have to say, in some ways they are good. There's nothing like the space an argument creates between us to remind me how much I love being close to him.
I just sent him a text with the confession that I missed kissing him. He texted me back, "I do too," which tells me we are quickly approaching the most delicious phase of arguing, the phase which almost makes them worth while.
I'll bake him a lasagna tonight. Nothing says, "I love you and I'm sorry" in Keith-ese like a homemade lasagna. I'm tempted to try making it in the traditional way, with a bechamel sauce, but I better not tinker with what Keith considers perfection. Not tonight, anyway.
Last night I read further into "The Road To Serfdom." I purchased the definitive edition, which really means that the introductions, explanations and forwards are endless. I'm a quarter into the total pages and I have yet to actually begin the book.
Even so, holy crap. This book is very approachable. It is easy to read. I highly recommend going out, purchasing or borrowing this book and reading it. Consider: (I emphasized the phrases that blew my mind.)
"Yet though hot socialism is probably a thing of the past, some if its conceptions have penetrated far too deeply into the whole structure of current thought to justify complacency. If few people in the Western world now want to remake society from the bottom according to some ideal blueprint, a great many still believe in measures which, though not designed completely to remodel the economy, in the aggregate effect may well unintentionally produce this result.
"And, even more than at the time when I wrote this book, the advocacy of policies which in the long run cannot be reconciled with the preservation of a free society is no longer a party matter. That hodgepodge of ill-assembled and often inconsistent ideals which under the name of the Welfare State has largely replaced socialism as the goal of the reforms needs very careful sorting out if its results are not to be very similar to those of full-fledged socialism.
"This not to say that some of its aims are not both practicable and laudable. But there are many ways in which we can work toward the same goal, and in the present state of opinion there is some danger that our impatience for quick results may lead us to choose instruments which, though perhaps more efficient for achieving the particular ends, are not compatible with the preservation of a free society.
"The increasing tendency to rely on administrative coercion and discrimination where a modification of the general rules of law might, perhaps more slowly, achieve the same object, and to resort to direct state controls or to the creation of monopolistic institutions where judicious use of financial inducements might evoke spontaneous efforts, is still a powerful legacy of the socialist period which is likely to influence policy for some time."
-F. A. Hayek, forward to the 1956 edition.
(Begin sarcastic rant in which the word "totally" is overused)
Like wow. That's not happening at all right now. We're totally not increasing our tendency toward administrative coercion and the creation of monopolistic institutions and financial controls right now. The health care, financial reform, Cap and Trade, the EPA regulating CO2, and shutting down off shore drilling among other things are totally nothing like what Hayek is warning about.
We totally do not have an Administration that is pushing for a welfare state because they've totally not pushed more and more Americans into reliance upon government programs. That's totally not happened with health care reform and jobless benefits and welfare programs.
And of course the result of all this is going to be nothing like a Wellfare State, let alone socialism. Only crazy people think that. It's so freakin' far fetched.
Like hell it is.
(End sarcastic rant)
He also, (also mindblowingly to me) accurately described current political labels which are grossly misused. I'm never going to want to describe myself as a conservative again. I have been thinking of myself as a libertarian for a while now, but officially, I'm dropping the conservative political label:
"I use throughout the term "liberal" in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of the leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control...
"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to true socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of privilege."
Eye opening, no?
