http://www.favoritebrandrecipes.com/Recipes/220/3674001220.htm
Last summer the family went to Green Bay, WI for my father's wedding. We stayed a few days at my Aunt Gail and Uncle Jim's house (with cousins Paul and Jeni) and one night had Pizza Burgers. I vaugly recall having these as a child but had not had them in years. And I didn't recall them being called "Pizza Burgers."
But last night dinner was a little loose. So we had Pizza burgers. Used Susan's delicious no-recipe sauce and vegie pepporoni for those of us who are freakish about our cunsumption of dead animals.
And I thought of my Aunt.
Ingredients
1 pound ground beef
2 cups RAGÚ® Old World Style® Pasta Sauce
1 cup shredded mozzarella cheese (about 4 ounces)
1/4 teaspoon salt
6 English muffins, split and toasted
Prep Time: 10 minutes
Cook Time: 15 minutes
1. In small bowl, combine ground beef, 1/2 cup Ragú Pasta Sauce, 1/2 cup cheese and salt. Shape into 6 patties. Grill or broil until done.
2. Meanwhile, heat remaining pasta sauce. To serve, arrange burgers on muffin halves. Top with remaining cheese, sauce and muffin halves.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
It's Freedom of Religion, Not Freedom FROM Religion
I'll continue my theme of government involvement in our lives. My two previous rants were about about Freedom of the press and government charity. If you read those you can guess my views on the subject; "Freedom of" is not "freedom from" religion.
It's amazing to me, after reading the briefs, it's apparent that the supremes really have to make a decision. Case law supports both sides of the arguments. That's where I think we went wrong though. There should not be case law supporting the the petitioner in the first argument (Van Orden v. Perry[Governor of Texas]) and the respondent in the second (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky).
The Constitution is very clear; the federal government will not force a religion or prevent a citizen from choosing their own religion. Some of the other arguments justifying why the commandments should remain in place seem spurious to me. They claim that the monuments are part of history, or part of a museum setting., or it's less religious than other religious symbology that the Supreme Court has already allowed.
The only argument that needs to be made is that the commandments are not endorsing any specific religion or religion at all. Believe, don't believe, change your beliefs, whatever. If you think that the government is cramming faith down your throat, petition them to put up a monument to your beliefs. Petition the government to take it down. Call all your friends, family, neighbors, mosque-mates, church-buddies, temple pals, and vote. Then you can make the rules. Have fun, good luck.
On a personal note, I think the ten commandments are good rules to live by. Ignore the first 2 or three (depending on your interpretation) if you don't believe in Yahweh or any other deity. And I don't see the harm. They don't take anything away from your faith or lack of faith.
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orToday the Supremes will hear two arguments about religion (specifically the Ten Commandments) in public places.
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for redress of grievances.” U.S. Const.,
Amend. I."
It's amazing to me, after reading the briefs, it's apparent that the supremes really have to make a decision. Case law supports both sides of the arguments. That's where I think we went wrong though. There should not be case law supporting the the petitioner in the first argument (Van Orden v. Perry[Governor of Texas]) and the respondent in the second (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky).
The Constitution is very clear; the federal government will not force a religion or prevent a citizen from choosing their own religion. Some of the other arguments justifying why the commandments should remain in place seem spurious to me. They claim that the monuments are part of history, or part of a museum setting., or it's less religious than other religious symbology that the Supreme Court has already allowed.
The only argument that needs to be made is that the commandments are not endorsing any specific religion or religion at all. Believe, don't believe, change your beliefs, whatever. If you think that the government is cramming faith down your throat, petition them to put up a monument to your beliefs. Petition the government to take it down. Call all your friends, family, neighbors, mosque-mates, church-buddies, temple pals, and vote. Then you can make the rules. Have fun, good luck.
On a personal note, I think the ten commandments are good rules to live by. Ignore the first 2 or three (depending on your interpretation) if you don't believe in Yahweh or any other deity. And I don't see the harm. They don't take anything away from your faith or lack of faith.
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
A Fun and Twisted message to Congress
Consumers Union is working to drive attention to a bill (s.470)to amend the Public Health Service Act so that we the people can see all the results of clinical trials.
The video has a Schoolhouse rock kind of thing going but the cause is just.
Watch the video and fill out the linked letter. You may do yourself some good.
Monday, February 28, 2005
My take on Bankruptcy Reform
This week the U.S. senate is scheduled to look at the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (S.256). The meat of the act is that if a person can afford to pay back debt, they must. And the determining factor is if the debtor is above the state median income.
It illustrates in my mind the type of thinking that is wrong with this country. Who in their right mind would argue that people that accrue debt should NOT have to pay it back.
My biggest complaint about the act has nothing really to do with the act. It has to do with some of the major backers; credit card companies and the auto finance companies. These companies are predators. They feed off the American dream to have the "good life" now and pay for it later. And they know full well that most Americans don't pay off the full mount of their debt every month and the interest eats them alive.
Don't get me wrong; I think that those people are morons (excluding yourself, of course). [Susan and I have two debts, the house and one of our three cars. We don't do credit. We save and buy. And sometimes we have to wait for the things we want. And sometimes we don't get what we want at all. But we know that bankruptcy is not in our future.] I believe credit is a bad thing. And I have a hard time listening to people who say that it's required, even if just for emergencies. Saving a little something on the side is good for emergencies, credit just puts it off.
And the thing about bankruptcy is that the stigma of filing is gone. You hear about huge corporations filing all the time. and they stay in business, make acquisitions, get bailed out by the government. And with the current laws, personal bankruptcy doesn't have to change your life. You keep your house, your car, no one is going to repo that PCyou bought because you were feeling blue. What's supposed to happen to break you of your habit is your credit is shot. I hear stories though of people in bankruptcy that can get approved for new credit cards.
You can look at the stats yourself, bankruptcy filings are going through the roof. I am glad to see this reform go before the Senate. I think you should go out and find what your senators and representative are going to do and make sure they know what you want them to do.
And save some money, don't rely on credit. Because if you file bankruptcy, someone has to eat that debt, and someone else is going to have to pay for it.
It illustrates in my mind the type of thinking that is wrong with this country. Who in their right mind would argue that people that accrue debt should NOT have to pay it back.
My biggest complaint about the act has nothing really to do with the act. It has to do with some of the major backers; credit card companies and the auto finance companies. These companies are predators. They feed off the American dream to have the "good life" now and pay for it later. And they know full well that most Americans don't pay off the full mount of their debt every month and the interest eats them alive.
Don't get me wrong; I think that those people are morons (excluding yourself, of course). [Susan and I have two debts, the house and one of our three cars. We don't do credit. We save and buy. And sometimes we have to wait for the things we want. And sometimes we don't get what we want at all. But we know that bankruptcy is not in our future.] I believe credit is a bad thing. And I have a hard time listening to people who say that it's required, even if just for emergencies. Saving a little something on the side is good for emergencies, credit just puts it off.
And the thing about bankruptcy is that the stigma of filing is gone. You hear about huge corporations filing all the time. and they stay in business, make acquisitions, get bailed out by the government. And with the current laws, personal bankruptcy doesn't have to change your life. You keep your house, your car, no one is going to repo that PCyou bought because you were feeling blue. What's supposed to happen to break you of your habit is your credit is shot. I hear stories though of people in bankruptcy that can get approved for new credit cards.
You can look at the stats yourself, bankruptcy filings are going through the roof. I am glad to see this reform go before the Senate. I think you should go out and find what your senators and representative are going to do and make sure they know what you want them to do.
And save some money, don't rely on credit. Because if you file bankruptcy, someone has to eat that debt, and someone else is going to have to pay for it.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)