Repost: New Year's Traditions on the Farm

Growing up on the farm, we had a few traditions---mostly imported. New Years was a family holiday. Kith 'n kin visited on Thanksgiving and Christmas. New Years, however, was just Mom, Dad, me and later Grandma.

The farm was located in the middle of coal country in southern Illinois. The population was mostly Scots/Irish/English who brought mining skills learned in the coal mines of England and Wales. During the Union/Mine Owner wars of the early 20th century, many East Europeans were brought in as strike breakers. After the strikes were resolved, the East Europeans---Poles, Hungarians and various Russians, became good union members and added their traditions to those of their predecessors. However, the new traditions were more aimed at religious holidays than of New Years.

One tradition that became almost universal was the tradition of the gift of coal. The tradition was that the home would have good luck if the first person to cross the threshold in the new year was a dark Englishman, Welshman, Scot, Irish (add other nationality here) wishing everyone within Happy New Year and bringing a gift of a bucket of coal to warm the hearth. My Dad fit that job description and since I was the next oldest (only) male in the house, I assisted with the tradition.

Come New Years, around 11PM, earlier in some locales, the men of the house would leave with a bucket of coal, their shotgun, and, for those who imbibed, a bottle or mason jar of holiday cheer. In town, they would usually head for the closest bar or other gathering place and wait for the mine whistle indicating midnight.

At the farm, we had three close neighbors; John Davis, our neighbor just across the road from the farm, Sy Malone, a friend of Dad's who had a small farm a quarter-mile to our west, and Ken Shoemaker who lived a couple of hundred yards to the east. All were coal miners or had been. Ken Shoemaker was also a bus driver for the High School. John Davis' place was the most central of us and he had a heated barn for his heifers. That was our gathering place.

Ken and Sy usually arrived early bringing some 'shine that Sy made in the woods in back of his house. John would join next. By the time Dad and I arrived, they were sitting around a kerosene heater and usually well lubricated. The men talked and drank. Dad sipped tea from a thermos he had brought. I listened. I heard quite a bit of gossip, bragging and stories while waiting in that barn.

Remembering those times, I'm amazed that with all the drinking that occurred, there was never a firearm accident. I think folks were more used to guns in those times. Many were WW2 veterans such as Ken and Sy Malone. John Davis added to his mine income as a trapper and occasional commercial meat hunter. Dad was a long-time hunter as well. They were experienced folks who acquired gun-handling habits that just weren't broken even when one has consumed large amounts of alcohol.

In coal country, the time standard was the mine whistle. The whistle blew at shift change each day, at noon, and on New Years Eve, at midnight. The closest mine to the farm was about five miles away. That mine, Orient #2, was on the north edge of West Frankfort. Dad, John and Sy worked there. Ken worked occasionally at Orient #3.

When midnight neared, everyone loaded their shotguns---usually with #6 or #7 1/2 shot, and went outside to listen for the whistle. At the stroke of midnight, delayed only by distance, we heard the mine whistles; Orient #2 to the south, followed by Old Ben #9 to the south-east. Another whistle arrived from the west, followed slightly late by Orient #3 from the north. The men raised their shotguns and in turn fired three times into the air. Nine shots in all. 

As the sound of their shots faded away, I could hear the patter of falling shot and the echoes of other shotguns rolling in from surrounding points. In the far distance, I could hear the Sheriff let loose with his Thompson sub-machine gun that he had confiscated from Charlie Birger just before Charlie was tried for murder and later hung---the last public hanging in Illinois.

As the gunfire died away, each man picked up his bucket of coal, his shotgun and began the trek home to be the first dark-headed man to cross the home's threshold. In lieu of hair, John Davis wore a dark hat.

It was a short walk for Dad and me, just across the road and up the drive. Dad walked up to our front door and knocked. Mom would answer and Dad would exclaim, "Happy New Year!" and we'd go inside to the warmth. Mom would have coffee or more tea for Dad, a glass of milk for me and either cake, sweet rolls or home-made doughnuts depending on what she and Grandma had made that day.

New Years was a family celebration, but New Years Eve was one for males. A celebration in the cold or in a warm barn; a gathering of men, boys, talk, drink and memories. A communal celebration of the coming year.

Done.

The crew finished right at dusk last night.  This morning they'll take the trash trailer off to be emptied and bring it back to haul off all the ladders and scaffolding.  This morning is cleanup. They have a large magnet to roll over the yard to pick up loose nails and metal scrap.

This afternoon we'll write a large check and it's done.

It was supposed to take a week to ten days.  Instead it took a few days shy of a month.  The final appearance, though, is great and it is worth the money spent.

Now I'm off to complete some chores that have lain silent for this last month.

A quickie

Just a quick post before I take off...

I was over at Hot Air when I saw this.  This article really made me curious.

It begins: Radio ad asks Iowans to caucus for Palin

posted at 10:35 am on December 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Iowans might feel a bit overwhelmed by the choices for next Tuesday’s Republican caucuses for the GOP presidential nomination, but one independent group has begun running radio ads insisting that there is still room for one more choice. Calling itself “Sarah Palin’s Iowa Earthquake,” the group will target specific markets in Iowa asking voters to line up behind the Republican Party’s most prominent non-candidate, and other ads will apparently follow.

Here's another source from Breitbart on the same subject.

Now wouldn't that just put a twist in the Establishment's nickers?                           

Fini..., Pt II

Well, the project didn't quite finish yesterday.  There's still some touch-up and fixes yet to do. We're supposed to have the final walk-around today. I think we've reached the 95% stage.  The windows still need work and touch-up with paint.  It's is looking nice.

I'm in 'n out today. It's going to be busy.

Fini...maybe

If all goes well the siding project will be finished today.  They have to replace some siding that cracked on one side.  Note: concrete siding does not flex easily!

After the north side is finished, they'll need to permanently fasten the window sills (new sills too), paint over the nail heads and chalking, and re-attach the front door and garage lighting.

They hoped to be much further along but yesterday after they were all setup and started working, it rained.  They got pretty wet and had to come in side to warm up.  One worker almost got hypothermia.  Rain with temps in the high 30s is not nice. Nor welcome.

When they finish, it's walk around time.  Checking to see and approve the work, checking the paint touch up, checking the windows, and checking all the minute details.  Once we've signed off, we'll write a very large check to the builder.  Man, do I love fixed-price contracts. Otherwise, we'd be waay over budget due to the weather.

The crew-boss told me they were booked continually through this coming March.  They are all young guys, mostly in their twenties, a couple in their early twenties and one older one who is the expert cutting the siding to fit. It's not measure twice, cut once.  No, with concrete siding, it's measure thrice, cut a template, install for fit, then cut the siding.

They are all Christians, too.  On the first day, I walked outside and one had a radio tuned to a local Christian station.

Mrs. Crucis and I are glad it's about over.  We don't like parking in the street and we're looking forward to getting our garage back.

Happy New Year!

The Race

What race? The one for the 'Pub nomination for President.  All the recent polls have Romney in the lead followed closely by Ron Paul.  Newt Gingrich is in third---a distant third according to some polls.  The state media clearly wants Romney to be that nominee.  As he did in the last election, Ron Paul has a very effective machine. The proof of that is shown in the polls.

However, Newt is still in the running.  Thomas Sowell, writing for the Investor's Business Daily favors Newt.

Gingrich Past Shouldn't Block A Future Sans Obama

By THOMAS SOWELL Posted 12/23/2011 06:44 PM ET

If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election:

"We are going to change the United States of America."

Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.

Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.

Against this background, how much does Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.

Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.

...

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Gingrich's past, rather than on the nation's future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost."

If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.

There is much more at the website. I urge you to read his complete article.

Sowell addresses the attacks from the left and the 'Pub establishment that Gingrich is a conservative.  Their point usually is that he isn't a Tea Partier.  Well, neither are Romney nor Paul.  Paul likes to present himself as one but I note that he has no endorsements from any Tea Party organization.

Sowell notes Gingrich's accomplishments when he was in office.

• Engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years. 
• The first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was speaker of the House. 
• Produced some long overdue welfare reforms.

And finally, don't forget The Contract with America.

Proponents say the Contract was revolutionary in its commitment to offering specific legislation for a vote, describing in detail the precise plan of the Congressional Representatives, and marked the first time since 1918 that a Congressional election had been run broadly on a national level. Furthermore, its provisions represented the view of many conservative Republicans on the issues of shrinking the size of government, promoting lower taxes and greater entrepreneurial activity, and both tort reform and welfare reform.                           

What has Romney done?  This is Sowell's answer to that question.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

At least McCain was a fighter..frequently supporting the democrats as much as he supported the 'Pubs.  Romney?  Romney is no fighter.  When the going got rough, he switched positions.  Would he be a conservative President?  Only if the 'Pubs win both houses of Congress.

Romney's position when controversy and opposition occurs is to follow Rodney King's infamous statement, "Cain't we all jest get along?"  If, somehow, the democrats retain control of the Senate. Romney is just as likely to rollover to their positions as he would if the 'Pubs were in control.

Romney would be nothing more than a rubber stamp. He'd be a Sheep in a Wolf's clothes. If the 'Pubs gain control of Congress, he would go along with anything that reached his desk.  That is exactly what the 'Pub establishment wants. They have no great interest in curbing government either. Pork and the ability to spend keeps them in office.  That is the primary interest of the establishment of both parties.  The country can fend for itself as long as they have their power and perks.

Newt, at least, is no rubber stamp.  That alone makes him much more desirable for President than Romney.

Repost: A Gathering of the Clan

When my Grandmother lived with us on the farm, Thanksgiving and Christmas was always a big deal. Many of our relatives lived at both ends of the state.

My Aunt Anna May (note: My Aunt Anna May, at age 99, is still with us,) and a bunch of cousins lived near Cairo (rhymes with Aero. Kayro is a syrup. K-Eye-ro, another incorrect pronunciation is a city in Egypt,) Illinois. Mom's other two siblings, Aunt Clara and Uncle Bill, lived near Chicago along with their batch of kids and cousins. We lived betwixt them with a local batch of cousins and therefore often hosted the gathering of the Clan at the holidays.

In the late 1950s, most of the cakes and pies were hand-made including pie crust. Betty Crocker was expensive and not to be trusted according to Mom and Grandma. A week or so before the guests arrived, Mom and Grandma started making pie dough. They would make it in small batches, enough for a couple of pies and then store it on the porch. The porch was unheated and was used as a large refrigerator during the colder months.

Mom and Grandma collected pie fillings most of the year. When cherries were in season, they canned cherries. When blackberries and raspberries were in season, they canned the berries---along with making a large batch of berry jelly and jam. When apples were in season, they canned and dried apples. When the holidays arrived, they were ready.

About the only things they didn't can was pumpkins. Mom and Grandma purposely planted late to harvest late. I don't remember a year that we didn't have pumpkins or sweet-potatoes for pie filling.

The count-down started with the pie dough. When the dough was ready, Mom began baking pies. When a pie was finished, it'd go out to the porch covered with a cloth. The division of labor was that Mom would make pies, Grandma would make cakes.

Grandma liked sheet cakes. I rarely saw a round, frosted cake unless it was someone's birthday. Grandma's cakes were 12" by 24". Icing was usually Cream Cheese or Chocolate. Sometimes, when Grandma make a German Chocolate cake, she'd make a brown-sugar/coconut/hickory nut icing. The baking was done right up until it was time stick the turkeys, hams or geese in the oven.

The last item Grandma would make was a apple-cinnamon coffee-cake that was an inherited recipe from her mother. It was common-place that when everyone arrived, we'd have a dozen pies and another dozen cakes ready. That was our contribution. The guests brought stuff as well.

The holiday gathering wasn't just a single day, it was several. Thanksgiving, for instance, lasted through Sunday. A Christmas gathering lasted through New Years. We weren't the only relatives in the central part of the state, but we were the gathering place. Come bedtime, the visitors left with some of the local cousins and would gather again the next day at another home and the visiting continued.

It was not unusual for us to have twenty or thirty folks at the house at one time. Our barn was heated for the livestock, so the men and boys---and some girls, gathered there. Dad would turn a blind eye to the cigarettes, cigars and bottles---as long as no one started a fire. Grandma's jugs of Applejack appeared as well.

The women would gather in one of our side bedrooms where Grandma's quilt frame was set up. They would sit, talk, quilt and plan future family affairs. A number of weddings were planned in those sessions. Sometimes before the bridegroom was aware of his upcoming fate.

Come Christmas Eve, the women, along with a number of kids, put up the tree and decorations. At 11PM, those who wished went off to midnight services. There were a number of preachers in the Clan and those who didn't want to drive to a service and were also still awake attended a Clan service in the barn. That was the only building able to house everyone at the same time.

On Christmas, the Clan dispersed to their more immediate relatives. Mom, Dad, Grandma, my Aunts and Uncles, my sister Mary Ellen, her husband Dick and their two kids arrived. Sometimes my Aunt Emily and Cousins Richard and Dorothy (Dad's niece and nephew) from Dad's side would come down from Mt. Vernon, IL for Christmas.

More often than not, Dad, Dick, my Uncles and I would go goose or duck hunting early on Christmas morning. The Muddy River was only a few miles away and if we arrived right at dawn, we were likely to find some Canadian Geese or Mallards sitting out of the wind on the river. We rarely spent more than three hours hunting before we'd return home, wet, cold and tired ready for breakfast.

We would have a large breakfast around 9AM and afterwards while Mom and Grandma started on dinner, we'd open presents next to the tree. I remember once that Mom hide a pair of snow tires for Dad's pickup behind the couch. I really have a hard time believing Dad wasn't aware of them.
 
Over the years, the Clan has dispersed. Most moving to locations where jobs were available. The elders have passed on and with them the traditions. Cousins have lost touch and few live on the old homesteads.

It was a different time, another era. Some families still maintain the old traditions. They are the fortunate ones.

Merry Pre-Christmas

The next few days here a Casa Crucis will be hectic.  The siding crew is still working. The project is about 70% done and light rain/sleet/snow is forecasted for later this afternoon.  Mrs. Crucis and I have a number of errands yet to do.  If I don't have time for a post tomorrow, let this be our best wishes to you.

Let us all remember the source for this Holiday.

Luke 2:10. And the Angel said unto them, Fear not:
for, behold,I bring you good tiding of great joy...

The Militarization of Police

I read an article today that was frankly, disturbing.  The subject of the article has been present for a long time, decades in many cases.  That subject?  The conversion of our local police into a paramilitary force.

Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons

Dec 21, 2011 4:45 AM EST

A decade of billions in spending in the name of homeland security has armed local police departments with military-style equipment and a new commando mentality. But has it gone too far? Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz of the Center for Investigative Reporting report.
...

The buying spree has transformed local police departments into small, army-like forces, and put intimidating equipment into the hands of civilian officers. And that is raising questions about whether the strategy has gone too far, creating a culture and capability that jeopardizes public safety and civil rights while creating an expensive false sense of security.

“The argument for up-armoring is always based on the least likely of terrorist scenarios,” says Mark Randol, a former terrorism expert at the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress. “Anyone can get a gun and shoot up stuff. No amount of SWAT equipment can stop that.”

The result? The police are no longer peace officers, they are now law enforcement officers.  

It is important to note here that contrary to popular belief, the police have no requirement to protect the people.  There have been a number cases rising to the US Supreme Court and the Court has said the police have no requirement to protect individuals. The police can only enforce the law or seek those who have broken the law. They no longer work to protect the people but they now protect...what?

One common response is to counter acts of terrorism.  Really?  Then why are these units being used to serve warrants...in the middle of the night...without knocking?  That doesn't sound like countering terrorism to me.

Another is that criminals are more heavily armed than the police.  They cite the famous North Hollywood bank robbery where two men, armed with fully automatic weapons and wearing body armed engaged in a shoot-out with police resulting in multiple casualties among those police officers.  The police actually had to commandeer semi-automatic rifles from a near-by gun dealer.  The City of Los Angeles did not provide any long-guns to the police, short-ranged shotguns excepted.

In that situation, the police had been effectively disarmed by the LA city government.  There were federal grants available, that were used afterward, to provide funds for squad-car rifles like the Ruger Mini-14 and the Colt AR.  The city was negligent but blamed instead "proliferation of firearms" instead of accepting their own failures.

There are instances where criminals barricade themselves against police. A siege occurs.  Most people understand that sieges will end sooner or later.  They DO NOT require frontal assaults by armed and armored police to resolve the situation. But, politics demand quick resolutions not patience and the command staff demand a resolution before the media appears and the scene is broadcasted on the local news.

Still it come back to the conversion of police from the peace officer mentality to the law enforcement mentality.  In the latter case, the Us vs. Them mentality not only develops but is encouraged. A California study in 1997 researched the trend and noted the deficiencies and the dangers of militarization.

Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units

Peter B. Kraska and Victor E. Kappeler

Social Problems
Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 1-18
(article consists of 18 pages)

Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems

I can't cut 'n paste an excerpt from this study. You'll have to go to the site and read it for yourself.

Here is an excerpt from testimony before Congress on the same subject.

Our Militarized Police Departments

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime

Radley Balko | July 2, 2007

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I’m here to talk about police militarization, a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years.

Militarization is a broad term that refers to using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.

It’s a troubling trend because the military has a very different and distinct role than our domestic peace officers. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. The police are supposed to protect us while upholding our constitutional rights. It’s dangerous to conflate the two.

But that’s exactly what we’re doing. Since the late 1980s, Mr. Chairman, thanks to acts passed by the U.S. Congress, millions of pieces of surplus military equipment have been given to local police departments across the country.

We’re not talking just about computers and office equipment. Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens.

Academic criminologists credit these transfers with the dramatic rise in paramilitary SWAT teams over the last quarter century.

SWAT teams were originally designed to be used in violent, emergency situations like hostage takings, acts of terrorism, or bank robberies. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s primarily how they were used, and they performed marvelously.

But beginning in the early 1980s, they’ve been increasingly used for routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. And thanks to the Pentagon transfer programs, there are now a lot more of them.

This is troubling because paramilitary police actions are extremely volatile, necessarily violent, overly confrontational, and leave very little margin for error. These are acceptable risks when you’re dealing with an already violent situation featuring a suspect who is an eminent threat to the community.

But when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it. Whether you’re an innocent family startled by a police invasion that inadvertently targeted the wrong home or a drug dealer who mistakes raiding police officers for a rival drug dealer, forced entry into someone’s home creates confrontation. It rouses the basest, most fundamental instincts we have in us – those of self-preservation – to fight when flight isn’t an option. (Emphasis mine -- Crucis)

The testimony continues and it's well worth a few minutes reading the full article at the website.

One cogent line above is "...when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it."                                   

What is the purpose then, of these paramilitary units?  Protecting the people?  No. That is not a requirement saith the courts. Countering heavily armed drug dealers? As the testimony above states, that isn't commonly needed either.

Serving warrants?  Before the use of SWAT teams, Officers would walk up to the doors and knock.  Rarely did they have to call up enforcements. And if such were needed, the officers waited until those enforcement arrived instead of charging inside weapons drawn.  (I should note here that my father was an auxiliary deputy sheriff.  He would frequently serve warrants throughout our county and never once needed assistance or have to draw his weapon.  In fact, he rarely carried a weapon when serving warrants. He told me he never needed one.)

We again return to the original question.  What is the purpose of militarizing the police?  I have some thoughts on that but I'll not state them here.  Those questions should be directed to our elected officials and police.  

Once all the rationalization is swept away, the answer will be they're not.  Yes, some small force, trained and equipped should be available when needed. Perhaps a force by the State Police or Highway Patrol. But not every Police Department nor every Sheriff's department needs one. In fact, very few do.

All too often, such paramilitary forces are used simply to justify their existence.  Use it or lose it. Many federal grants come with these paramilitary forces.  No SWAT team, no federal money.

That is a very serious mistake.

It promotes the Us vs. Them mentality that pits the police against everyone not of the police.  That mentality enforces distrust by the police and that distrust is returned by those same people the police are supposed to protect.


It's is a prime example of negative feedback. The more the SWAT teams, the paramilitary forces are used, the more they are thought to be needed. The truth is just the opposite. The less they are used, the less they are actually needed.

Snackin'

When the end of the year approaches, it seems that time compresses.  My wife and I have been running around to attend to some chores...Christmas gifts for the grandkids, buying new fixtures for the outside of our house when the siding project is finished, and a multitude of other tasks.  When we're finished for the day, supper, more often than not, is a sandwich, soup or something else that can be prepared quickly and easily.

Sometimes, we skip lunch and in mid-afternoon, we're looking for something for a snack.  Usually for me, that's nibbling on cheese. For Mrs. Crucis, it's chips.  We're both burned out.  In one of our conversations, I remembered that my grandmother liked to snack too.  However, this was before the days of fast food and chips were still a novelty.

After my grandfather died, Grandma came to live with us.  Dad still worked in the mines, Mom was teaching 5th and 6th grades in a school some miles away and I was in school.

Grandma would rise early to fix breakfast for us, and would have supper ready when we all got home around 5pm. She spent much of her day cooking.  She liked to cook. She liked to bake.  She wasn't much on baking bread, although at times she did. Grandma preferred to bake pies and cakes.  Large sheet cakes.

I still remember coming home late one school day. It was cold. Though the bus dropped me off at the end of our driveway, the short walk to the house still chilled me. I entered the house and found grandma finishing a large sheet cake---one of my favorites, blackberry jam cake with cream cheese icing. She had a piece waiting for me and a large glass of milk.  The cake was still warm.

It wasn't always a cake.  Just as often it could be an apple, cherry or some other fruit pie. We had a one acre apple orchard on the farm, several cherry trees around the house, a dozen or so rows of strawberries in one garden and yards upon yards of blackberries and raspberries along our fence rows. We always had a supply of canned fruits and berries that Mom and Grandma canned every year.

But pies and cakes weren't the only thing that grandma liked. She, like me, liked things that were salty. Things like cheese, nuts still in the shell and roasted, salted nuts. More often, she was seen nibbling on those more than sitting down to a piece of cake or a piece of pie.

Although we butchered every year, a hog or two, we didn't butcher any of the cattle.  For one, we didn't have that many, and two, the cattle produced more income when taken to market than a hog.  We raised more hogs and hogs had a quicker "turn-around" or reproduction cycle that cattle.  We also raised chickens and for a while, several hundred turkeys for the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year tables.  In short, we weren't starving. No, far from it. We lived "high on the hog" in more ways than one.

The usual evening meal was potatoes in some form, corn or some vegetable from our garden, a meat dish, and pie or cake for dessert.  It wasn't until a few years later, after Grandma was gone, that, on retrospect, I discovered Grandma's favorite snack food.

I had never noticed that when Grandma laid out the meat dish, more often Fried Chicken, Pork Chops, a roast, or a turkey, she always seemed to fix too much.  There was always left-overs.  We didn't mind. Dad always had a nice big lunch at the mine. Mom would sometimes take something to school depending on what was on the school menu. 

I also noticed that chickens always seemed to have four legs and wings. When we had pork chops, Grandma made about half again as much as we could eat in one meal.  When we raised turkeys, we had a roast turkey about one a month.

But the leftovers seemed to be gone quickly. The leftover turkey seemed to disappear quickly too.

One day I did discover Grandma's favorite snack. I just didn't realize it at the time.

Grandma was a small, slight woman, barely five foot tall and sopping wet, maybe a hundred pounds. No, she wasn't a large woman. In fact, she looked remarkedly like Grannie on the old Beverly Hillbillies TV show.

I came home from school and entered through the back door. Most folks in our area at that time entered through the back door.  The front door was reserved for "company." 

When you entered our back door, you can either go straight down the stairs to our basement, or turn right and walk up a few steps into our kitchen.  When I walked through the door into our kitchen, I found Grandma sitting at the kitchen table...with a pork chop in her hand.

She held the chop by the bone and had just taken a bite off the chop. She liked cold pork chops...and chicken legs and wings...and turkey legs and wings...and turkey sandwiches.  Grandma liked just about anything cold that had once ran or had wings.

I remembered later how often I'd come home, at bit hungry, thinking of that leftover pork chop from the night before, or of a chicken leg, or some sliced turkey for a sandwich only to discover they were gone.  I'd always thought they went with Dad for his lunch at the mines.  They did.  But not all of them.  No, Grandma carefully planned Dad's lunches...and her snacks. After fixing Dad's lunch, there was always enough for Grandma's lunch and mid-afternoon snack.

During the week, I was the first one home. Dad arrived next and Mom usually arriving around 5pm.  I caught Grandma snackin' a few times but never thought much about it. Grandma could really put the food away but she never seemed to gain any weight. She was a hard worker and put those calories to work.

After she was gone, I remarked once at supper that the meals seemed smaller.  Mom smiled.  She knew.  Dad just said we didn't need as much for three as for four.  I don't think he ever noticed or if he did, he didn't ever mention Grandma's snacking.

Yep.  Grandma was a snacker.  No fast food or unhealthy chips for her.  Nope. Grandma snacked high on the hog...or low as the case may be.           

Tidbits

The saga of the Casa Crucis siding project continues.  Last Friday, there was an issue with the scaffolding around the house.  The decision by the crew was to replace it with a different style.  The front of Casa Crucis is not a flat, smooth wall like the north and south sides.  Down came the scaffolding and today a new one is to be erected.

There is snow and freezing rain forecasted for overnight with 1"-2" accumulation. I'm glad I'm not working outside.

***

I was surfin' over the weekend and came across this article.  I'm not at all surprised at the results of the poll.

Gallup: Gingrich Leads Romney by 20 Points Among Conservatives; Romney Leads Gingrich by 10 Among Liberals, Moderates

December 15, 2011

(CNSNews.com) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia is leading former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential race by 20 points—41 percent to 21 percent--among self-professed conservatives, according to a new Gallup poll released Thursday.

By contrast, Romney is leading Gingrich by 10 points—27 percent to 17 percent—among self-professed liberals and moderates in the poll.

The poll, conducted Dec. 5-11, surveyed 1,665 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are registered voters. Among all poll respondents, Gingrich led Romney 33 percent to 23 percent, with Rep. Ron Paul of Texas at 9 percent, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota at 6 percent, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 6 percent.

Gingrich led among most sub-groups in the poll—except for self-professed liberals and moderates, those 18 to 34 years of age, and those living in the East.

Among the Republican-leaning independents, Gingrich and Romney were tied at 23 percent, with Paul at 14 percent.

Among the Republicans, Gingrich had 38 percent, Romney had 23 percent, and Paul had 7 percent.

Among the conservatives, Gingrich had 41 percent, Romney 21 percent, and Paul had 7 percent.

Among the liberals and moderates, Romney had 27 percent, Gingrich had 17 percent, and Paul had 13 percent.

You can find the complete article with more poll data here.

I'm not at all surprised that liberal and "moderates" prefer Romney.  After all, he's one of them.

***

Want to help make sure your children aren't growing up in poverty?  Get, and stay, married.  According to a Heritage Foundation study, being in a stable, married household has a much, much better probability of staying out of poverty.  In the study, single parents were compared against married families and their income levels.  This study compared single parent white, black and hispanic families with their married counterparts using census data from 2010.

The married families at or below the poverty level comprised only 4-9% of the population.  The single parent groups varied from 40% and up.

Marriage and Poverty in the United States

View more presentations from The Heritage Foundation

 
Interesting, is it not?

***

The Missouri budget is projected to be several hundred million dollars in the red this fiscal year according to forecasts.  Democrat Governor Jay Nixon has a plan. He wants to "barrow" money from the state's universities and repay the "loan" over a seven year period at zero percent interest.

Why am I concerned about this plan.  He wants to take money from the universities' reserve funds, money they earned through various enterprises, from alumni donations and other income sources, keep it for seven years and then give it back with no interest.  The result, since there is no compensation for inflation is that if the plan worked as stated, the universities would end up with less than they had in the beginning.

It's the same as theft. 

Nixon considers asking 5 Missouri universities to lend money to state

BY VIRGINIA YOUNG • vyoung@post-dispatch.com > 573-635-6178  

STLtoday.com
Friday, December 16, 2011 8:30 am

JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon is asking five state universities to consider lending the state more than $100 million next year to help balance the state's budget, a proposal that is drawing fire from key legislators unhappy with both its secrecy and its impact.

Nixon's proposal, which his budget director termed preliminary, calls for the University of Missouri to chip in $63 million and four other schools to come up with lesser amounts, for a total of $107 million. The money would come from their reserve funds.

The state would roll the money into the $850 million higher education budget that covers operating expenses at all of Missouri's four-year institutions and community colleges. The goal: to avoid a cut that could otherwise equal at least 13 percent across the board.

Universities making the interest-free loans would look to be repaid over a seven-year period with money diverted from the state's college loan authority, known as the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA.

In addition, Nixon proposes cutting the schools scholarship funds in half and telling the universities to make up the difference out of their remaining reserve funds. As you can expect, the legislature is not pleased.

House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, called the plan ridiculous. "The governor is looking for this scheme that avoids making tough decisions on cuts," he said. "Rather than balance the state's budget, he wants to dream up new revenue sources which happen to be interest-free loans from our universities."

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, said the universities would have no guarantee that they would get their money back.

"If the proposal is a Bernie Madoff-type Ponzi scheme to make it look like something's being funded that isn't really being funded, that's not acceptable," Schaefer said.

Ah yes, your democrat pols at work.  If they can't tax and spend, they'll just steal money...and spend.  Cutting all that spending in the first place isn't an option for them.

 

When your revenue projections are undercut by reality, sane people cut their spending to match their income.  Government, on the other hand, can't imagine spending less.  They prefer to come up with schemes to get around our state's balanced budget requirement.

 

Tax and spend. Steal and spend. The only difference is semantics.

Another light posting day

Sometimes life catches up. I've mentioned that we're having new siding installed on our house.  The crew has been working since last week. The north and south sides are done except for some cleanup---caulking and painting over the nailheads.  We're over the top and on the downslope. The project should be finished in a few more days.

However, and there's always a however, we need to buy some items not covered in the contract, some metal trim around the garage doors and some new shutters for the front windows.  The old trim and shutters could not be saved when they were removed.  It was recognized that may be an issue.

Today will be busy, going to Lowe's and other places to buy these items and more.

***

Last night, Mrs. Crucis and I attended our local 'Pub Central Committee Christmas party. About half the crowd, maybe more, were office holders and/or candidates for office.  Sarah Steelman was in town for media interviews and fund raisers.  She was one of the attendees.  Two candidates running for Sect'y of State were there. One of the candidates sat at our table.

After the dinner, each candidate and office holder was given a few moments to speak.  Some took the offer, others didn't.

One thing I noticed and it disturbed me.  The candidates that spoke were all elegant and accomplished speakers.  Only one stated why he was running, what his position was on some current issues and what he planned to do if he won the office.

Only one candidate told us why he was running.

That's telling of the state of the 'Pub party in Missouri.  Truthfully, I was a bit disappointed. I expected more.

***

Today is our daughter's and son-in-law's 16th wedding anniversary.  Congratulations!  It seems like yesterday that I escorted her down the aisle. 

***

Have a great weekend. There's only a week left 'til Christmas.

Merry Christmas!

Even democrats...

...are disgusted with Obama. The column below is by a Blue Dog democrat.  I'm unsure if Cardoza is running again. So many on that list aren't. As you read the article, while Cardoza is a Blue Dog, it's readily apparent he is no "small government" and "less spending" advocate. I don't think those exist in the democrat party.

Dem lawmaker blasts ‘Professor Obama’ as arrogant, alienating

By Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) - 12/13/11 06:05 AM ET

After observing President Obama for the last three years, it has become obvious to me that the president might prefer to be a university professor rather than do the job he holds today. While he might not realize that he feels this way, the evidence is very clear to those who work with or watch him closely.

Let me be clear — I’m not trying to disparage professors. But anyone who wonders why the president is not crushing the weak Republican field only needs to examine how President Obama has behaved more like Professor Obama:

‘IDEA DISEASE’

In the president’s first year in office, his administration suffered from what I call “idea disease.” Every week, and sometimes almost every day, the administration rolled out a new program for the country. There was no obvious prioritization and, after the rollout, very little effort to actually pass the latest idea/imperative/plan/edict. Instead, the new programs just kept coming, with the new proposals constantly stepping on the previous day’s message. This rampant “idea disease” squandered the tremendous goodwill generated by the Obama campaign’s message of “hope,” tainting the president’s personal appeal. As Democrats in Congress, we often felt like we were drinking water out of a fire hose, trying to simultaneously deal with past failures of the Bush administration and the avalanche of new initiatives from Obama. This lack of focus also made it easy for congressional Republicans to stall and foil many of President Obama’s best initiatives — which they did with relish! 

This piece is from The Hill website. The complete column can be read there.

The coming election is one for the 'Pubs to lose.  The 'Pub establishment is working hard to achieve that loss.  They believe if they can win the Senate, retain the House, they don't need the White House---and all the liberal "Czars" and agency heads appointed by the Obama.

The 'Pub establishment is wrong.  We need to remove them as much as we remove the democrats from office.

Another light day...

The siding folks have worked around to the east window in my office.  I have to clear a path (ugh!) to the window, remove the items, mostly diskettes, books, and boxes of lead bullets, from the window shelf and unlatch the window lock.

It'll take a good part of the morning to do that. I have a lot of junk in the way.  In the mean time, enjoy this contribution by Michael Ramirez.

Y'all have a great day. I'll be back tomorrow.

You Ain't No Teddy Roosevelt!

A hundred and some years ago, Teddy Roosevelt came to Osawatomie, KS, and praised progressivism.  The supposed purpose of the visit was to commemorate the creation of a state park.  Instead, Roosevelt used the event to attack elements in his own political party who chose to follow a path contrary to that desired by Roosevelt.

The Kansas Historical Society has a webpage describing the event. Roosevelt intended to bridge a gap between the Eastern and Western factions of the Republican Party.  He failed, partly due to the machinations of William Allen White.

The essence of Roosevelt's speech has been discussed by numerous historians. it was, according to Prof. George E. Mowry, "the most radical speech ever given by an ex-President… . His concepts of the extent to which a powerful federal government could regulate and use private property in the interest of the whole and his declarations about labor, when viewed [with]…the eyes of 1910, were nothing short of revolutionary." [30]

Roosevelt stated:

The American people are right in demanding that new Nationalism without which we cannot hope to deal with new problems. The new Nationalism puts the National need before sectional or personal advantage. It is impatient of the utter confusion that results from local legislatures attempting to treat National issues as local issues. It is still more impatient of the impotence which springs from over-division of governmental powers, the impotence which makes it possible for local selfishness or for legal cunning, hired by wealthy special interests, to bring National activities to a deadlock. This new Nationalism regards the executive power as the steward of public welfare. It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than in property, just as it demands that the representative body shall represent all the people rather than any one class or section of the people… . I believe in shaping the ends of government to protect property as well as human welfare. Normally…the ends are the same, but whenever the alternative must be faced I am for men and not for property… .

These ideas, plus a very clever comparison between the crisis which Brown and Lincoln faced in the 1850's and the crisis Roosevelt and the American people faced in 1910, constitute most of the speech. Taken with the 17 specific reforms Roosevelt discussed, they are the essentials of the address. [31] -- Kansas Historical Quarterly - Theodore Roosevelt's Osawatomie Speech by Robert S. La Forte

Roosevelt adopted the edicts of Progressivism to gain support of the populist movements of that time.  Again, he failed and in a few years created a third party, the Bull Moose party, as a platform for another run for the Presidency.

It's problematic whether Teddy Roosevelt actually believed in Progressivism or whether he used them to advance his personal political aims.  Regardless, it lead to his defeat for another Presidential term and into obscurity.

Obama came to Kansas last week, to Osawatomie, KS, like Roosevelt. He did not come as President to commemorate an event or announce some policy statement. No, he came an Candidate Obama running for President in next year's election.  Like Roosevelt, he attacked private property, embraced big government and more.  Like Roosevelt, he failed too.

Obama's Godfather Speech

The president sounds more like a Corleone than a Roosevelt.

By DANIEL HENNINGER

Most press accounts of Barack Obama's speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, Tuesday described it as delivered by the "president of the United States." And indeed the person delivering it analogized himself to Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton. In fact, the Osawatomie speech was not given by the President of the United States. It was given by the leader of the Democratic Party.

...

Dan Henninger says that the president sounds
more like a Corleone than a Roosevelt.

The Osawatomie speech sounded like what you'd expect to hear in Caracas or Buenos Aires. As in: "The free market has never been a license to take whatever you can from whomever you can." (Applause.) And: "Their philosophy is simple. We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules."

Some will say hearing crude Chavista populism in the Obama speech is an overreaction. That once it's understood the Kansas speech was the work of the party leader, not the president of the United States, it becomes easier to think about it without overreacting to its intense and vivid rhetoric: "Millions of working families in this country . . . are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal."

...

About two-thirds through Mr. Obama's Kansas speech, I started to think of "The Godfather." After slapping around the "wealthy" for about a half hour, Mr. Obama said, "This isn't about class warfare." Maybe that's true. In "The Godfather," when awful things are about to be done to people, Michael Corleone or Tom Hagen reassure those about to get hit, "It's not personal; it's strictly business."

But I could be wrong about that. There is that defining moment when Michael Corleone says to Fredo, his brother, "You're nothing to me now." When even as party leader, a president of the United States gives a major speech in which people get singled out repeatedly as basically enemies of "the middle class," one has to wonder if they are nothing to him.

...

The Kansas speech was built around one concrete policy idea: that the rich and millionaires (officially still defined as families with before-tax income above $250,000) should send him more money so he can "invest" it. This single policy, if we heard correctly, will end high unemployment, raise middle-class incomes, put children through college, make America fair and defeat countries that pollute. 

Obama, rather than sounding and emulating Teddy Roosevelt sounded more like Hugo Chavez railing against capitalism and free markets.  Like the reigning democrats, Obama mouths platitudes while blocking acts that would actually help the country. It's become obvious that the democrats do not want economic recovery.  Turmoil---political and economic, they believe, enhances their position.  As long as they can ferment and promote class warfare, they can remain in power.

It's not the haves vs. the have-nots.  It's the parasites vs. the producers, the dependency class against the productive citizens of this country.  It's Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged come to life.