This is definitely not one of my favorite dishes, but Dan loves a good split-pea soup when the weather gets cold, so baby, this one’s for you – all of it

One of our exchange students, Josi from Berlin, gave me Alton Brown’s “I’m Just Here for the Food” for my birthday a couple of years ago. This recipe is from that book, and it’s probably one of the easiest recipes I know of. Here goes:

Alton Brown’s Split-Pea Soup

18 oz. dried split peas
1 finger-sized piece of salt pork (Dan likes porky goodness, but this is optional)
1 chipotle chile in adobo sauce
1/2 cup each chopped carrots, onions and celery
2 quarts chicken broth
1-1/2 tbsp. miso paste

Combine all the ingredients in a slow cooker and set it to high. Cook for 6 to 8 hours until the peas have softened. Really, that’s it.

And here’s the delicious (according to Dan) but not real appetizing-looking (to me) result, garnished with a little sliced green onion:

This is my entry in No Croutons Required, hosted by Lisa’s Kitchen.

He is an impressive man and I believe he will make an excellent president.

• European and American rights groups file torture complaint against Rumsfeld
• What Lies Beneath: Alberto Gonzales’ legal troubles may just be beginning

So our former secretary of defense is accused of torture and our former attorney general is accused of perjury, among other crimes. I wonder what other former, and possibly current, administration officials might be guilty of?

They say now that impeachment is off the table. We’ll see after some of the Bush administration’s tactics come to light.

I have one word for you: Oversight.

Portsmouth still has almost all optical scanning voting machines, which I really appreciate. Considering all the problems there have been with electronic voting machines, I just can’t believe the government rushed states into buying them. Here’s hoping it’s such a wipeout for the Democrats that recounts won’t be needed.

Because really, what kind of meaningful recount can be done with an electronic machine – a computer, essentially – that doesn’t print out votes as they are cast? You tell it to print out the results again – the same results it already printed. What’s the point?

I think that unfortunately, the billions spent on new voting machines in the last few years will have to be re-spent, on machines that really work. Like this.

Here’s what the first sentence of the proposed amendment says:

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

It’s already illegal in Virginia for gays to marry, and Virginia is not exactly a hotbed of so-called “activist judges” that would overturn it. So this provision wouldn’t accomplish anything new.

The real problem, though, is the rest of the proposed amendment:

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

Take a close look at that second sentence. Do you know anyone who is not married and has dependent children? Do they have wills and custody agreements with anyone else specifying what will happen to their children and property if something should happen to them?

As “benefits” or “effects” of marriage, these agreements and wills could very well be invalidated if challenged. Is this what Republicans mean when they say government should stay out of our private lives?

An excerpt: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution on the Iraqi war.

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss what to do now, we must first acknowledge the fact that we cannot discuss an exit strategy for leaving Iraq without first stating what the entry strategy was, and then stating what we are trying to accomplish now.

We were originally told that we invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction; that turned out not to be true. We were then told we invaded Iraq because the Iraqi leaders were connected with the 9/11 attacks; that turned out not to be true. The rationale that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States was exposed as untrue even before the invasion. A letter from the Director of the CIA to the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, dated October 7, 2002, specifically stated that the CIA believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein did not pose a terrorist threat to the United States, and would not be
expected to pose such a threat, unless we attacked Iraq.”

Of course, we attacked Iraq and it is now the nexus of terrorism in the world.

He repeated most of this speech in a local radio interview last week. Here’s hoping the Dems take back at least one house of Congress in this election and are able to start hearings to finally exercise some oversight of the power-mad Republicans.