I couldn't find just one recipe that appealed to me, so I grabbed ingredients from a few, and added some of my own. It was so delicious, I wanted to share! Many of the measurements below can be varied to taste, and ingredients omitted or substituted. Just be careful not to add too much flour.
SHRIMP ALFREDO
Pasta
1 tsp salt
1 Tbsp oil
1 lb pasta of your choice
Start boiling water for pasta. Add salt and oil to water. (At this point, start on your sauce.) Follow directions on box. Pour sauce over noodles**
Sauce
1 stick butter, unsalted
6 cloves garlic, minced
1/2 medium onion, minced
1.5 lbs shelled deveined shrimp, cooked
1 tsp dried parsley
5 Tbsp flour
1 pint half-n-half
8 oz parmesan cheese, grated
salt to taste
While water boils, melt butter in a large skillet over medium heat. Add onion and garlic. Cook about two minutes, until onion becomes translucent. Add shrimp and parsley, cooking just until heated. TURN OFF HEAT. Next, add one Tbsp of flour at a time, until mixture thickens a bit, but is still very moist. (If a lot of water cooks off your shrimp, you'll need more flour.) Slowly pour half-n-half into skillet while stirring. Heat over med-high heat until slightly thickened. TURN TO LOW HEAT, then mix in parmesan cheese until melted. The more cheese you add, and the longer you cook, the thicker the sauce will be. Add salt to taste.
**I return noodles to the pot and immediately combine with sauce so that my noodles don't have a chance to dry out. However, the shrimp tends to fall under the noodles. If you do this, make sure each bowl gets enough shrimp!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Primary Jury Responsibility: JUDGE THE LAW
Jurors have the power and responsibility to vote "not guilty", even if the evidence in the case proves a "crime" was committed, if they judge the law to be unjust or unconstitutional. Most jurors will never know this because the majority of Judges no longer make them aware. Many, if not most, actually instruct juries to decide the case by applying the law, as it is given to them, to the evidence. This is not the law, nor the precedence. A juror can and should disregard a judge's instructions, if he sees fit, judging both fact and law according to his conscience. This is jury nullification.
The doctrine is supported by these 1.) A jury can never be punished for a verdict it returns. 2.) Once acquitted, one can not be tried for the same crime again (double jeopardy).
Legal definition of "jury". Pay attention to "jury verdict" section. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
The first case of jury nullification was in 1670 when Williams Mead and Penn were arrested for "unlawful assembly", violating a law designed to prevent any religious expression not approved by the crown. The judge demanded a return verdict of "guilty", but the jury repeatedly refused, resulting in the imprisonment of four jurors. A higher court ultimately overturned the ruling, establishing the common law practice of juries judging on conscience.
John Peter Zenger, who in 1735 was tried for the crime of "seditious libel". The British ruled Colony of New York did not permit its citizens freedom of press, and when Zenger published articles criticizing the Governor, he was arrested and jailed for 10 months. Any publication that "brings into hatred or contempt for government" or "civil unrest", even if truthful, was illegal. The evidence in the case proved that a crime had indeed been committed. Though he argued that the information he printed was true, therefore justification for the libel, this is not why Zenger was acquitted. The judge instructed the jury that their only responsibility was to find guilt because he had violated the letter of the law, and that the "issue of law" was to be left to the court to decide. Nonetheless, in a mere ten minutes the jury returned with a verdict of "not guilty".
Wiki-Seditious Libel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel
The US government is a system of checks and balances, of which trial by jury is the final and most crucial; perhaps the true meaning of "government by the people, for the people". Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying in 1789, "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." This is the only REAL tool WE THE PEOPLE have to keep government in check. We are not their minions; they are our servants. In 1895 the US Supreme Court ruled that although juries do have the right to judge both the facts of the case, and the law itself, and to disregard the instructions of the judge, no one is required to tell them of this right. One must wonder what the motive to keep the rights of a jury a tightly guarded secret.
In this old TV show, "At Issue", (from The National Endowment For Liberty), Ron Paul and a panel of experts discuss the power of the jury and expose the Judge's dirty little secret.
This article http://www.ehow.com/how_2140173_avoid-jury-nullification.html" caught my eye. It details how to avoid jury nullification (I guess to the rookie prosecutor). And for what purpose? To save time...money...something more sinister? Can we trust anyone who puts ANY objective above that of justice? The idea that public knowledge of the true power and responsibility of a jury creates a problem for the courts is outrageous! But the fact remains that this critical information is being intentionally withheld by most judges, making it quite obvious that the American public is in fact pitted against the very system we trust to deliver justice. That's a scary thought! But perhaps that mentality is where we went wrong. We really have no one to thank but ourselves. When did we stop paying attention and become so complacent? Time to make up for lost time. Get educated and then tell somebody-lots of people-the truth!
http://www.fija.org
The doctrine is supported by these 1.) A jury can never be punished for a verdict it returns. 2.) Once acquitted, one can not be tried for the same crime again (double jeopardy).
Legal definition of "jury". Pay attention to "jury verdict" section. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
The first case of jury nullification was in 1670 when Williams Mead and Penn were arrested for "unlawful assembly", violating a law designed to prevent any religious expression not approved by the crown. The judge demanded a return verdict of "guilty", but the jury repeatedly refused, resulting in the imprisonment of four jurors. A higher court ultimately overturned the ruling, establishing the common law practice of juries judging on conscience.
John Peter Zenger, who in 1735 was tried for the crime of "seditious libel". The British ruled Colony of New York did not permit its citizens freedom of press, and when Zenger published articles criticizing the Governor, he was arrested and jailed for 10 months. Any publication that "brings into hatred or contempt for government" or "civil unrest", even if truthful, was illegal. The evidence in the case proved that a crime had indeed been committed. Though he argued that the information he printed was true, therefore justification for the libel, this is not why Zenger was acquitted. The judge instructed the jury that their only responsibility was to find guilt because he had violated the letter of the law, and that the "issue of law" was to be left to the court to decide. Nonetheless, in a mere ten minutes the jury returned with a verdict of "not guilty".
Wiki-Seditious Libel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel
The US government is a system of checks and balances, of which trial by jury is the final and most crucial; perhaps the true meaning of "government by the people, for the people". Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying in 1789, "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." This is the only REAL tool WE THE PEOPLE have to keep government in check. We are not their minions; they are our servants. In 1895 the US Supreme Court ruled that although juries do have the right to judge both the facts of the case, and the law itself, and to disregard the instructions of the judge, no one is required to tell them of this right. One must wonder what the motive to keep the rights of a jury a tightly guarded secret.
In this old TV show, "At Issue", (from The National Endowment For Liberty), Ron Paul and a panel of experts discuss the power of the jury and expose the Judge's dirty little secret.
This article http://www.ehow.com/how_2140173_avoid-jury-nullification.html" caught my eye. It details how to avoid jury nullification (I guess to the rookie prosecutor). And for what purpose? To save time...money...something more sinister? Can we trust anyone who puts ANY objective above that of justice? The idea that public knowledge of the true power and responsibility of a jury creates a problem for the courts is outrageous! But the fact remains that this critical information is being intentionally withheld by most judges, making it quite obvious that the American public is in fact pitted against the very system we trust to deliver justice. That's a scary thought! But perhaps that mentality is where we went wrong. We really have no one to thank but ourselves. When did we stop paying attention and become so complacent? Time to make up for lost time. Get educated and then tell somebody-lots of people-the truth!
http://www.fija.org
Monday, January 25, 2010
Safe Entertainment or Parental Compromise?
How many of you parents trust sites like nick.com to provide your child with good, clean fun. How many of us-some on a daily basis-trust these sites to do so without our supervision. We all know that we should know what our kids are watching, playing, and listening to, but how easy it is to become complacent. Once your kids are in the habit of watching one or two mom-approved shows on a given network, or a handful of games on a dad-verified website, do you, on a daily basis, (re)evaluate the content they're accessing? I know I'm not.
It's been brought to my attention that there are free internet games accessible from nick.com that are extremely inappropriate for children (or anyone IMO). Though the games actually "live" on a separate website, addictinggames.com, they blend right in with all the rest, some clickable directly from the main page of nick.com. Addictinggames.com was purchased by Viacom, which also owns Nickelodeon. http://www.viacom.com/ourbrands/medianetworks/mtvnetworks/pages/addictinggames.aspx
(Watch the video to see the inappropriate content.)
I share this information with you not so much to point fingers and hurl blame at Nickelodeon or any other entity. I share this with you as I, myself, take a long, hard look at my own media-monitoring practices. The dad who made this video has given me a welcome wake-up call. Viacom is certainly not the only corporation out there that parents regularly, virtually blindly, trust to "police" the internet, television waves, and games our children are exposed to. Lately, I've increasingly become conscious of just how excessive my own children's media consumption is, in general, and just this morning decided to (once again) make attempts to curb this addiction. And, don't get me wrong, the addiction is just as much my own (free babysitting right??), as it is my children's, though I'm certain the withdrawal will be harder for them than myself since I've given them little motivation to be very discriminatory in their viewing/playing. I also don't get up off my butt, or away from my computer, often enough to help them find something more healthy, productive, and FUN to do. Even my desire to get my bedroom cleaned, dishes done, or floor mopped interfere with my responsibility to teach my children to recognize healthy, constructive hobbies vs those that consume way too much of our time-our most valuable resource-and give us little of real value in return.
It wasn't until discussing this video on a friend's FB today that I realized that all the good-intentions in the world are not going to keep my kids safe. It's like knowing the ibuprofen should be kept out of reach of children, but leaving it on the nightstand anyway. Will I wait until one of my children "overdoses" on inappropriate TV, music, or videogames before I take some real action; before I REALLY start protecting them? This video lit a fire of urgency and encouragement under me that I needed! Nickelodeon has completely lost my trust, and for now, erring on the side of safety, my family will seek our entertainment elsewhere, and in EXTREMELY limited doses. Time to blow the dust off of Monopoly and the Uno cards!
Kudos to you parents who have been vigilant all along! Best wishes to those like myself who will make up for lost time, hoping it's not too late!
Anyone interested in contacting Viacom or Nickelodeon about this matter, use the following:
Viacom Inc.
1515 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
(212) 258-6000
http://www.viacom.com/Contact/Pages/default.aspx
Nickelodeon
1515 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10036
(212) 258-6000
http://www.nick.com/mynick/write_nick/mail.jhtml
It's been brought to my attention that there are free internet games accessible from nick.com that are extremely inappropriate for children (or anyone IMO). Though the games actually "live" on a separate website, addictinggames.com, they blend right in with all the rest, some clickable directly from the main page of nick.com. Addictinggames.com was purchased by Viacom, which also owns Nickelodeon. http://www.viacom.com/ourbrands/medianetworks/mtvnetworks/pages/addictinggames.aspx
(Watch the video to see the inappropriate content.)
I share this information with you not so much to point fingers and hurl blame at Nickelodeon or any other entity. I share this with you as I, myself, take a long, hard look at my own media-monitoring practices. The dad who made this video has given me a welcome wake-up call. Viacom is certainly not the only corporation out there that parents regularly, virtually blindly, trust to "police" the internet, television waves, and games our children are exposed to. Lately, I've increasingly become conscious of just how excessive my own children's media consumption is, in general, and just this morning decided to (once again) make attempts to curb this addiction. And, don't get me wrong, the addiction is just as much my own (free babysitting right??), as it is my children's, though I'm certain the withdrawal will be harder for them than myself since I've given them little motivation to be very discriminatory in their viewing/playing. I also don't get up off my butt, or away from my computer, often enough to help them find something more healthy, productive, and FUN to do. Even my desire to get my bedroom cleaned, dishes done, or floor mopped interfere with my responsibility to teach my children to recognize healthy, constructive hobbies vs those that consume way too much of our time-our most valuable resource-and give us little of real value in return.
It wasn't until discussing this video on a friend's FB today that I realized that all the good-intentions in the world are not going to keep my kids safe. It's like knowing the ibuprofen should be kept out of reach of children, but leaving it on the nightstand anyway. Will I wait until one of my children "overdoses" on inappropriate TV, music, or videogames before I take some real action; before I REALLY start protecting them? This video lit a fire of urgency and encouragement under me that I needed! Nickelodeon has completely lost my trust, and for now, erring on the side of safety, my family will seek our entertainment elsewhere, and in EXTREMELY limited doses. Time to blow the dust off of Monopoly and the Uno cards!
Kudos to you parents who have been vigilant all along! Best wishes to those like myself who will make up for lost time, hoping it's not too late!
Anyone interested in contacting Viacom or Nickelodeon about this matter, use the following:
Viacom Inc.
1515 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
(212) 258-6000
http://www.viacom.com/Contact/Pages/default.aspx
Nickelodeon
1515 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10036
(212) 258-6000
http://www.nick.com/mynick/write_nick/mail.jhtml
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Georgia Gun Rights Under Attack
Military Police Staff Sergeant SC State Guard, Mack Williams faces trial for pulling out his permitted weapon in a successful attempt to stop a man physically assaulting himself and fiance. He is charged with "disorderly conduct" and "pointing a gun at another". Both Williams and his fiance have been prevented from pressing charges against their attacker. If you're familiar with GA Senate Bill 12 and HB 615, you know how suspicious the timing is. ADD MACK AS YOUR FRIEND ON FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=148400194&ref=ts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
