Ilaine

Obama, a law professor who taught Constitutional law, knows how to amend the Constitution. The mechanics aren't hard to understand, you certainly don't need to be a lawyer to grasp it. If you had the political will to do it, nothing would stop you from at least trying. Instead gun opponents pretend that Congress can solve this issue without a Constitutional amendment. Why? I really have no idea. I surmise it's an easy out, demonizing people who don't agree with you rather than actually doing something about it. Take a lesson from the past. When women wanted the vote, nothing would stop them. When Evangelicals wanted to abolish consumption of alcohol, nothing would stop them. Of course, passing an amendment is easier than getting rid of one, but if you mean what you say, get to work. Of course, what I am saying flies against reason. Three quarters of the states are not going to ratify amending or abolishing the Second Amendment in our lifetime. Mine, anyway. Prolly 20 years to go, maybe. But look how long it took for women to get the vote.

Cajun, ordered before I read your post. Ordered 10 pounds of IQF 15-20 white Gulf shrimp, 1 pound jumbo lump, 1 pound regular lump, with overnight shipping about $150. Delayed one day because they were out of jumbo lump, so maybe it hasn't been frozen very long. Had it shipped to work, when it got here, took it home on my lunch break and put it all in the freezer. I was thinking I would have to thaw the shrimp because no way I could use 10 pounds of shrimp at once, but IQF means they are loose in the bag. After we thaw and use the crab I will comment on the texture, but since it's going into a gumbo seems like that may not be an issue. It was very well packed, the container is made of styrofoam, and there were bags of dry ice in with the seafood. Whole package shrink wrapped. Cajungrocer.com. Now my only dilemma is that I told a co-worker I'd bring him some gumbo, he's a pescatarian, and now I am wishing I could put some Andouille into the gumbo. Guess I will cook the Andouille on the side, and add it after I take his out. Not as good as cookiing the flavor in, though.

What Pat said. Carolina Gold kicks Charleston Gold booty. Other exquisite Anson Mills items, Sea Island beans, oats, polenta, grits. I luurve Anson Mills products and their online recipes. It's that time of year (getting cooler) to order some lovely Anson Mills carbs. I gotta limit carbs, so when I do carb, Anson Mills it is. (Well, let's don't talk about my Dominoes gluten free pizza habit. I can stop whenever I want to, honest.)

Planning on buying frozen white shrimp shipped from Louisiana, and noticed both the vendors I am considering also sell blue crab meat but it's frozen. Anybody have an opinion about frozen crab meat?

My sister, who is a La Leche league member, and a labor and delivery nurse, is of the opinion that you should not give a baby anything but breast milk until the child is trying to snatch the food from your hands or plate. But she's hard core, and breast fed easily, two girls. I had a hard time breast feeding, and two big boys. I used one of the plastic mills, probably Gerber. Mine liked smooshed up peas, carrots, egg yolk, applesauce, but absolutely loved pureed beef stew with potatoes and carrots. One is over 6'2", one is over 6'4", but weight problems, probably due to mistakes I made, although I expect that pizza, hot pockets, pop tarts and McDonald's more to blame than the baby food. Well, diluting formula with apple juice was a major screwup, for the first one, knew better the second time. Wish I could go back in time and do it over. My motto used to be, "I am a trial lawyer, therefore you eat fast food." Cringe.

I adore collard greens, and think that kale is fit only for goats. In fact, I love collard greens so much, I grow them myself, after reading a book named, appropriately, Collards: A Southern Tradition from Field to Table. But I don't like the way they are cooked above the Mason Dixon line, sort of crunchy with a lot of vinegar. I like them Deep Southern Style, best recipe by Edna Lewis, see The Gift of Southern Cooking. Edna Lewis' recipe here. Buzz and Ned's, in Richmond, makes it even better than I do. But at a Slow Food potluck, I ate some mighty fine collard greens, and the cook told me that her secret is to put in the stems, "where all the goodness is", but slice them very thinly. Now, a sad collard greens story. My first crop, planted too late in the spring, didn't do very well, so I pulled it all. While I was pulling it out, I noticed a couple of blueish sprouts that immediately after I pulled them, realized that I should have nutured, but that was after I popped them in my mouth and noticed how extra tasty they were. The seeds were Green Glaze, but the blue ones must have been a sport. Drat. I just planted some more seeds, but Georgia variety. Emily, I imagine the issue is that you're selling to Yankees, who don't know from collard greens. I'd happily buy your collards but I am in Fairfax.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is go for canned whole fava beans , or even better, frozen. The season for fresh ones is gone. Dried ones don't stay intact. Dried beans behave entirely differently than fresh. Canned or frozen are close to fresh. You need intact beans for a salad.

Chapter 11 for a smallish company is a crapshoot. Might come in for a soft landing and continue, might crash and burn. Memo to self, check filings, but not right away. The real action doesn't come soon after filing. Wait until the creditors have their say, and the judge starts ruling. Group dinner to support Michael would be a lovely gesture. Pennies in the pot, realistically, but showing love for Michael is a Good Thing.

I remain unclear on what the Bistro is. Made reservations at Ray's for dinner last Saturday, at 6 p.m. What I think of as the main dining room wasn't full but we were placed all the way in the back, past the bathrooms, which I thought was the Bistro?

If you limit the fasting calories to fat and protein, you won't get the hangries.

Hersch, exactly. All the people in California have the same number of senators as all the people of Wyoming. That's the beauty of the Great Compromise. Upon which hung the balance of the smaller states agreeing to sign the Constitution. The Electoral College is a bit more directly democratic, since the larger states have more votes there. The intention was checks and balances against direct democracy. It works. We live in a republic. The popular will does not control, except indirectly. When I look at Donald Trump, I give thanks.

Second sentence not quite correct. With rights come responsibilities. Example, no shouting fire in a crowded theater. Third sentence also not quite correct. Amending the Constitution is something that can be done, but not easy and also not likely without a huge majority. As an intellectual exercise this reminds me of the anger in coastal states when the popular vote for President loses in the Electoral College. The Constitution is remarkably intricate for such a short document. Admirably so, in my mind.

Interesting quote from the Dred Scott decision (African Americans can't be citizens because they would, shudder, have free speech and the right to carry guns, thus endangering society): "The legislation of the States therefore shows in a manner not to be mistaken the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed, and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States to suppose that they regarded at that time as fellow citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized, whom, as we are bound out of respect to the State sovereignties to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation, or, that, when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights and privileges and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [p417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State. It is impossible, it would seem, to believe that the great men of the slaveholding States, who took so large a share in framing the Constitution of the United States and exercised so much influence in procuring its adoption, could have been so forgetful or regardless of their own safety and the safety of those who trusted and confided in them." (Emphasis added)

Josh, the position that nobody should have guns because some people are dangerous, and we don't know who they are? Honestly, whatever. Change the Supreme Court, change the Constitution, but otherwise, you're just venting. Which is fine. I'm outta this.

There appears to be an unbridgeable gap between people who view guns as useful tools and people who cannot conceive of this. I did not want a gun, myself, until a friend of mine had someone try to break into her apartment. She called the police and her father, and her father got there first, with a gun, and the would be attacker ran off. After that, I got a gun, learned how to use it, and carried it to and from work in the Warehouse District in New Orleans, at night, and held it in my hand, pointing downward, as I went back and forth to my car. I also carried it to a confrontation between another friend of mine and a man having a psychotic breakdown. I stood by the side of the car with my hand inside the door, holding the gun, hoping I did not have to use it. Luckily the police got there before the psychotic man got up the nerve to attack my friend with a machete. I informed one of the officers that I had a gun, and he was fine with it. I don't have a gun now. I don't feel like I need it. But if I ever feel like I do need it, I want one.

Bogus. NRA supports mental health record background checks, but not all people with a record of mental illness are dangerous. The following is a cut and paste from NRA website: --- "On Monday, NRA filed formal comments in opposition to a plan by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to expand the categories of persons prohibited under federal law from acquiring or possessing firearms because of having been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." The proposal is commonly referred to by its BATFE docket number, 51P. NRA shares the goal of keeping firearms out of dangerous hands. Its comment notes, however, that existing federal law on this issue casts a wide, undifferentiated net that snares masses of mostly harmless individuals with a much smaller group that may present an increased risk of violence. The comment cites numerous sources that express the nearly universal opinion of mental health professionals that mental illness is not highly correlated with, predictive of, or frequently causally related to violence. It also cites reports from mental health professionals, the FBI, and the Secret Service that acknowledge the futility of creating an accurate "profile" of persons who have no history of violence but present a risk of future harm. NRA's comment additionally underscores the importance of the rights affected by these lifetime prohibitions, the wide range of state and federal procedures that potentially trigger them, and the difficulty (or outright impossibility) of prohibited persons achieving restoration of rights, even after full recovery. Under existing federal regulations, a person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath. Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness. NRA's comment explains in detail how 51P would worsen these problems. The proposal, for example, conflicts with federal appellate court precedent, which interprets the antiquated term "mental defective" in a much narrower way than BATFE does. It also disregards cases that recognize the fundamental rights protected by the Second Amendment cannot be abridged without adequate due process. NRA's comment exposes the flaws in the justification BATFE provides for 51P, including the way it cherry picks case law and bits of legislative history that support a broad reading of the federal statute while ignoring other precedent that supports a narrow reading. Recognizing that scientific knowledge of mental illness has progressed and now undermines the Gun Control Act's broad prohibitions on the mentally ill, NRA urges BATFE to defer action on the rule and to wait for Congress to reexamine the issue in light of modern medical understanding of the link between mental illness and violence. The comment provides a number of guidelines for statutory reform, including provisions aimed at swifter, more accurate, and readily-accessible diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. It also suggests that individualized risk assessment may be a more effective means of protecting public safety than bans that affect large categories of people. Finally, NRA's comment offers specific recommendations for regulatory reform under the current statutory scheme. It advocates for more specific due process protections and individualized findings of dangerousness, expanding opportunities for restoration of rights, and interpreting the statutory terms in light of what they meant to the Congress that passed them."

Hersch, interesting question, looking at which leads me to the revelation that the harder the states (and DC) try to ban guns, the more explicit the Supremes get in saying no. Each decision more firm. Not elected, beholden to no one but their individual interpretation of the law. Bart, whatever. If you need to believe the NRA is evil and destroying America out of evilness, your prerogative. I think it'd entirely beside the point. NRA has no sway with SCOTUS. Neither the President nor Congress can get past SCOTUS, absent a constitutional amendment, or enough justices dying and ones who will vote your way getting appointed and a case that will excite enough of them to reverse precident to do so. Appointing justices who think your way is pretty iffy, but in time, maybe there will be a majority who think your way. That law abiding gun owners should not have guns because guns are inherently unsafe, is the way I understand your argument. Do I have that correct?

Bart - my intention was to suggest that, like it or not, moral outrage over gun violence will not stop gun violence. There are no easy fixes. In my opinion, the only fix is at the root cause. And that is CERTAINLY not an easy fix. The NRA didn't make people love their guns. People loving their guns is what makes the NRA. If you can point to a single mass killing by an NRA member, the hatred of the NRA would be more justified.

Don - Which is why I said, "I think . . . ." As for what the 2nd amendment says, or means, I also think we're not getting anywhere by debating what the Founders meant, or the historical context of the amendment back in the day. I am not saying the Constitution is subject to change, but it's certainly subject to interpretation, by the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has consistently held, and I count at least 15 cases, that the right to own a handgun is fundamental right, necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty, and I am not paraphrasing there. You aren't starting from scratch. The right to use a firearm for the purpose of self-defense has been upheld over and over. How do deal with the pesky Second Amendment. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures, and ratified by three fourths of the States. Ok, so, effectively speaking, we have the right to own firearms and it's not going away, like it or not. Nevertheless, it is not absolute.

In point of fact, gun ownership in the US is regulated. For one example, there are background checks before you can buy a gun. For another example, there are places where carrying guns are prohibited, e.g., courthouses, airports. I'd like to rephrase the question. I think what you are really asking is, "what can we do to stop crazy people from killing innocent people with guns?" Um, well, there's already a prohibition against selling guns to crazy people. So that doesn't work. And there's no way to get rid of crazy people, so that doesn't work. So the real question is "how can we take away guns from everybody so crazy people can't get hold of them?" And the answer is, you can't. The Roanoke shooter claims he was motivated by the Charleston shooter. The Charleston shooter said he wanted to start a race war. The Roanoke shooter said he wanted to start a race war. Many shootings and other murders are motivated by extremist ideologies. Stopping political polarization would do more to stop killings than anything else. As the Dalai Lama says, all humans want to be happy and avoid suffering. We are all the same. Recognizing our universal brotherhood would go a very, very long way to ending violence. The vast majority of Americans who own guns are not violent. If you demonize them, you are contributing to polarization.

The original question was about on an iPad. Don sent me a helpful PM but I was out of town so haven't had time to try his suggestions yet. As for not reading Washingtonian, what I want to read is Kliman's blog. It's good. Edited to add, Don suggested I contact Washingtonian. Looking at their site map, don't see tech support.

The Organic Butcher in McLean excites me. A few weeks ago, after we got our Excalibur dehydrator, we went there for jerky suitable meat. A very nice man, lots of facial hair and head hair, explained to me that it is best to call ahead because the meat needs to be partially frozen to properly slice thinly. He did hand slice a couple of pounds of bavette, but it was ever so uneven. Excellent jerky, though. So, today I called ahead and will pick up tomorrow. These guys love meat as I do. All organic and grass fed. Haven't asked for tète de veau because I forgot about it. So nice to know people who love and sell excellent meat. If you are going to eat an animal, eat an animal treated with respect. Edited to add, got a couple of ribeyes, inch and a half thick, and husband grilled them using the reverse sear, bring the meat to temperature on the cool side of the grill, finish it on the hot side. Wow, those steaks are good! Best steaks I ever had.

Because I totally can't. Just get blank pages. No matter how long I wait.

Hear, hear. We've almost given up on DC. Signed up for Dinner Lab and only used it once. Venue was pleasant, library on New Hampshire or something like that, food was very good, Traffic horrendous and no parking. No mas.

I live in Fairfax, not Merrifield, but using EZPass it take about 10-15 minutes to travel to and from Mosaic, and its by far the most promising destination near me. I shop at Moms every week, make excursions to Red Apron and olive oil store less often. Red Apron is a disappointment compared to McLean butcher, a real full service butcher with no doubt much smaller rents. I'm not young, lots of discretionary income, it's just hard to spend in Fairfax. One of the richest places in the country, but unless you want to eat ethnic, not many nice places to eat. But my fellow well heeled Fairfax geezers might just be cheap. No expense accounts, maybe. I am prepared to spend up, but I want value for money.