Easy Baking: Irish Soda Bread

This easy-to-make bread, named for the baking soda you mix with the flour and buttermilk to make the bread rise, is good any time of year, but it's perfect for St. Patrick's Day because it's considered to be the bread of Ireland. I make it almost every year for my Irish husband. Occasionally, I will buy smoked salmon and Irish cheeses to serve along with it. However, most of the time we eat it with sweet butter for breakfast, lunch and dinner. It will stay fresh for up to two days.

No special equipment is needed, not even a bread pan. The soda bread bakes up crusty on the outside, moist on the inside. As always, use the freshest ingredients.

4 cups all-purpose or bread flour

1 teaspoon baking soda

1 teaspoon salt

1 teaspoon sugar

1 1/2 cups buttermilk

1/2 cup raisins

Preheat the oven to 425 degrees and have ready a lightly floured baking sheet.

Place the flour in a large bowl with the baking soda, salt and sugar. Mix together with a fork. Pour in the buttermilk and raisins. Stir the mixture with a wooden spoon until everything comes together. Knead the ball on a floured board for a few seconds and then put the dough on the baking sheet.

Cut a deep cross on the top, all the way down the sides. This lets the bread rise evenly. Bake at 425 degrees about 45 minutes or until it's nicely browned and it sounds hollow when you tap it on the bottom. Place the baked bread on a rack to cool or slice immediately.

Major Faults in Earthquake Reporting

I don't know whether any of you had the misfortune to see Geraldo Rivera's evening show on Fox News the day of the Chilean quake. He has to be the single worst professional journalist on all of television: he is inappropriately chummy in interviews, often calling guests "bud" or "pal"; he is grossly uninformed on virtually all scientific matters; he is prone to using phrases and figures of speech that titillate and give a completely mistaken impression; and he habitually brings poor guests aboard--quite often those who have absolutely no knowledge of or background in the story's subject (in this case, earthquake and tsunami science). He leers and smirks, feigns crocodile tears, licks his chops, and caps everything off with an appalling punchline. He is insufferable. I hate to say it, but he seems right at home on the Fox network.

Rivera's show on the Chilean quake and tsunami was filled with the most unimaginable and irresponsible pseudo-science and quackery. The rest of it was a baffling series of non sequiturs. Herewith a sampling:

• What happened in Hawaii was a tsunami "false alarm."
• A quake of magnitude 9.5 will sooner or later occur in Southern California.
• Sediment seen off the coast of Hawaii the day of the quake was transported from the coast of Chile.
• No tsunami occurred that day in Hawaii. It "passed them by."
• The tsunami in Sumatra and Thailand in 2004 was only 8 feet high, but "pushed several miles inland."

I think this garbage requires the scientific community to publicly correct Rivera and Fox news. This bumbler does too much harm.

I'll tell you who was impressive--scientifically--that evening. His name is David Shuster and he's on MSNBC. In his questions to guests and his comments to the viewer, Shuster displayed a solid layman's understanding of earthquake and tsunami science, light years ahead of any of his colleagues at MSNBC, Fox, or CNN. Even his more casual verbiage throughout the broadcast revealed an awareness of important scientific distinctions (such as that between Richter and moment magnitude).

I betcha he's read Susan Hough's book Earthshaking Science.

Musings

My stress levels hit the roof this past weekend when I did our yearly taxes. While our returns are rather simple compared to many, they're ridiculous enough to make me very angry. For example, in figuring how much of our Social Security is taxable, I must do a full-page worksheet that is perhaps the most disgusting form yet for the IRS. You take one half of one line, add it to another line, then multiply that by .85 percent, then take the smaller of that line or the other one and add to a line at the top of the page, etc. For your own amusement, check it out on the irs.gov web site. Further, I think all income tax rules and regulations have been written for some particular person or entity. There can be no other reason for such nonsense. A flat 10 percent tax for every person and corporation would solve this and perhaps many of our financial problems. And it would greatly reduce one government department. By the way, do any of us think that either political party will ever reduce government? Federal employees vote too, you know.

Americans constantly decry human rights violations in China. There are, of course, such problems there. At the same time, a recent story shows that the Chinese actually might think more about endangered animal species than American environmentalists do. A man in China shot and ate the last Indochinese tiger in a certain part of the country, if not the entire country. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and those who helped him cut up and eat the animal were sentenced to 3 or 4 years. Do you think that would have happened here? Never. He and they would have been put on probation at the most with no real punishment for eliminating one of nature's beautiful animals. Yes, I'm an animal lover, but I'm also a person who believes in delivering proper punishment to those who break laws meant to protect citizens. Eliminating one species of animal breaks the delicate chain that will ultimately affect everyone left on the planet.

I'm enjoying the Winter Olympics. True, I liked the every-four-years event better when I thought the participants were mostly amateurs, not the millionaires who compete these days. Still, I was on the edge of my seat at the end of the 30 km cross country, men's figure skating, and men's speed skating. No interest at all in the hockey, halfpipe, skeleton, or super G. And please tell me why anyone with a DVR or even an old VCR would sit through the Olympics with all the ads and not record the shows to watch the next day? In fact, I can't imagine why anyone would watch any ads with the equipment available to cut them out.

Recently, a story in our local paper featured a woman who said she had to hit up area food closets to supplement the $640 per month she received in food stamps to feed herself and three small children. If that woman knew how to cook, she wouldn't need the food closets. The food stamp amount is more than enough to feed her family. It's my guess that she buys prepared foods, cold cereals (wonder if her kids have ever eaten oatmeal), boxed entrees, expensive meats, and so forth. She could cook beans and rice and make everything from burritos to huevos rancheros. She could slow-cook inexpensive meats in a crockpot with fresh vegetables and serve it all over whole-wheat noodles or brown rice for several meals. She could make pots of soups and stews. Cooking is a lost art and it's such a shame, not only because people don't eat as well as they once did but because financially it can be a disaster. We all pay for the laziness of others.

Crime and Punishment

I pass the local high school often. Today, I saw a sign hanging on the chain-link fence: Minor drinking, major problems.

It didn't cost much--maybe $15. It was one of those vinyl banners reinforced with stitching. The printing can be done anywhere.

But it's of no value whatsoever. Who but a prattling social-engineer lefty would think it effective? Who believes most "public service announcements" on TV or radio are effective? There is only one way to stop teens from drinking and driving: the sure threat of swift and severe punishment. And even that only lowers the likelihood; it's no guarantee. But it's the only hope society has of decreasing the number of drunken teen drivers. People who are hell bent on engaging in some irresponsible activity are not going to see a banner hanging somewhere or watch a PSA and suddenly see the light. But they might--they just might--curb their inclinations if they know of a certainty that they will be punished severely if caught.

So instead of hanging banners and playing touchy-feely with beer-filled 17-year-olds, let's start sending them to jail for a year AND revoking their driving licenses for ten years. Let's see what preventive effect that has on the skyrocketing numbers of drunken driving "accidents" (and let's stop calling them accidents and start calling them crimes).

Of course, severe punishments have an even greater value than crime prevention. Such punishments also remove the reliably violent idiots from our midst so that the rest of us have a slightly better chance of enjoying long, happy lives.

These are draconian times; they require draconian punishment for violent crimes.

Tiger in the Lions' Den

Why is everyone in such a hooha over Tiger Woods? He's front-page news everywhere because he apologized. Does everyone really care about his marital shenanigans? The press feeds our own prurience and turns millions of us into crazed voyeurs and exhibitionists. We have no actual stake in the relationship between Tiger and his wife.

Cover his performance on the golf course. That's of genuine, legitimate interest. But this other business is only of wide value if he's running for political office. Otherwise, who cares about his character? As far as we know, he's not a felon. He's just a jerk. It's time for the whoring news outlets to cover something with actual news value.

Easy Money: Limited Government

Just heard the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union speech. Governor McDonnell of Virginia again pushed the Republican mantra of limited government, running away from big government, whether it's state or federal.

I agree with McDonnell. And I think the first place to start with limiting government is to eliminate the governorship of Virginia. Any politician pushing for limiting and eliminating government should look no further than his own office to delete from the political landscape. None of the governors -- or congressmen, for that matter -- is necessary. Who would miss any of them, either party?

What a great way to cut the budgets of state and federal government. In my state, the small legislature meets only every other year. We think that's enough for them to do harm to us. If they didn't show up for their jobs, we'd all be better off.

You've only been in office 11 days, Gov. McDonnell, but that's enough. See ya.

Do You Hear Us Now?

Tone-deaf Democrats whine and moan about this week's Massachusetts loss for Senator. Their excuses range from them (the majority in both houses of Congress) not passing health insurance reform to Martha Coakley being a poor candidate to voters simply not understanding the issues. While it's true that some of those reasons are plausible, there are other more important ones.

Listen up, Democrats, starting with President Obama. YOU HAVEN'T DONE A DAMN THING FOR ANY OF US IN THE PAST YEAR!!!!!!!! That's why Coakley lost and Republican Scott Brown won. How can you expect anyone to vote for you when you do nothing? I believe that many voters in that state really didn't want to vote Republican. But what other choice did they have? With the two parties controlling everything, a vote for a third-party candidate would have been wasted.

I'll list a few things you, the Democrats, haven't done, but which voters elected you to do:

1) End two wars. The day President Obama announced sending more troops to Afghanistan was the day I knew we weren't going to get the change we believed in.

2) End Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What kind of a disgusting, bigoted law is that?

3) Protect the environment. Naming Colorado rancher Salazar was plain stupid.

4) Not bail out big banks. Coming out this week with rules for the banks is too little, too late because you've done everything for them for a year.

5) Not bail out Detroit automakers. We don't want their cars. Let them fail.

6) Consider, even briefly, making an attempt to do something for your base. You lost your base in Massachusetts. It was all about the base for the previous administration and Congress and it worked for them for quite some time.

7) Do what you could to help people save their houses. After all, your friends in the banking and mortgage industries were largely responsible for people getting loans they shouldn't have in the first place. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd share major blame in this area.

8) Do something about jobs. The stimulus program was too slow and covered everything from simply giving raises to government employees to installing insulation. I mean, what the hell?Where are the jobs? It's a year late, but doing something now would be a start.

President Obama, it's time to stop with the speeches and get to work. Like your predecessor, you spend too much time out on the golf course. The difference, however, is that Bush had Dick Cheney to do his work. For some reason, you've shoved Vice-President Biden back to his Naval Observatory residence and you rely on speeches to keep voters in line. We're tired of speeches.

If you and the Democratic Party don't change your way of doing business in Washington this very instant, you've only just seen the beginning of a complete revolt come November. It's not a possibility, it's a certainty. Will you hear us then?

Fixing a Fault in Quake Reporting

There's a major scientific error in a side article on the Fox News page about the Haiti earthquake.

In one section of the article ("Earthquake Science: The Haitian Quake Explained"), the following statement is given about earthquake magnitudes: "Since magnitudes are given on a logarithmic scale, a 7.0-magnitude earthquake would release 10 times as much energy as a 6.0-magnitude temblor."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Somebody -- geologist or (more likely) reporter -- is asleep at the switch. The increase in energy released from a 6.0 to a 7.0 (or any single whole number on the magnitude scale) is about THIRTY-TWO (32), not 10.

You see this mistake made a lot in news reporting after a big quake like the one in Haiti. The AMPLITUDE of the measured waveforms is what increases by a factor of 10 with each magnitude step. But the energy release -- and therefore the destructive capacity -- is much greater.

Easy Money: Thrift Store Shopping

I used to be a thrift store shopper, always looking for an item to finish off or add to a collection. I tend to wear my clothes until they are almost threadbare, therefore I always bypassed the clothing aisles. Then again, I'm not sure the selection would have been as good as it is now. So many of today's consumers seem to buy so much more than they need. Depending on how you look at it, that's unfortunate for them but fortunate for stores like Goodwill, Salvation Army, St. Vincent dePaul, and independent thrift stores.

Have you shopped at a Goodwill or Salvation Army store in recent years? If you haven't, you're wasting your money, especially if you like to buy designer clothes or even well-known, less-expensive brands. Of course, the majority of clothing at such stores might not fit into these categories, but an increasingly larger portion of it does these days.

Just in the past month, my son bought the following at Goodwill stores in Southern Oregon: Bruno Magli wallet, new (99 cents); Pendleton long-sleeved shirt, new ($3); Bostonian black dress shoes with full leather lining, look new ($8); and Eddie Bauer long-sleeved shirt, new ($3). He bought some great-looking items with a value of more than $300 for less than $15 paid out. And even though it isn't a famous label, he also bought a great-looking, new Leather Works jacket for $5.

Yes, you must check frequently to get such buys. And occasionally you'll find a flaw when you get the item home. Still, anyone looking for real bargains, trying to budget wisely while wanting name and quality, can find thrift stores offering something new every day. For myself, I don't find shopping to be as much fun as it once was. But if those cravings ever return, I'll be hitting such bargain-wise stores.

One more thing: My son visited friends in Sacramento recently. While there, he browsed area Goodwills, which sold what he described as "beautiful suits and ties."

Fatty, Fatty, Two-By-Four

A dating site for beautiful people has dropped thousands of those looking for love because they gained weight over the holidays. When the registered "beautiful people" posted their new photos, with the extra pounds easy to see, the founder expelled those he called "the fatties."

It's his site, therefore he can do with it what he wants. But I must ask, why would beautiful people need a dating site? Wouldn't they be able to simply walk down the street and potential mates would fall at their feet? If people are using beauty as the only criterion for finding a partner, wouldn't this bunch of gorgeous folks be the first to be chosen and in no need of such an impersonal dating mechanism?

Tell me why this dating site exists. What am I missing here?