New (and old) Year's Resolutions

This blog site is no longer operational. Currently, this post is only available at my NEW SITE HERE.  Re-pin this post with its new URL, so you don't lose it! 

Twelve Days of Goodies

On the first day of holiday prep, I made some chocolate acorns.

Saw these on Pinterest and immediately put mini Nutter-butters on my grocery list.   Assembly is easy-peasy:  Melt chocolate chips and use them as the 'glue' to stick a Hershey's kiss onto a Nutter-butter.  Use another dab of 'glue' to stick a chocolate chip to the opposite side.   Edible acorns!

On the second day of holiday baking, I made an overnight cheese bread.  So different, so easy, so delish.  It serves 6-8, but I know I could eat the whole thing by myself.  

You hand-stir the dough, then let it rest overnight.  Next morning, knead in some cheese.  Plop it in a hot, covered casserole dish and bake it (no peeking.)  This bread is on my holiday menu from here on.  Here's the recipe:  LAZY WHOLE WHEAT CHEESE BREAD.

On the third day of holiday prep...Christmas trees.

We're on our third year of not putting up a Christmas tree.  We decorate the piano.  (For that story, CLICK HERE.)  In lieu of a live evergreen, we have sugar cookie evergreens.  Except they're not always green, as you can plainly see.  And they don't last forever, because we're pigs when it comes to grandma's sugar cookie recipe.

We also have sugar cookie bells, which I made on the fourth day of prepping. 

Can't you just hear Carol of the Bells?  (CLICK HERE and you will.)

On the fifth day....golden rings with lingonberry jelly (or whatever jelly I have.  The cookie doesn't care.)  

For every M&M I placed....I ate one.  I had to get that off my chest.

On the sixth day of baking, I made a mess with oatmeal and coconut and puffed rice and chocolate mint.

                     

These are Meemaw's Kitchen Sink Christmas Cookies from Paula Deen - with my own variations.  For this recipe CLICK HERE.  My three variations:

1.  I used mint chocolate chips instead of toffee bits.
2.  I used green buttercream frosting, instead of white chocolate.  And I drizzled the frosting instead of dipping the cookies in frosting or chocolate.  We try to watch our sugar intake around here.  Not.
3.  I eliminated the crushed candy canes, because I used them in another treat.

On the seventh day of baking, I made swans-a-swimming dressed in white buttercream feathers.

                       

This sparkly one posed for a picture.  Shortly after the picture, her head was snapped off and eaten. 

On the eighth day of baking...pretzel buttons.

These little gems are everywhere on Pinterest.  Little waffle pretzels topped with Hershey's kisses or Rolos.  Melt a few minutes in the oven, then top with a nut or M&M.  Recipe here: PRETZEL BUTTONS.  A perfect salty/sweet treat.  I've gained five pounds since I've joined Pinterest.  I've also learned how to make a pencil holder from a cheese grater and hang a picture using a soda pop top, so I'm expanding my mind as well as my behind. 

On the ninth day of maniacal baking, a three-year old helped me.  We made peanut-butter reindeer.


Somebody got carried away with the red-hots.   A couple cyclopses ended up on the cookie sheet as well.  Everyone is welcome here in the Ballpark kitchen.  For these body-less creatures, make balls of dough using any peanut-butter cookie recipe.  Press mini-pretzels into the dough for antlers, and use chocolate chips and red-hots for facial features.   Add as many noses as you want.

 On the tenth day of baking...snowy candy canes.  

Living in the Sunshine state, I've not really seen snow in twenty years.  I'm pretty much OK with it, because I never want to drive on ice again.  But, snow dots are pretty on cookies, so there ya' go.

On the eleventh day of baking, I lit up the place with old fashioned tree lights.

I love this cookie cutter because it's small, and, unfrosted, these little lights are for those who just want a tad of something sweet.  If you want more, you can eat ten of 'em.  It's not important how I know this.

On the twelfth day of baking...dreamy, creamy Oreo cookie/peppermint bark. 

Chunk up 1/2 - 3/4 bag of mint Oreos.  Spread them out on greased cookie sheet, using only half the pan.  Crush 4-6 candy canes in a blender/food processor until desired consistency (we like ours fine.)  Gently melt 2 bags of white chocolate chips.  (I melt mine in the microwave, using the "auto defrost" button, stirring every 30 seconds.)

As soon as the chocolate is very smooth and pourable, drizzle it over the cookies.  Gently fold a bit as needed to coat the cookies well.  Smooth out the mixture to desired thickness.  Sprinkle the candy crumbs over the top, and place the sheet pan in the refrigerator. 

When the chocolate is set, break the bark into chunks and share with everyone you know.  If you eat it all yourself, it will put you in a coma until Easter. 

I am so going on a diet come January. 

What are you gaining weight on this holiday season?

A Heavy Heart

I've just spent two hours reading blogs and commentary about the Newtown, CT killings.  Like everyone, my heart aches for that once peaceful town.  I cannot imagine having a child murdered.

I saw on the news this morning that since 1999, there have been seven mass killings at schools.  SEVEN incidents.  In this year alone, there have been five non-school mass shootings.  It's almost become common place, so much so that I only remembered two (Columbine and VT) of the seven, and one (Gabby Giffords) of the five.  The mind can only take in so much horror.

Already the debates have started about how to fix the problem.  Stricter gun laws, less violent video games/movies, better screening/help for the mentally ill, armed police officers in the schools, metal detectors at the schools, etc.   All of these seem like good ideas.  Why weren't some changes implemented after mass killing #1?   Maybe because we didn't think it could happen again.   We couldn't imagine it would happen again. 

And here we are, a dozen episodes later, grieving the loss of innocent children.  Little kids who were just learning to read and tie their shoes and ride a bike.  We will never be able to eliminate all school violence in America, but we ought to be able to do better than we're doing. 

The question that always comes up after such tragedies is How could God allow this to happen?  Although I understand the anguish behind the cry, it's further saddening to hear this because the question implies a misunderstanding of God's character.  God hates suffering and death more than we do.  He grieves as we do over the loss of life.  It is never His will that people are harmed.

The problem is that His will is often overruled by human will.  That's the power God gave mankind: the freedom to dismiss Him, to distrust Him, to ignore Him, to mock Him, to disbelieve Him.  It's completely our choice.  Total freedom.  That's what true love looks like.

So, we can be mad at God for giving us free will, if we want to.  On occasion, I have wondered what He was thinking.  We're too selfish and stupid to be trusted with such a gift; we make poor decisions all the time.  But, the other option is that we are puppets, with no mind of our own.  God loves us enough to give us the freedom to chose Him - or not.   Freedom is what God allows.

It's not His fault we mess it up.  He's always there to guide and and encourage and support - we can take it, or leave it.   When we choose to dismiss God's will for our lives, we suffer, because the human heart is imperfect and fearful.  Judgement is poor, and perspective is skewed.  That's the human condition.  Without God's influence, we're just floundering souls trying to figure it out on our own. 

So, we self-medicate with self-destructive vices and idolize useless things and hide and exaggerate and manipulate and blame each other and defy authority and sometimes pick up guns and shoot.   And God weeps.

But, He doesn't change the rules.  We're still free to turn to Him, or stay our destructive course.  Every day, we are free to choose. 

We don't yet know the full story of Adam Lanza.  We know he made a choice for evil, and innocents lost their lives.  From Cain and Able to slavery, the Holocaust to 9-11, and all the shootings since, evil choices were made.  God has watched His children destroy each other since the beginning of time. 

And He waits with open arms for all the grieving to turn to Him for comfort and peace and justice.  He is especially close to the bleeding, the dying, and the brokenhearted.  He embraces every deceased victim with perfect, unbridled love.  He is the only one who can heal the human soul and set things right.  

I pray, as a country, we will implement changes that will help prevent further shootings.  Legally, there is more we can do.  The more permanent solution, however, is a matter of the heart.   What choices are we making, every day, as teenagers, parents, neighbors, employees, managers, community leaders that are hurting others, marginalizing them?   Killers do not grow up in a vacuum.

In our troubled society, we need God's guidance more than ever.  I pray we can humble ourselves and seek it.

As Amy Grant sings, "no more lives torn apart...that time will heal all hearts...this is my grown-up Christmas list."   

Seeking Justice (part 2)

(....continued from previous post...)

There we sat.  Six jurors who had to agree, and we were at an impasse.  After nearly five hours.

It shouldn't be this difficult, I kept thinking.   Facts are facts.  How can one dispute facts?

That became our next rabbit trail of debate.  Do established laws, tools, procedures need to be accepted?  Do we have to follow the legal framework of the state, even if we don't like it?

The four Gs (guilties) said yes.  Civilized society is based on a structure of laws that apply to everyone.  We can dislike any of them, but until they change, they are the standard by which we all are judged.   This is why being an educated voter is important. 

The two NGs (not guilties) said the law does not have to be accepted and can be challenged.

OK, then.  We had another question for the judge:  Were the laws presented in this case (a speeding limit, a legal drinking limit) facts, or simply evidence we could choose to dismiss?

The judge called us back into the courtroom.  By the look on her face, I'm sure she was thinking, what is wrong with you people?!   She simply reiterated that we had received all the information we were going to receive, and we had to come to a unanimous verdict.   I asked for clarification on what we had to accept as true.  She read us a statute that basically said any evidence presented can be rebutted by other evidence.

That didn't really answer the question, but that's all we got.  Back to the drawing board.

We then discussed whether the validity of the Breathalyzer had been rebutted by any evidence.  We had heard testimony and seen paperwork showing it was reliable and legal.  We heard no testimony, saw no paperwork showing it was not.  The defense attorney talked about its weaknesses, but there were no witnesses or paperwork to show any.  What the attorneys said was not evidence, we were told by the judge.   

The two NGs were still not convinced the Breathalyzer was valid, even though nothing had been shown that proved otherwise.  We sent a final note to the judge:  We're going nowhere with this.

The judge called us back into the courtroom and grilled us one by one:  If you had more time, could this be resolved?  Nope, we all said.  If you slept on it and came back tomorrow with fresh minds, could this be resolved?  Nope, we all said.

She just looked at us for a while, and I felt terrible.  I knew what was coming.

"Do you know how much money will be wasted if I have to declare this a mistrial?" she asked us.

I sat there like a kid in the principal's office.  I didn't know the amount of money wasted, but I knew it was not pennies.   One of the NGs spoke up and declared, "I'm not changing my mind."

The judge stared at her jury another minute.  Waiting.  Hoping we would say, just kidding, send us back to the cellar, we'll figure it out. 

We did not.

The judge looked at the attorneys.  "Do either of you want a mistrial?"

They solemnly shook their heads, and I felt terrible again.  All their time and work down the drain.

"OK, then," said the judge.  "I declare this a mistrial."  She unzipped her robe and sat back.  I can come talk to you now and answer any questions."

We were escorted out and back to our deliberation room.   We didn't talk much while we waited for the judge.  One G did remark to the NGs that they were probably happy with the mistrial outcome.   They both said yes, absolutely, and I realized it was possible they had decided early on a mistrial would be just as acceptable to them as a not guilty.

The judge came in to chat.  Her first question to me was, did I feel my last question was answered? 

I said no and asked again:  Didn't we have to accept the laws presented in this case as fact? 

Her answer surprised me:  No. 

She elaborated:  You can dismiss anything you want to.  You can believe or disbelieve anything you see or hear. 

Even the law?  I said.

Yes, she said.

So, there are no absolutes here?  I pressed.

No, she replied. 

Another NG piped up:  Wait a minute.  A speed limit sign is posted as 45 miles per hour.   You're saying we can choose to ignore that if we want to?  If we don't agree with it?

The judge replied:  You have to obey the law, but you can dispute it.  What if the wrong sign was put up?  What if the sign was vandalized and a different speed was painted on it?  You can believe or disbelieve anything.  For example, how do you know I went to law school?

I stared at her.  That's when things began to get screwy.  If nothing is necessarily "true", how can anything be judged as legal/illegal, right/wrong, safe/unsafe,  hot/cold?   According to this judge, everything was subjective, even the law.   Even whether or not she attended law school. 

I began to feel very disillusioned.  We had not spent all this time debating if the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, but whether or not the laws established to determine that are valid.  I wish I'd known that going in, because that's a different question, a philosophical debate.   Four jurors generally trusted the law enforcement framework.  Two jurors did not.  Florida state law had been on trial, not the drinker.  

What happens to the defendant? one NG wanted to know.

He's free, the judge replied.  Nothing was proven.

Not exactly, I thought.  Apparently, if you don't agree with a law and you find at least one juror who sides with you, it's likely you won't be subject to that law.  In my view, that was proven.   

The judge thanked us for our time and released us.  I drove home feeling a mix of naive, stupid, and crazy.  And somehow, sad.  I assumed we were a nation of laws that we all accepted as, well, "the rule of law."   I was not aware the law was on trial at every trial.  Maybe I should have paid more attention during Civics class in high school.   

Before being Juror #1, I was fairly confident the judicial system's goal was to discover the truth.  Determine the facts of what happened and weigh that against the laws in place.   Were laws broken, or not? 

I've now learned laws are subject to interpretation and whim, and if you're savvy/determined/lucky enough, you can wiggle your way out of anything.

Is this as unsettling to you as it is to me?  

Seeking Justice (part 1)

 

I've been out of the loop this week because I was summoned to jury duty and then chosen to serve on a jury for a DUI trial.  I have never served on a jury before, and initially, I dreaded it, but soon found it fascinating.  And a huge eye-opener.

My mind and emotions traveled quite a journey over the course of the trial, and it surprised me how passionate I became about what I perceived as truth and untruth.  I also realized how ignorant I was about our judicial system.  My fellow jury members were ignorant as well.  This is not a good thing.

Let me say up front, I had sympathy for the young man charged with driving under the influence.  He seemed sincerely shaken up by the charge, and he presented himself fairly well on the witness stand.

However....his blood alcohol level was above the legal limit.  For me, that was the deciding factor.  The defense team wanted us to consider other factors:

1.  It was his first offense.
2.  He initially cooperated with police.  (He later lied about the drinking.)
3.  He was a hard worker in construction and could not afford to lose his license.
4.  His red, watery eyes were due to debris he is constantly exposed to on his job.
5.  He did not do too terribly bad on the field sobriety test.
6.  He was new to the area and was drinking with people he didn't know well.
7.  He had no one accompany him to his trial; no parents, siblings, friends.

In my eyes, those were considerations for the judge during sentencing.  They didn't matter in determining whether or not he was driving impaired due to alcohol.   This was the only question we had to answer: Was he driving under the influence?

It seemed simple to me.  He was driving  (We saw video.)  His blood alcohol level was over the legal limit.  (The Breathalyzer proved this.)  Done. 

How naive I was.

After two days of testimony, we began deliberations.  Immediately, there was division.  Four "guilty," two "not guilty."  

The four Gs (guilties) were stunned.  How can you rebut the Breathalyzer? we asked.   Here's what we heard from the two NGs (not guilties):

1.  Those machines don't work.
2.  Those machines can be fixed.
3.  DUIs are money machines for the the police department.  Do you know how much money they bring in from fees from DUI charges?
4.  The guy didn't look drunk.  
5.  It doesn't matter that he lied.  He was scared.
6.  The cop followed the defendant to his apartment building.  The guy was home.  Even if he was drunk, he wasn't going to drive anymore. 
7.  And all seven points above.

The four G's went over all of these factors, stressing what the judge had told us - sympathy for the defendant was not to play into our decision, and we had to decide based only on the evidence presented.

A third of what was presented was proof that the Breathalyzer is a legal, credible law enforcement tool in the state of Florida.  It's inspected regularly, certified, stamped, cleaned, whatever, monthly and annually.  We saw all the paperwork verifying this and heard testimony from an officer in charge of the Breathalyzer.

The NGs didn't buy it.  Didn't care.  The machine is corrupt, and without an illegal blood alcohol reading, the guy is not guilty.  They were not budging.

OK, then.  We sent a note to the judge:  We are deadlocked.

She wrote back:  Keep deliberating. 

We rehashed it some more.  The same points.  A few people got irritated.  Nothing changed.  After an hour, we sent another note to the judge:  We are still stuck.

She called us back to the courtroom and instructed each of us to think about the weakest point of our position and share that with the group.  That should spark new dialogue.  I thought this was a good idea.

Back in the deliberation room, I went first.  I conceded that the defendant was not fall-down drunk.  That didn't mean his brain was not impaired.  I agreed the defense attorney was good at creating doubt, creating sympathy, but I could not get past the Breathalyzer results.

The rest of the Gs examined their decision.  The two NGs announced they didn't have any weaknesses in their position.   I remarked that not playing Devil's advocate to their own position did not do justice to the process, that we all needed to examine our vote, even look at what we would have to see to change our vote.   One NG then responded that a blood test (for blood alcohol content) could change her vote, but we didn't have that, so it was irrelevant. 

OK, then.   We sent another note to the judge:  We are still at an impasse. 

The judge ordered us pizza for dinner and left us alone for another hour. 

We ate pizza and griped about not having our phones, which were taken, and then veered off onto non-trial subjects like local restaurants and the judge's spongy shoes.  I picked up my Time magazine and read for a bit.  I felt uneasy and began to pray the truth would be revealed to all of us.  I briefly considered changing my vote.  Could I live with that?  I didn't think so.  Even if I changed, we were still not unanimous.  We had to be unanimous. 

We had been deliberating four hours, and I didn't see any resolution. 

(conclusion in my next post....I'm still processing it.)