Okay, I note recipes all the time, I know. But here’s one for the grill. Micah e-mailed it asking me to pass it on to my husband who I've explained lives to grill.
MAPLE-SRIRACHA CHICKEN DRUMSTICKS
Serves: 4 to 6 / Prep time: 10 minutes / Total time: 1 hour
Serves: 4 to 6 / Prep time: 10 minutes / Total time: 1 hour
This
recipe can be cooked over a charcoal or gas grill. You also need 2
hardwood chunks or 1 1/2 cups
wood chips. (If using the latter, soak in water for 30 minutes, then
drain.) In “Project Fire,” Raichlen writes: “These crisp, smoky
drumsticks call for a technique I call smoke-roasting. You indirect
grill them at a high temperature (to crisp the skin), while
adding hardwood to generate a smoke flavor.”
Vegetable oil for the grill grate
CHICKEN
12 large chicken drumsticks, about 3 to 4 pounds
1 tablespoon coarse kosher or sea salt (sea or kosher)
1 tablespoon freshly ground black pepper
1 tablespoon hot red pepper flakes
2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
CHICKEN
12 large chicken drumsticks, about 3 to 4 pounds
1 tablespoon coarse kosher or sea salt (sea or kosher)
1 tablespoon freshly ground black pepper
1 tablespoon hot red pepper flakes
2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
GLAZE
6 tablespoons (3/4 stick) unsalted butter
5 tablespoons pure maple syrup
1/4 cup sriracha, or more to taste
3 tablespoons single malt Scotch whiskey
2 tablespoons finely chopped fresh cilantro, chives, or scallion greens, for serving
6 tablespoons (3/4 stick) unsalted butter
5 tablespoons pure maple syrup
1/4 cup sriracha, or more to taste
3 tablespoons single malt Scotch whiskey
2 tablespoons finely chopped fresh cilantro, chives, or scallion greens, for serving
Set
up your grill for indirect grilling and heat to medium-high. Just
before cooking, brush or scrape
the grill grate clean and oil it well. Place the drumsticks in a large
mixing bowl. Sprinkle with the salt, pepper, and hot red pepper flakes,
stirring to coat well with the seasonings. Drizzle with olive oil.
Arrange the drumsticks rounded side up in a single
layer in the center of the grill – away from the heat source. Add the
wood to the coals. If working on a gas grill, you can place the wood
chips in a foil packet, poke holes in it and place it on the grill
grate.
Close
the grill lid. Indirect grill the drumsticks until the skin is crisp
and well browned and the
chicken is cooked through, 40 to 50 minutes. For maximum tenderness,
cook the drumsticks to an internal temperature of 170 degrees.
Meanwhile, make the glaze: In small saucepan, melt the butter over medium-high heat. Stir in the maple
syrup, sriracha and whiskey and boil until the mixture is syrupy, about 3 to 5 minutes. Set aside and keep warm.
About
5 minutes before the chicken is done, brush each drumstick on all sides
with the glaze. Repeat
just before removing the drumsticks from the grill. Arrange the
drumsticks on a platter and pour the remaining glaze over them. Sprinkle
with cilantro and serve.
From “Project Fire: Cutting-Edge Techniques and Sizzling Recipes from the Caveman Porterhouse to Salt
Slab Brownie S’Mores by Steven Raichlen (Workman, $22.95).
I’ve noted before that we have several
George Foremans – including the standing one that’s either in the
garage or the backyard. We also have a huge one that can do nine burger
patties. That one stays off the kitchen counter unless it
is going to be used in the next few hours. The little one is fine on
the counter, but the one that can do all those burgers (or chicken or
whatever) is wider than a microwave and there’s just not enough space.
This is one he'll pull out the gas grill for.
Now this is from WSWS:
The SEP insists that the defence of Assange and WikiLeaks can be carried out successfully only when based on a socialist, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist perspective. Everything depends on a determined effort to politically mobilise the broadest possible layers of workers and youth internationally on such a perspective.
We call on all defenders of civil liberties and democratic rights, all opponents of imperialist wars for regime change, to attend the June 19 vigil and circulate information on it in workplaces, campuses and schools across the country and throughout social media.
Freedom for Julian Assange! Attend the vigil at the Ecuador Embassy in London
Tuesday, June 19
6-8 p.m.
3 Hans Crescent London , SW1X 0LN
(nearest Tube station: Knightsbridge, Piccadilly Line)
For further details of the vigil visit: https://wiseupaction.info/2018/
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Wednesday:
Wednesday, June 6, 2018. Iraq . . . where democracy goes to die via assisted suicide.
AP can't get it right this morning. It's Wednesday, Hayder al-Abadi has done his weekly speech as prime minister of Iraq. In the speech, he announces that a body no one's heard of before, one he appointed from his own Cabinet has found 'irregularities' -- no details on what they are -- that will require calling off the votes of the displaced outside of Iraq and the displaced inside Iraq.
This would be the same Hayder, remember, who may be the outgoing prime minister because he did not win the elections last month. Hayder did not come in first, that was the Moqtada al-Sadr's alliance. Moqtada is the Shi'ite cleric and movement leader who was vastly underestimated by gas bags. Hayder did not come in second, that was the party of the militias. Hayder came in third. Distant third.
And now he's saying the election results are being tabled -- for the displaced.
Oh, and it gets worse.
Hayder's announced there will be recounts.
Why is that worse?
Because it's not allowed.
Ibrahim Saleh (ANADOLU AGENCY) reports:
So the loser, Hayder, who thought he'd win campaigning on his alleged defeat of ISIS doesn't like the results and thinks that's all it takes.
He doesn't have to follow the Constitution, he doesn't have to listen to the courts, he can just do whatever he wants, create his own commission and what he decides goes?
That's how it works now?
Let's drop back to note the hysterical reaction to Moqtada's win.
For example, Danny Sjursen (NATIONAL INTEREST) insists:
Sadr has since re-branded himself as an enemy of corruption and a cross-sectarian proponent of governance reform. Nonetheless, to my men and most U.S. troopers, he’ll always be the fiercely anti-American thug who sent his impoverished, hopeless fighters out into the streets to kill soldiers and marines.
So sorry, Danny, but you don't get to vote in the Iraqi elections. Yes, you invaded their country, yes, US weapons were used on the Iraqi people, but that doesn't mean you get to decide for them.
And, Danny, I'll take your hysterics a little more seriously after you call out the 2009 deal that released the leader of the League of Righteousness from US custody -- despite the fact that he did have US blood on his hands. You've never called that out. You've never even acknowledged it.
For any late to the party on that reality, let's drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
Still waiting for honest discussions on that reality.
In the meantime, US troops don't get to decide who runs Iraq -- whether the US government sent them there or not. Guess that wasn't covered in basic training?
Didn't turn out quite the way you wanted
How were you to know
Boom town broke down
What a let down
Where did the mountain go?
-- "Chalice Borealis," written by Carole King and Rick Sorensen, first appears on Carole's SPEEDING TIME
The turn out for the latest election was low -- historically low.
Why might that be?
Maybe because Barack Obama nixed Nouri al-Maliki's plans for a third term and installed Hayder al-Abadi as prime minister. And -- or -- maybe because Nouri lost the election in 2010 and Ayad Allawi should have been named prime minister-designate. Instead, Nouri refused to allow the process to move forward. He dug his heels in. For eight months, Iraq was at a standstill. The political stalemate ended because Barack okayed The Erbil Agreement, a legal contract brokered by the US government which was signed off on by all party leaders -- but not by the Iraqi voters. This contract gave Nouri a second term in exchange for concessions to various parties. Nouri used the contract to get a second term, then stalled on honoring his side of the contract until his attorney announced that the contract wasn't valid.
Nouri, of course, was installed by the US in 2006. A nobody, a nothing. But he did have a CIA profile which found him to be highly paranoid and the US government felt that this could be worked, they could use it to control him.
Golly gee, after 2006's result, 2010's result and 2014's result, why do you suppose Iraqis might not feel the need to turn out and vote?
But Moqtada's supporters did.
Why was that a surprise?
He's demonstrated repeatedly over the years that he can get his followers to turn out. And to turn out in public, mind you, where they might be attacked. Getting them to turn out at the polls was so much easier.
The US government has been sputtering over Moqtada's win for weeks now.
And it's not even like Moqtada's going to be prime minister. He can't be. He didn't run for Parliament and the prime minister has to be an elected Member of Parliament.
But it's been non-stop hand wringing over Moqtada.
So now Hayder al-Nobody thinks he can disregard Iraq's Constitution and Iraq's judiciary. And you don't think that further destroys the average Iraqi's faith in democratic institutions?
Hayder's whining about the new electronic voting machines. We might manage to care if we weren't raising issues about that in March, long before the elections. If he's only concerned after he loses, then he's really not concerned about the machines, he's just got sour grapes over losing.
It's almost a month since elections. And yet again Iraqis have to wait because the process is not honored, the rules are not respected.
This is not how you grow democracy.
And at a time when the Islamic State is still active in Iraq, you need a peaceful and reasonable transfer of power. The longer this draws out, the more questions there will be for leadership. The more attacks by the Islamic State, the more this inability to follow the process becomes an issue.
The following community sites updated:
AP can't get it right this morning. It's Wednesday, Hayder al-Abadi has done his weekly speech as prime minister of Iraq. In the speech, he announces that a body no one's heard of before, one he appointed from his own Cabinet has found 'irregularities' -- no details on what they are -- that will require calling off the votes of the displaced outside of Iraq and the displaced inside Iraq.
This would be the same Hayder, remember, who may be the outgoing prime minister because he did not win the elections last month. Hayder did not come in first, that was the Moqtada al-Sadr's alliance. Moqtada is the Shi'ite cleric and movement leader who was vastly underestimated by gas bags. Hayder did not come in second, that was the party of the militias. Hayder came in third. Distant third.
And now he's saying the election results are being tabled -- for the displaced.
Oh, and it gets worse.
Hayder's announced there will be recounts.
Why is that worse?
Because it's not allowed.
Ibrahim Saleh (ANADOLU AGENCY) reports:
Iraqi
law does not allow election results to be annulled or manual vote
recounts to be conducted, Iraq's Supreme Judicial Council said Tuesday.
“Article
8 of the Electoral Commission Law No. 11 of 2007 gives voters the right
to challenge [poll] results before the Independent High Electoral
Commission’s board of commissioners,” the judicial council said in a
statement.
“If
the plaintiff is not satisfied by the board’s decision, they can bring
the issue before an electoral tribunal, which must rule on the appeal
within 10 days of referral,” the statement read.
It added: “There is no provision within the law giving the judiciary the authority to partially annul election results.”
“Nor
is there any provision within the law giving the judiciary the
authority to request a partial recount of poll results,” the judicial
council asserted.
So the loser, Hayder, who thought he'd win campaigning on his alleged defeat of ISIS doesn't like the results and thinks that's all it takes.
He doesn't have to follow the Constitution, he doesn't have to listen to the courts, he can just do whatever he wants, create his own commission and what he decides goes?
That's how it works now?
Let's drop back to note the hysterical reaction to Moqtada's win.
For example, Danny Sjursen (NATIONAL INTEREST) insists:
Sadr has since re-branded himself as an enemy of corruption and a cross-sectarian proponent of governance reform. Nonetheless, to my men and most U.S. troopers, he’ll always be the fiercely anti-American thug who sent his impoverished, hopeless fighters out into the streets to kill soldiers and marines.
So sorry, Danny, but you don't get to vote in the Iraqi elections. Yes, you invaded their country, yes, US weapons were used on the Iraqi people, but that doesn't mean you get to decide for them.
And, Danny, I'll take your hysterics a little more seriously after you call out the 2009 deal that released the leader of the League of Righteousness from US custody -- despite the fact that he did have US blood on his hands. You've never called that out. You've never even acknowledged it.
For any late to the party on that reality, let's drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
Still waiting for honest discussions on that reality.
In the meantime, US troops don't get to decide who runs Iraq -- whether the US government sent them there or not. Guess that wasn't covered in basic training?
Didn't turn out quite the way you wanted
How were you to know
Boom town broke down
What a let down
Where did the mountain go?
-- "Chalice Borealis," written by Carole King and Rick Sorensen, first appears on Carole's SPEEDING TIME
The turn out for the latest election was low -- historically low.
Why might that be?
Maybe because Barack Obama nixed Nouri al-Maliki's plans for a third term and installed Hayder al-Abadi as prime minister. And -- or -- maybe because Nouri lost the election in 2010 and Ayad Allawi should have been named prime minister-designate. Instead, Nouri refused to allow the process to move forward. He dug his heels in. For eight months, Iraq was at a standstill. The political stalemate ended because Barack okayed The Erbil Agreement, a legal contract brokered by the US government which was signed off on by all party leaders -- but not by the Iraqi voters. This contract gave Nouri a second term in exchange for concessions to various parties. Nouri used the contract to get a second term, then stalled on honoring his side of the contract until his attorney announced that the contract wasn't valid.
Nouri, of course, was installed by the US in 2006. A nobody, a nothing. But he did have a CIA profile which found him to be highly paranoid and the US government felt that this could be worked, they could use it to control him.
Golly gee, after 2006's result, 2010's result and 2014's result, why do you suppose Iraqis might not feel the need to turn out and vote?
But Moqtada's supporters did.
Why was that a surprise?
He's demonstrated repeatedly over the years that he can get his followers to turn out. And to turn out in public, mind you, where they might be attacked. Getting them to turn out at the polls was so much easier.
The US government has been sputtering over Moqtada's win for weeks now.
And it's not even like Moqtada's going to be prime minister. He can't be. He didn't run for Parliament and the prime minister has to be an elected Member of Parliament.
But it's been non-stop hand wringing over Moqtada.
So now Hayder al-Nobody thinks he can disregard Iraq's Constitution and Iraq's judiciary. And you don't think that further destroys the average Iraqi's faith in democratic institutions?
Hayder's whining about the new electronic voting machines. We might manage to care if we weren't raising issues about that in March, long before the elections. If he's only concerned after he loses, then he's really not concerned about the machines, he's just got sour grapes over losing.
It's almost a month since elections. And yet again Iraqis have to wait because the process is not honored, the rules are not respected.
This is not how you grow democracy.
And at a time when the Islamic State is still active in Iraq, you need a peaceful and reasonable transfer of power. The longer this draws out, the more questions there will be for leadership. The more attacks by the Islamic State, the more this inability to follow the process becomes an issue.
The following community sites updated:
-
-
-
Partisan games when we want peace9 hours ago
-
-
-
FACEBOOK -- a geriatric pleasure9 hours ago
-
-
Who sells dinos?9 hours ago
-
-
