What do you mean you've never heard of "Toasted Soup"?

Ok so it's the middle of the night and whatever you've done to your brain in the past few hours has left you a helpless victim of one of the most classic of cravings... a tangy, buttery, cheesy crunch.  Well, this is a cure.  It's called Toasted Soup.  Start with butter, shredded cheese, (I prefer cheddar) and a Ramen Noodle package that hasn't been stepped on.  Break the noodles in half where it folds over.  Leave the particles on the plate, they help soak up excess butter.

Toast the two halves until golden brown.  It takes longer than toast, and I usually rotate them a couple times during toasting.  Now butter them up.  A little more than I usually would put on regular toast.

Now sprinkle some of the flavor package around evenly.  How much you use is up to how much salt/flavor tang you're down for.  I usually use about a third of the package.

And now for the cheese.  Use a lot.  You're not planning on living forever, are you?  The next step is designed to melt the cheese and help send hot butter further through the noodle thing.  I do 30 seconds in the nuke but keep an eye on it in case your machine is stronger.  Stop when the cheese melts fully and just barely bubbles.  If yours comes out too soft and you need more crunch, reduce the nuke time or melt the cheese under a broiler or in a toaster oven.

Yeah, that's the stuff.  I've been making this since college, and it's as awesome today as it was back then.  I hope it comes out perfect for you, and if not, it's easy to tweak it in the direction you need.  When you've done a couple, you can make it in about 3 or 4 minutes.  I think it's The Snack Of The Century.  Mangia!

I really can't believe what I just read by some fool named Al Vivian...

I just responded to this idiot's article that I read while checking out other, more important news.  The first part is the article he wrote, and below it is my reply which the CNN censors decided wasn't suitable for their comments section.  This is so bad that I had to bring it here to keep it alive. 

What if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were white?

 

Editor's note: Al Vivian is the president and CEO of BASIC Diversity Inc., a 39-year-old consultancy that specializes in reducing cross-cultural biases and holds Race Awareness Workshop. He has worked with clients such as Coca-Cola, Ford, Kroger, McDonald's, the National Security Agency and CNN.

(CNN) -- Since George Zimmerman was acquitted in the death of Trayvon Martin, everyone has had an opinion about the verdict.

I am not about to second-guess the jury's decision or pass judgment on them. Our judicial system is operating as it was designed. The jurors reached their conclusion based on the evidence placed before them and their interpretation of the law as it was explained.

As human beings, we see the world through the lens of our own experiences. Both science and history prove that we all have unconscious biases that impact the decisions we make.

There are some who say that the Zimmerman-Martin case had nothing to do with race. There are others who say that the case was all about race.

One idea that has come up: "What if we reverse the races so that Martin was white and Zimmerman was black?" That exercise, while potent, doesn't prove or disprove the relevance race played in the case.

A more powerful approach is to totally remove race as a factor by creating a scenario in which both the perpetrator and the victim are of the same race and then see whether people change their views. For example: "What if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were both white? Or both black?"

If Zimmerman and Martin were both white, ask yourself:

• Would it have taken 44 days and a national protest to merely justify the arrest of a known killer? A killer who shot an unarmed child, initially stalked that child, was charged with two previous felonies -- "battery of law enforcement officer" and "resisting officer with violence" -- was accused of domestic violence (both charges were reduced, though some would say that's the benefit of Zimmerman having a father who is a retired judge) and disobeyed the authorities when told not to follow the person he eventually killed.

• Would authorities have not drug tested the killer but instead drug tested the victim?

• Would hordes of people have donated money to help the killer hire a strong defense team that eventually got him acquitted?

• Would society have given so much credibility to the killer's version of the events?

Many have tried to deflect the discomfort of this scenario by focusing on black-on-black crime. While such crime is a very serious issue that must be addressed by our society and especially the black community, turning to black-on-black crime is a form of avoidance. The uncomfortable truth is that very likely, most people would see the case differently if the killer and victim were both white.

When will we reach a day when we don't have to refer to crimes in racial terms?

In light of how much we know about ourselves on a scientific level, it is a shame that people are still so divided by race. In 2003, the mapping of the human genome code proved that there are no significant genetic differences between what we call "races." Every human being on the planet is 99.9% genetically identical to every other human being. But as societies, we live in constructs.

For those who fear the average random black male wearing a hoodie, I can empathize with you. But statistically, you should be more afraid of the person you see every day in the mirror. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, suicide is one of the top causes of death for white Americans (PDF). Homicide is not. So, your chance of killing yourself is greater than your chance of being killed by anyone, of any race.

Let's turn back to the question: "If the victim and the killer were both white, would society have given so much credibility to the killer's version of events?"

I doubt that a jury so heavily made up of white mothers would have related to or felt empathy toward a man who had stalked and killed an unarmed child who could have very easily been one of their own.

Now my comment...

 Al Vivian, you are an absolute moron.  I don't even know if it's worth my time here to explain it to you because you sound too stupid to understand.  First, let's address your use of the word "child".  Martin was about six feet tall.  That's not a child and your attempt to skew the situation is shameful.  Second, this isn't an issue about black and white, you inconceivable idiot.  Martin was black and Zimmerman is Hispanic.  Maybe if you take your head out of your ass you might have noticed that whitey's hands are clean in this whole mess.  Third, if you want to talk about color, let's talk about red blood and the gray matter that almost spilled out onto a sidewalk.  Fourth, are you kidding me?  The thought that one should be more afraid of one's self than a black guy in a hoodie suspiciously checking out houses in the rain at night?  Look up specious you mental defective.  The jury made their decision based on an attacker and someone being attacked.  Simple as that.  Stop trying to portray Martin as anything but the hoodie wearing, neighborhood scoping thug he was.  And for the last time, let's hope, I'll say this:  If you're walking down the street and you notice someone else following you, it is absolutely NOT an excuse to attack them.  People follow each other when walking, it's how our society travels by foot.  You DO NOT get to decide someone who is traveling the same direction as you is about to attack you.  You only get to DEFEND yourself if you actually end up being attacked.  If you think a "preemptive attack" is a righteous "defense", then please explain where the line is, because the streets will be awash with blood if that ever becomes legal.  I don't know who is worse, you or the fool who hired you to write a so-called "news" article.

Anybody remember "Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man"?

Of course not, it wasn't called that for very long.  When the movie was made and it had almost nothing to do with his original short story, he sued to have his name removed from it.  It seems his attitude has changed for Under The Dome.  That's pretty much all I wanted to say about it today.  Unless something radically more ridiculous happens, I won't beat a dead dog here.  This is my semi-final word on it.  Everybody have a great day!

Beyond Bumbledome

Ok, I take back what I said last week about this having any potential for entertainment at all.  At this point, at least for me, this has crashed to the ground like so much blue ice from an airline toilet.  Splat.  Nothing to look at, folks, time to go home.  The whole point of something like this is to retain the influence of the author, and the show's director and writers have gone completely in the opposite direction, effectively creating a brand new story of their own.  And it SUCKS.  I don't know if I'm in the majority or the minority on this, but I wanted to see a STEPHEN KING story.  If I wanted to watch a stupid show with a stupid story by some nobody writers I've never heard of, there are a lot of other options out there.  I spent a year looking forward to STEPHEN KING.  I don't get even the slightest hint of King in what I'm seeing.  Tell you what, as soon as one of these weak ass, unknown shit-gurgitators who call themselves writers writes an 1,100 page bestseller, I MIGHT consider their right to stand in the presence of someone like Stephen King.  I'll never acknowledge their right to REPLACE him.  In conclusion, all I can say is that the network must have King over a very painful barrel for him to be a producer of the show and allow this to happen.  If he's actually involved in the direction this farce is taking, it may be all over.

After I posted this, I found a little note from The Big Guy himself regarding the monstrous changes between the book and the tv adaptation.  Here's the link... Read Stephen King's letter about all the changes here... Basically it states that he fully supports the changes, citing some gibberish about the book still being there on the shelf, unchanged, if you ever want to read it so no harm, no foul.  In a nutshell, he said that pretty much everything about the book has been changed for the tv series, including the cause of the whole mess and that it's going to be months long instead of a week.  He did admit that his one concern was that they keep the concept of a DOME alive in this new version.  Way to go, Steve, for drawing a line SOMEWHERE.

Blunder The Dome

There really isn't much to say except WHY???  Under The Dome is probably going to be a decent mini-series, unfortunately it's basically a completely new story which bears almost no resemblance to the story in what I considered to be an excellent book.  We waited, for almost a year from the time it was announced, barely able to contain our excitement.  I read the book again, for the third time, and raced to finish it right before the TV version started.  I certainly don't expect the mini-series to be a word for word repetition of the book, I've been good with slight variances in other TV productions, especially Stephen King's.  This one, however, seems determined to change absolutely everything about the book from character personalities, character names, characters inside/outside the dome, communication through the dome, who's on the good side/bad side, the plot in general, I could keep going on about what's different and there have only been two episodes so far!  I was looking forward to seeing a movie quality version of the events I read, not a completely different story.  I'm sure it's going to be worth watching, since King himself is involved (at least credited as a producer of the show) and the die-hard purists are eventually going to get used to it.  I just keep coming back to WHY?