text:
Years After Historic Ruling, Execution Still A 'Random' Justice
Evan Mandery's A Wild Justice is an account of the legal battles that led to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down capital punishment, then reversing course four years later. He says that today, prisoners who are sentenced to death have a 10 percent chance of actually being executed.
Related Topics
Other segments from the episode on September 19, 2013
September 19, 2013
Guest: Evan Mandery
TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. In the mid-1970s, the state of Arkansas' electric chair was being used by the prison barber to cut hair, and the execution chamber in New Hampshire was being used to store vegetables. That's because in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court had shocked the nation by striking down Georgia's death penalty law, effectively ending executions in the U.S.
But the decision provoked a strong backlash among those who favored the death penalty, and within four years, the high court reversed course and issued a set of rulings that would permit the resumption of executions. Our guest Evan Mandery is a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former capital defense attorney who's written a new account of those tumultuous legal and political battles over the death penalty.
Mandery sides with those who tried to outlaw capital punishment. His account focuses on attorneys for both sides in the battle and the views and deliberations of the justices who decided the cases. His book is called "A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America." He spoke with FRESH AIR contributor Dave Davies.
DAVE DAVIES, HOST: Evan Mandery, welcome to FRESH AIR. You know, you write in this book that the Supreme Court had addressed the death penalty only six times in its first 175 years. And then Justice Arthur Goldberg and a young clerk named Alan Dershowitz decided to do something about this. I guess this was in the '60s. Tell us how they proceeded.
EVAN MANDERY: Well, in 1963, when my book opens, there's basically nobody in the United States other than Goldberg and Dershowitz who thinks that the death penalty might be unconstitutional. This is unfathomable to us today, right. Regardless of whether you support the death penalty or not, you understand that that issue is debatable.
But in '63, no one had this position, and Goldberg proposed to take a case, to grant certiorari in a case and raise the constitutionality of the death penalty, even though it hadn't been raised by the litigants. It was an act without precedent in American judicial history.
DAVIES: And what did he do?
MANDERY: Well, first, he had Dershowitz research the issue, and Alan Dershowitz spent the summer - Dershowitz was particularly concerned with the inequality in the use of capital punishment, and he spent the summer researching racism in the application of capital punishment, particularly in the South. And he wrote a memorandum, and he wrote a legal argument which ultimately became the basis for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's challenge that was successful much later on.
DAVIES: Right, but they - in the end, they did not grant certiorari, which is to say agree to consider a case. They didn't do that. I mean, it stayed behind the scenes. They wrote a memorandum and never - nothing came of it, right?
MANDERY: Well, something came of it. I mean, it's a very interesting dynamic. Earl Warren was chief justice at the time, and, of course, Warren is very well known as being a very liberal justice, and the justice that oversaw Brown versus Board of Education and Miranda and many expansions of civil liberties.
But when Goldberg advanced the idea of taking up this issue, Warren didn't want to do it. Warren thought it was more than the public would tolerate. Now, something did happen. What they agreed to was for Justice Goldberg to publish a dissent from the court's denial of cert, a very odd thing, but Goldberg publicly disagreed with the court's refusal to hear the case, and that also is an act without precedent in court history, to my knowledge.
DAVIES: And what's interesting about this, as you explain it in the book, is that one of the ways that new legal principals get established and considered is that the legal academic world takes them up, people write articles, there is debate, and then eventually, they find their way into the courts. And in the course of explaining this, you have a chapter called "The Most Important Law Firm in America." This was the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund.
It had a lot of issues it was handling, and it chose to take on the death penalty. Explain what they did.
MANDERY: They took on a challenge that I analogize to trying to land man on the moon. It was an insurmountable legal obstacle to try to get this done. And they, the key lawyers, a man named Anthony Amsterdam, who is still alive, a professor at NYU law school, and Michael Meltsner, who was number two there, but was the principal proponent of LDF, the Legal Defense Fund, taking on this issue.
They decided - LDF had historically represented blacks, but they decided to represent all people who faced the death penalty in the United States, and it was a massive transformation of their mission - somewhat controversial, but clearly noble.
DAVIES: And what that meant, then, was not taking a case to the steps of the Supreme Court, but fighting dozens and dozens of legal battles in state courts all over the country.
MANDERY: Right. A strategy evolved. It's probably a mistake to say that it was created at any particular moment, but a strategy evolved to try to - Professor Meltsner's words are - throw sand in the machine. What they wanted to do was bullocks up every death penalty case in the United States to the point where no one was being executed, and they succeeded. It's an absolutely unbelievable accomplishment - whatever your view on the death penalty - that they did something so hard and succeeded for so long.
There was basically a 10-year period in which no one in the United States was executed, and Amsterdam's thought was that the justices of the Supreme Court would be so loathe to begin executing people after there was such a backlog of people on death row, that they would never be able to pull the trigger.
DAVIES: Right. And maybe you should just talk a little bit about this guy Tony Amsterdam, because he becomes quite a figure in this drama.
MANDERY: Right. I've never encountered anybody like him in my life, and I interviewed incredible people, people I never would have had the chance to meet in my life, David Kendall, who was President Clinton's lawyer. Professor Meltsner is an extraordinary person. Jack Greenberg, who was the head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, other - tons of other lawyers who worked at LDF, and Professor Dershowitz.
And they all identify Anthony Amsterdam as the most impressive lawyer they've ever met in their life, and he is. I've never seen somebody who has a brain who works like this, basically a photographic memory and indomitable spirit and indefatigable work ethic.
DAVIES: Right. An innovative thinker, and then someone who seems to be able to work all night.
MANDERY: He does. They all joke that there was a clone of him, that one would work through the night while the other slept, and that he'd get up in the morning, and the other one would take over.
DAVIES: So, this movement takes root, and executions stop, as motions are filed and cases grind through appellate courts everywhere. And it's not until 1972 that the Supreme Court really begins to really address the issue. And by then, it's not the Earl Warren court, really, anymore. Tell us what kind of court took this on in 1972.
MANDERY: Well, it's Warren Burger's court by that time, but it's important to take a step back. The court did address some other issues. They denied - they ruled against - they upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in two critical cases, one a case from Arkansas by the appeal of a man named William Maxwell and a case called McArthur(ph) versus California. And they upheld the death penalty in both instances.
When the court took on Furman versus Georgia, which is the case that the Legal Defense Fund won in 1972, the summer before the justices left, they all believed that the case would be an eight-to-one decision upholding the constitutionality of capital punishment. It was only William Brennan who thought that he would vote against the death penalty.
It is - the odds against this victory were supremely improbable. This victory was supremely improbable, even the summer before the court decided the case.
DAVIES: Right. Warren Burger was the chief justice. He was appointed by Nixon, as were, I think, four of the justices on the court at that point.
MANDERY: That's right. And, you know, some of the justices of the court at this time are different than the men we come to know them as. So Warren Burger was a consistent supporter of capital punishment. But Harry Blackmun was not. And in 1985, Harry Blackmun dissented from a case and said that he would no longer tinker with the machinery of death. He was an opponent of capital punishment at the end of his career.
But in 1972, he was very closely allied with Warren Burger, and he voted to uphold the death penalty.
DAVIES: If you're just joining us, our guest is Evan Mandery. He is a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. He's also a former capital defense attorney. He's written an interesting account of the Supreme Court's dealings with the death penalty in the 1970s. It's called "A Wild Justice."
So let's talk about the case that the court considered in 1972, a dramatic event in American jurisprudence. Tell us - this is - it's Furman versus Georgia, right? Tell us about the case.
MANDERY: Right. Furman was a burglar whose crime went wrong, and he ended up shooting the owner of the house that he broke into. And the court took the case, along with three others, in 1972 to state its position on the constitutionality of capital punishment for murder and for rape.
DAVIES: Right. And Tony Amsterdam of the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP made the argument. What were the arguments that were presented here that the death penalty was unconstitutional?
MANDERY: Well, the - in 1972, the Legal Defense Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was arguing that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment cruel and - ban against cruel and unusual punishments, and it was really the last argument left in its holster. Every other argument they had made to that point had been a procedural argument.
And this was the one they saved for last, because they thought it was the least likely to win. And the reason that it was unlikely to win is that the Constitution explicitly mentions the death penalty in five different places. And the arguments on the other side, by Ronald George of California, Dorothy Beasley of Georgia, among others, was: A, that the Constitution referenced capital punishment, so it had to be constitutional, and B, that it was a matter that was best left to the states.
DAVIES: Right. And so they argued that what is cruel and unusual in 1972 might not be what's cruel and unusual in 1787, and...
MANDERY: Right, but that was - I'm sorry. That was really Goldberg who fomented that revolution. It was Goldberg who advanced the argument that standards of decency and the Constitution as a text evolved, and that's why, to my mind, Goldberg is the most overlooked justice in American history. It's - everyone, whether you agree with this principle or not, accepts as a legitimate matter of discourse the idea that the Constitution is an evolving document. Nobody took that position in the early 1960s, before Goldberg.
DAVIES: Right. And we should not that Goldberg was on the Supreme Court. He resigned to take an appointment as a United Nations ambassador, right, which is why he was not on the court when these things were considered.
MANDERY: Right. His tenure was only three years, and by all accounts, he regretted leaving the court.
DAVIES: Right. OK. So, they have to make the case to these justices, four of them appointed by President Nixon, that now the death penalty, in 1972, was cruel and unusual. What was the argument?
MANDERY: Well, the argument was that standards of decency evolved, and they appealed to standards of decency in other countries, and Amsterdam's epiphany was that even though states had capital punishment, he argued that most people only tolerated the death penalty because it was infrequently used. And this, he said, suggested that at bottom, the American people didn't tolerate capital punishment. And it was a brilliant argument.
DAVIES: In other words, everybody knows that although it's legal, it will be imposed in very, very few cases. So even though polls seem to show that Americans - although not unanimously - predominately supported the death penalty, they didn't really mean it, because they knew juries wouldn't impose it?
MANDERY: Right. They liked the threat of capital punishment. And, of course, LDF argued that what was happening was it was being used against a select few people, overwhelming poor and overwhelming - disproportionately minority.
DAVIES: And then there was the argument what was cruel and - what was tolerable to community standards back in the 18th century might have included, you know, public whipping and hanging, are no longer tolerated. So it seemed that there had been evolution of some kind here, right?
MANDERY: Right. And what's interesting - what was revealing to me is that the argument that LDF had very little to do with the way the court actually decided the case. So that narrative that standards of decency evolved really wasn't the basis, wasn't what was going on internally in the minds of the justices who decided the cases. And that's what revelatory about it.
And, to me, my investment in my book is to try and realistically portray how a case of this magnitude is decided, not just about things that justices say in public opinions, but as an interactive process between lawyers and judges. And the clerks play a very major role in my story, too. Behind the scenes, LDF's argument didn't have much to do with what was going on.
DAVIES: Right. And before we get to how the court crafted the decision - which had a lot to do with subsequent events - what was the argument of Georgia and others who defended the death penalty? What did they say?
MANDERY: Well - and Ronald George said this to me in an interview, he still feels this way today. Even though he doesn't like the death penalty, he thinks that the judgment of the people has a right to be defended, and that the states have province to decide certain matters for themselves, certain moral issues for themselves.
DAVIES: Right. So if evolving community standards are relevant, one expression of community standards is when your state legislators say, yes, for certain crimes, you may be put to death.
MANDERY: Right. And Texas may have a different standard of decency than Massachusetts does, and the Constitution is fine with that.
DAVIES: We're speaking with Evan Mandery. He's a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. His new book is called "A Wild Justice." We'll talk more after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.
DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, our guest is Evan Mandery. He's a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. He's also a former capital defense attorney. He's written a new book describing the Supreme Court's consideration of the death penalty, both striking it down and then reaffirming it within a few years in the 1970s. It's called "A Wild Justice."
So when the justices consider this in 1972, and this remarkable decision results, in effect, striking down the death penalty, the way the decision was crafted had a lot to do with its impact. Tell us what happened.
MANDERY: This case was unusual in so many respects, and one way it was unusual is that Warren Burger, at one point, declared himself to be in the majority. It was never 100 percent clear who had voted on which side, and, in fact, Byron White's vote was ambiguous most of the term, and this complicated the case substantially.
DAVIES: And when we say vote, we're talking about in conferences, among the justices, right.
MANDERY: Correct.
DAVIES: They caucus. They decide where people are, and then assign opinions, depending on where the majority appears to rest.
MANDERY: Warren Burger also suggested that each justice write his own individual opinion, and, in fact, there were nine separate opinions, ultimately, in the case. And he also asked that the case be treated with complete secrecy, as Brown had been. And this...
DAVIES: Brown versus Board of Education, the desegregation case. Yeah.
MANDERY: Brown versus Board of Education. And what - and the practical consequence of this was that it made it very difficult for a majority rationale to coalesce, and the justices operated essentially independently for almost the entire term, up until the second weekend of June, when Potter Stewart very dramatically paid a visit to Byron White.
DAVIES: And what happened there?
MANDERY: So, by June of 1972, there were four votes against the death penalty: William Brennan, whose vote had been secure all along, Thurgood Marshall and William Douglas, whose votes had been secure since the beginning of the term, and Potter Stewart, who told his clerks that he wanted to write a short snapper saying that the death penalty treated people as means to an end, and was hence cruel and unusual.
DAVIES: So, Stewart was going to say it's cruel and unusual. It's out of here. Right.
MANDERY: That's right, and the four Nixon appointees were on the other side, and the question was Byron White. And there's this surreal moment at a conference where they're trying to figure out who's on which side, and it all depends who's writing a majority and who's writing a dissent, and it all depends the way - on what White's going, which direction White's going, and he doesn't say a word.
So, June of 1972, on a Friday afternoon, Potter Stewart tells his clerks that he's going to see Byron White. And when he comes out two hours later, Stewart's changed his position. His clerk, Ben Heineman, later the general counsel of GE, says - he emerges, and he's taken the due process position. And Stewart says that now, he's going to write that the problem with the death penalty is its application, and the short snapper is gone.
And so what he did was he struck a deal with Byron White, because White made it clear that he wouldn't vote with an opinion that said that the problem with the death penalty was its morality in all cases. His concern with the death penalty was one of application. In fact, his concern was that it wasn't used frequently enough to achieve deterrence.
And Stewart made this deal, even though it wasn't really what he thought, because he thought the death penalty was on the way out, and that if the Supreme Court could nudge the American public in the right direction, that the death penalty would be finished once and for all.
DAVIES: So when this shocking decision is announced to the nation, what is the court telling us? What was the court telling everyone about the death penalty?
MANDERY: Well, good question, and different people choose to hear different things. But - so there's no clear message, right. There are five separate majority opinions, and even the liberals don't really agree with much among themselves. But most people take - some for strategic reasons, and some honestly - take the court's decision to be about the Stewart-White opinions, which are focused on the arbitrariness of capital punishment. And states that support capital punishment - overwhelmingly in the South - take this as an invitation to rewrite their statutes to fix the arbitrariness problem.
DAVIES: All right. So, in other words, the court seemed to be saying it isn't that the death penalty's unconstitutional in every circumstance, but the way it's practiced and applied, it's arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional, cruel and unusual.
MANDERY: Exactly, exactly. The fact that some people, some types of people get it more than others is the problem. The problem is not the death penalty itself.
DAVIES: All right. Before we get to how the states reacted by changing their laws, because that's a big part of this story, overall, how did the nation react to this decision? I mean, this court ruling against the death penalty?
MANDERY: Well, it depends who you are, but overwhelmingly, Americans were angry, and there was a very quick backlash against this decision. And I don't think it's just about support for capital punishment. I think that Furman versus Georgia has to be viewed as part and parcel of a set of court decisions, including decisions on busing and Roe v. Wade that many people interpreted as invading the province of states' rights and individual rights.
GROSS: Evan Mandery will continue his interview with FRESH AIR contributor Dave Davies in the second half of the show. Mandery is the author of the new book "A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment In America." I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Let's get back to Dave Davies' interview with Evan Mandery, the author of the new book "A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America." It's about the 1972 Supreme Court decision that struck down Georgia's death penalty law, effectively ending executions in the U.S., and how four years later, the court reversed itself after public backlash against the 1972 decision.
DAVIES: So there was a lot of anger at the court. I mean, you know, the depth of the backlash can be seen - as you note - in the fact that Massachusetts, the only state that voted for George McGovern in 1972, enacted a new death penalty statute, vetoed by the governor, but the Legislature enacted it. Jimmy Carter running for president in 1976 favors the death penalty. So there was a really strong tide here.
MANDERY: Right. I mean the only way to make sense of the Massachusetts example is this supreme dissatisfaction with busing. There's this visceral reaction to the court's busing decision. And the problem is that the desegregation decisions are not vulnerable. Roe v. Wade is not vulnerable, but Furman v. Georgia is vulnerable because White made - because Stewart made the deal with White and states believed that they could fix the problem that the court had identified with capital punishment.
DAVIES: All right. So if the court says the death penalty, as it's practiced in the United States, is arbitrary and capricious, the states set about to remedy that with a whole new series of laws. Give us some ways in which the states reacted.
MANDERY: Right. So the states go in two directions. One direction that they go is to make the death penalty mandatory for all murderers, right. That's not arbitrary. They're giving the same penalty to everybody for the same offense. The other direction that the states go is they attempt to curtail discretion and they do two big things; they split trials into a guilt phase and a sentencing phase and they identify a set of aggravating factors, things that make - ostensibly make - certain murderers worse than others. Like killing a police officer or being a prisoner who has escaped from prison at the time of the crime.
DAVIES: Right. And the interesting thing about this is you notice that there were justices, when they were considering this opinion, you know, striking down the death penalty, that said, you know, if we do it this way, if we say it's the way it's administered, we are going to be inviting states to pass mandatory death sentences and some did.
MANDERY: Right. But Stewart believed when he made - Stewart made a gamble. When he made this deal with White he believed that the death penalty was on the way out, that the American public didn't like it and that if there were a signal from the court, that the death penalty was unconstitutional, that that would be the end of it. And, of course, he was spectacularly, colossally wrong. But that's what he believed and that was the premise of the bet he made in striking that deal with White.
DAVIES: Yeah. So rather than nudging the nation in a direction, they provoked a reaction to it.
MANDERY: That's right. He nudged it in the opposite direction. And I mean I can't emphasize this enough. This principle that a non-arbitrary death penalty is constitutional, right, this idea that the problem with capital punishment in America is the way it's implemented was arrived at in the course of a weekend by two justices, one of whom didn't actually believe that really was the problem with capital punishment.
DAVIES: So let's move forward a few years. In 1976, right, the Supreme Court agrees to reconsider this question, after states have enacted a bunch of new death penalty statutes designed to remedy the flaws they perceived in the 1972 Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court agrees to consider death penalty statutes in five states - Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas. There's a (unintelligible), but give us a sense of some of the range of provisions in these state laws that the court had agreed to take on.
MANDERY: Well, the Supreme Court picks those five cases to get at the two - the full range of approaches, and there are two that they divide into two principal categories: the mandatory statutes, some states made it mandatory for murder and rape, and that guided discretion statutes. Every state that had a guided discretion statute used some combination of split trials and aggravating factors as a way of trying to introduce rationality.
DAVIES: Right. And the case which gives this decision its name, Greg versus Georgia, was which kind of the law?
MANDERY: Right. Georgia was a guided discretion statute. And today, more or less, every state that has the death penalty, the statute resembles Georgia's from 1976.
DAVIES: Now, it's interesting that in the arguments against the death penalty, again, we find Tony Amsterdam, this brilliant lawyer from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and it's again his turn to try and persuade the court. And you note that in the 1972 argument everyone regarded his performance as just brilliant. Tell us the approach he took in trying to persuade the justices this time.
MANDERY: Well, he stuck to his guns, more or less. He continued to believe and he continued to argue that the death penalty was unconstitutional in all cases. And, you know, from a lawyer's standpoint, look at this incredibly problematic fact that Amsterdam and LDF had to deal with the 1976. They're saying the standard is evolving standards of decency, and here, between 1972 and 1976, 37 states have passed new death penalty laws. So there's the most relevant, what, how could you imagine a more relevant evidence of contemporary standards of decency than what states have done over the past four years? So it's a very, very tough road for him to hoe to say that the American public doesn't support capital punishment.
DAVIES: Right. And so how does he make that case?
MANDERY: Well, he argues - he offers many of the same arguments that he made in 1972, and he doesn't persuade the court. And the justices, many of the justices, and they were overwhelmingly - it wasn't just the lawyer public that I mentioned before, the justices thought he had delivered the most magnificent arguments in 1972. But in 1976, they think that his argument was tone deaf. Now I don't think that that's a reflection on Professor Amsterdam. I think that's just as much a reflection on the justices' own personal conflict. In Potter Stewart's case, his own dissatisfaction with himself that he took this position that he did in 1972, because Stewart in 1976, can't very well say oh, I didn't really mean that the problem was with the death penalty was its application. What I really meant was that I thought it was immoral in all cases and I just said what I said to get someone else's vote. But, you know, Amsterdam's argument doesn't win the day.
DAVIES: All right. Now this time, his principal adversary was Robert Bork. President Gerald Ford's solicitor general, later famous for a controversial appointment to the Supreme Court. What did Bork argue to the court?
MANDERY: Well, Bork's a superstar. And what Bork successfully did was to brand Amsterdam and LDF as a leftist fringe. And the extension - look, the arbitrariness isn't just a problem with capital punishment. I would argue that arbitrariness is a greater problem for people who face finite prison sentences than it is for people who face the death penalty. And I, you know, when you mentioned my history working on a death penalty case, I was a litigator at a big firm called Shearman & Sterling. And I represented someone pro bono. People on death row get these great high-powered white-shoe law firms to represent them. People facing 12 year prison sentences don't get the same quality of representation.
And what Bork said is it's not just a problem, arbitrariness isn't just a problem with the death penalty, it's a problem with the American criminal justice system. So if Amsterdam and LDF's position is correct, what you've done is destabilized the entire American criminal justice system.
DAVIES: Our guest is Evan Mandery. He is a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. His book is called "A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America." And we'll continue our conversation after a break.
This is FRESH AIR.
DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, our guest is Evan Mandery. He's a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. He's also a former capital defense attorney. He's written a new book describing the Supreme Court's consideration of the death penalty, both striking it down and then reaffirming it within a few years in the 1970s. It's called "A Wild Justice."
So in 1976, the court considers these five state death penalty statutes, just four years after they had struck down the death penalty. What in effect - how in effect did the court rule? What did they tell us about the death penalty in 1976?
MANDERY: The court said that a mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional, but it said that he guided discretion statute, such as Georgia's, is constitutional. And today, in the United States, every state that has the death penalty has some version of that Georgia law, where there are split trials, split-face trials. There's first the determination made about guilt, and then a determination of sentence, and there are also aggravating circumstances.
DAVIES: I mean it's a judgment to be made after the fact, but do you think Amsterdam gave up the chance to get a compromise to get more here?
MANDERY: I think Monday morning quarterbacking in this business is - in this area is a very, very dodgy business and I'm reluctant to do it.
MANDERY: I'll say one thing that I do think history suggests. There was one case, the Texas case. So when Powell, Stewart and Stevens reached their agreement and decide that the mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional but the guided discretion statutes are not, it's not clear whether Texas' statutes should be grouped as a mandatory statute or as a guided discretion statute, because it really doesn't offer very much guidance. It just seems to just get everybody executed. And I think that if LDF had engaged that point at greater length, that they - there's a chance that Powell, Stewart and Stevens might have grouped it as a mandatory case. And since Texas is far and away the most vigorous death penalty state in the United States, that might've made a difference.
DAVIES: Right. And we can remind listeners that when this case was done, there were actually five different state laws under consideration. And Texas, if I recall correctly, had a provision in which a death penalty jury had to ask a set of three questions, which, if answered in the affirmative, would qualify the defendant for the death penalty. And in the view of the LDF, the opponents of the death penalty, they really were kind of meaningless questions. They could be answered about any defendant.
MANDERY: Right. So one of the questions was: did the murderer act with deliberate indifference to human life? I mean it's very hard to imagine a murderer who doesn't. So the question was a tautology.
DAVIES: Right. You know, and since you mentioned it - I was going to bring this up - but I mean Texas has executed far more defendants than other states. Is that because of the way that its death penalty statute is structured?
MANDERY: I think it's that's - it's too much to say that. But it doesn't help that they had it's very liberal death penalty provision.
DAVIES: And it's interesting that Tony Amsterdam, the attorney who was at the heart of all of these cases, thereafter set about writing a handbook for how attorneys might deal with death penalty cases in the future. Kind of looking at the guidance the court had given. And you say it was remarkably prescient in terms of predicting, you know, future rulings and statutory developments on the death penalty. I mean this is a big subject. But in general, how have the standards for applying the death penalty evolved over the years?
MANDERY: After losing a case that undid the greatest victory of his career, he sat down and he developed a roadmap for what was going to come next, and he basically predicted everything correctly. Today, we no longer execute. He foretold that the court might be receptive to arguments against the death penalty for certain classes of criminals. And today we don't execute people who committed the crime of murder under the age of 18. There's no longer the death penalty for rape. There's no longer the death penalty for certain types of felony murderers. And we no longer have the death penalty for people who are insane at the time of their would-be execution.
DAVIES: But executions have continued, right? How many?
MANDERY: And approximately 1,300 since 1976.
DAVIES: And, you know, if you look at the decisions of the 1970s, in effect saying that the death penalty as applied was arbitrary and capricious, and now that states have different procedures for it, I mean the penalty phase of the trial is separated from the guilt phase of the trial. And, you know, there are requirements for appellate review and certain categories of defendants, which are excluded. Is the death penalty anymore fairly or humanely practiced today than it was in the 1960s?
MANDERY: I don't know what fairness means in this context. Is it fair in the sense that similarly situated people receive similar sentences? It's not. The death penalty is basically random, even among people who are sentenced to die. When I teach about this - I teach about this all the time at John Jay - people are - students are shocked to learn that even among people who are sentenced to die, you only have a 10 percent chance of being actually executed. And figuring out who among those are the ones who actually are executed is, it's just basically random. So I don't think anybody can say that there's any predictability in capital punishment. Is it marginally less random than it was in 1972? I think that's where the academic dispute is. I can point you to scholars who think that the court's decision did - ameliorated things a tiny bit and I could point you to many more scholars who think that the court's decisions did nothing.
DAVIES: One of the other issues that came up in the course of some of these court cases was whether the death penalty effectively offers a deterrent at all. Is there any scholarly agreement on that?
MANDERY: There's not. My personal favorite chapter in my books is a chapter in which I tell the story of the race to prove whether the death penalty deters or not. And I have a seven page footnote talking about who's right in this debate. And it's fascinating. Basically, people come down on different sides of the issue based on their identity. Economists think that the death penalty deters; criminologists think that they don't.
And the economist's worldview is that people respond to incentives. Criminologist's worldview is that the sort of people who are incline d to crime are not responsive to incentives in the same way that, you know, ordinary people are. My - and I'm going to say this very tentatively - I identify a scholar whose work I think is terrific, Joanna Shepherd. By the way, she's against the death penalty. And what she says is that a frequently used death penalty deters.
So that if you execute enough people that you can actually begin to achieve some deterrence, it also - the death penalty is also, at the same time, inciting people to violence. Right? So these two things can happen at the same time and that if you execute enough people, the deterrence that you achieve will overpower this brutalization effect. But of course, the question of whether the death penalty deters doesn't matter to many people.
If you have an retributive view in favor of the death penalty, you believe in an eye for an eye, you don't really care whether the death penalty deters, and conversely, you may think that the death penalty is a violation of human rights and would oppose it even if you could be persuaded that it did deter.
DAVIES: In the argument in 1976 over whether the death penalty would be upheld in certain cases, when Tony Amsterdam and the legal - the NAAC legal defense fund argued that the way the death penalty actually worked was that there was an arbitrariness, you know, to who actually was executed or who actually got the death sentence and who didn't. One of the things the justices said was, well, what you're really objecting to is that so many people who actually qualify for the death penalty don't get it.
You're objecting to mercy. What was their point and how did Amsterdam answer it?
MANDERY: Right. Thanks for asking this question. It's a great question. I mean, if you support the jury system, jury verdicts are going to be irrational. And one point of the jury system is to allow the jury to grant mercy for any reason or no reason at all. And so if the death penalty's unpredictable the argument goes then this is just an example of the jury applying its mercy power.
And the fact that so few people - that the sentencing, death sentencing rates are so low, suggests that the jury is jut doing its job. And now the question is, if you oppose the jury system in the death penalty context - and Amsterdam says that he does not oppose; he frames it differently - but if you oppose the jury system in the death penalty context then why don't you oppose it in other contexts?
And in fact, I think this is the hard question for liberals and abolitionists to answer, because I believe that every argument against the death penalty is also an argument against long prison sentences. The death penalty is racist. The criminal justice system and the imposition of long prison sentences is more racist. There's a question about whether the death penalty deters. There is a substantial question about whether long prison sentences deter.
There's a question about whether the death penalty is cost effective. So, too, there's a tremendous question about whether long prison sentences are cost effective. So I don't know, other than to just say, well, this is the line. We're only concerned with these questions when the punishment is death as opposed to merely 30 years in prison. I don't know those questions - how one could evade answering those questions.
DAVIES: Well, Evan Mandery, I want to thank you so much for spending some time with us.
MANDERY: Oh, thanks so much for having me, Dave.
GROSS: Evan Mandery spoke with FRESH AIR contributor Dave Davies. Mandery is the author of "A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America." You can read an excerpt on our website freshair.npr.org. Coming up, rock critic Ken Tucker reviews a new album by singer and songwriter Robbie Fulks. This is FRESH AIR.
TERRY GROSS, HOST:This is FRESH AIR. Robbie Fulks has been recording since the mid-'90s, making music that's difficult to categorize. He's written country songs about how compromised most country music is, and while he's fond of folk and blue grass, he pleases concert audiences with covers of hits by Michael Jackson and Cher. Rock critic Ken Tucker says Fulks' new album "Gone Away Backward," is one of his most sustained and subtle efforts.
ROBBIE FULKS: (Singing) Daddy used to catch his supper in this river. Now you can't swim it. Smells like a 20 ton truck full of paint thinner sank down in it. Come visit a spell, see the plaque to our war fallen. Nothing but a good time. Some guy...
KEN TUCKER, BYLINE: With "Gone Away Backward," Robbie Fulks has made an album that feints in the direction of nostalgia while grappling very much with the here and now. Even for a singer-songwriter known for his clever twists and turns, it's a considerable achievement.
The song that led off this review, called "Where I Fell" is a softly beautiful melody encasing a lyric about an economically depressed area that's left the narrator hopeless, jobless and, perhaps soon, homeless. He feels trapped, and trapped and bitter is a mood at which Fulks excels; it exhilarates him.
FULKS: (Singing) It's rye grass in the wintertime, but flowers in the spring, but Texas in the summer is nigh on supreme. I went up on Jackson Hill. At a diner I sat down. And I waved at every stranger just to move the air around. It's long to ride for the little I gain.
TUCKER: The jaunty fiddle and banjo that propel that song, "Long I Ride," is an upper with a downer, a bluegrass breakdown in a couple of ways. The words describe a life spent dwelling in futility. At the same time, the music insists that the journey is a spirited one, not without its deep but fleeting pleasures.
In general, "Gone Away Backward" is a work of great, accomplished craft about the pointlessness of crafting anything you care about, because the world is just going to ruin it on you. That is, if you don't ruin it yourself by drinking it away.
FULKS: (Singing) One year free and single. And my, how we've grown. You swing with the stars while I'm in this bar drinking along. Yes, you're flying high. Live it up while you can. But when you get to the bottom, don't reach for my hand. Don't think 'cause I've fallen...
TUCKER: The centerpiece of "Gone Away Backward" is "That's Where I'm From," sung in the voice of a character who's living in the suburbs and hating it. But he puts up with it because he thinks it'll help his family's future. Nonetheless, he yearns for the bucolic landscape and lifestyle that he left behind from his childhood. It's a long song, one that takes its time building to its full intensity. Here's a chunk of the second verse.
FULKS: (Singing) Night school on a fast track, no cause to look back. That place put a scar on my soul. And I swore my young ones would never know hunger and a good life is all they know. Well, I've watched them grow. Now I see one thing separates them from me. And that's where I'm from, where time passes slower. That's where I'm from, where it's yes ma'am and no sir.
(Singing) You can't tell I'm country, just you look closer. It's deep in my blood. White collar and necktie, that's where I've come. Half naked in the moonshine, that's where I'm from.
TUCKER: Throughout this album, Fulks' voice has a ringing power - he's a casually amazing singer. The songs are filled with acoustic guitar, fiddle, banjo and mandolin. It partakes of folk, country, bluegrass and honky-tonk even as the shape of the songs and the content of the lyrics close off much chance of any one of these genres claiming the music as its own.
This has long been the difficulty of Robbie Fulks' commercial appeal, even as a work as vivid and moving as "Gone Away Backward" confirms his reputation. At one point here, he sings: You're living like there's no tomorrow. I live like there's only yesterday. But that's another bit of slyness. Fulks sees the present with clear eyes and a full heart.
GROSS: Music critic Ken Tucker reviewed "Gone Away Backward" by Robbie Fulks. You can download podcasts of our show on our website freshair.npr.org. You can follow us on Twitter at nprfreshair. Our blog is on Tumblr at nprfreshair.tumblr.com.
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.


text:
» ATK Natural & Hairy
» @
Photographer: Alex Production Images count: 156 Date published: 03/22/2013 Rating: 3.50 (8 voted)
Slender Russian hairy model Vasilisa spreads her hairy pussy wide and Alex Productions nicely captures her beautiful pink labia.
ATK Natural & Hairy Members Area: High Quality Photographs of Hot Hairy Women Home to one of the largest members areas on the Internet, ATK Natural & Hairy features weekly updates seven times a week. 6,000 fresh, guaranteed brand new images make their way to ATK Natural & Hairy every week - more content than you'll know what to do with. Trust us.
Honesty, Quality, Reliability and Trust. Since 1998, the ATK Natural & Hairy site has embraced these very principles. Further, this code has continued to be the driving force behind our success since the founding of the company. In these uncertain times, don't you want to have the guarantee of a company whose reputation is tried and true when you purchase online hairy porn?
In the members area, visitors to ATK Natural & Hairy know they can trust the ATK name. Beautiful nude hairy girls, delicious details of natural women and sexy hairy girl action of nearly every variety. You will never find a blind link or misleading ad anywhere on our site; just high resolution photographs, extended suites of photosets and amazingly beautiful women, all of whom are natural and unshaven. Nothing complicated and easy to navigate.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Myths About Acne
Article Translations: (Spanish)
Do you think you already know all there is to know about acne? You may be surprised that some of the things you've heard about acne — like what causes it and how to deal with it — aren't actually true. Keep reading to find out some fast facts.
Myth #1: Tanning clears up skin.
Fact: Although a tan may temporarily mask acne, the sun can make the skin dry and irritated, leading to more breakouts in the future. In fact, there's no link between sun exposure and acne prevention, but the sun's rays can cause premature aging and skin cancer. Always protect your skin by choosing a sunscreen of at least SPF (sun protection factor) 15 that says noncomedogenic or nonacnegenic on the label, which means it won't clog pores.
Myth #2: The more you wash your face, the fewer breakouts you'll have.
Fact: Although washing your face helps to remove dirt and oil from your pores, washing too much can lead to dryness and irritation, causing more breakouts. Also, avoid scrubbing your face, which can irritate the skin. As a general rule, wash your face twice a day with mild soap and water in a circular motion and gently pat dry when you're done.
Myth #3: Popping pimples will help them go away faster.
Fact: Popping a pimple may make it seem less noticeable temporarily, but popping can cause it to stay around longer. By squeezing pimples and zits, you can actually push bacteria, dead skin cells, and oil further into the skin, causing more swelling and redness — and sometimes causing a red or brown mark or scar to form. Sometimes marks can last for many months and true scars (dents and pits) will last forever.
Myth #4: Don't wear makeup if you want clear skin.
Fact: As long as you choose cosmetics that are nonacnegenic or noncomedogenic, they shouldn't cause breakouts. In fact, some concealers now contain benzoyl peroxide or salicylic acid, which help to fight acne. You can also try tinted benzoyl peroxide creams that hide pimples while helping treat them.
If you've had moderate to severe acne, though, talk to your doctor or dermatologist about the best cosmetics to use — he or she may recommend avoiding cosmetics altogether or only using certain brands so you're acne isn't aggravated.
And even if a product is labeled nonacnegenic or noncomedogenic, you should stop using it and talk to your doctor if you notice that it's irritating your skin or seems to cause breakouts.
Myth #5: If you keep getting breakouts, use more acne medicine until they stop.
Fact: Because acne medicine contains drying agents like benzoyl peroxide and salicylic acid, using too much may cause overdrying, leading to skin irritation and more blemishes.
If over-the-counter acne treatments don't seem to work for you, talk to your doctor or dermatologist. Also, if you're taking a prescription acne medicine, make sure you follow your doctor's instructions — some medications can take up to 8 weeks to make a real difference.
Note: All information is for educational purposes only. For specific medical advice, diagnoses, and treatment, consult your doctor.
© 1995-2024 KidsHealth ® All rights reserved. Images provided by iStock, Getty Images, Corbis, Veer, Science Photo Library, Science Source Images, Shutterstock, and Clipart.com


text:
Easy, super crispy, and freezer friendly, these tender chicken nuggets (with sweet and spicy dipping sauces) taste 10x better than store bought!
Chicken nuggets bring out the kid in all of us! They're crispy, tender, and absolutely delish dunked in tangy honey mustard or spicy ketchup sauce. Coated in crunchy panko breadcrumbs and fresh Parmesan, these little nuggets are almost too adorable to eat!
They're freezer-friendly, too! Bake them up, place in a resealable bag and freeze. Pop 'em in the microwave for a few minutes to warm them up. Kids will love 'em, and adults will gobble 'em up right alongside the kiddos! You can also make the sauces a few days ahead of time.
Need some tips for keeping weeknight meals quick and easy? Read on!
• Make a list of meals to make in the coming week! Consider 1-2 days for leftovers, if you think there will be any. Feeling uninspired for ideas? I've got you covered.
• Take stock of what you already have in your pantry, fridge and freezer. Whatever you need for each recipe, write it down, organize foods by category (Fruits, Dairy, Frozen, etc.), and get shopping!
• Fast meals are made slowly… as in with your slow cooker! That electric workhorse isn't just for hearty winter stews… it's great for pulled pork, chili, pot roast, baked potatoes and roast chicken!
• Prep, package and freeze as many ingredients as you can for the coming week. Or, cook your meals ahead of time, freeze and pop in the oven before dinnertime!
Crispy Baked Chicken Nuggets
- 1 cup panko breadcrumbs
- 1/3 cup grated Parmesan cheese
- 1/2 teaspoon salt
- 1 tablespoon vegetable or olive oil
- 2 boneless, skinless chicken breasts
- 1/2 cup all-purpose flour
- 2 large eggs, lightly beaten
- Nonstick cooking spray
- Honey Mustard or Spicy Ketchup, recipes below, for serving
- Preheat oven to 450 degrees F. Spread breadcrumbs on a rimmed baking sheet and bake until golden brown, 5-6 minutes. Once mostly cooled, transfer crumbs to a shallow dish. Stir in Parmesan, salt and oil; mix well.
- Set a wire rack on the baking sheet; lightly coat rack with cooking spray.
- Cut chicken into 1 1/2-inch pieces. Place flour and eggs in separate shallow dishes. In batches, coat chicken in flour, shaking off excess, dip in egg, then coat with breadcrumbs. Place on rack.
- Bake until chicken is cooked through, 10 minutes, flipping halfway through. Serve nuggets with sauces, if desired.
- Enjoy!
- Honey Mustard: Combine 3 tablespoons Dijon mustard and 2 tablespoons each mayonnaise and honey.
- Spicy Ketchup: Combine 1/4 cup ketchup, 3 tablespoons spicy chili sauce (such as Sriracha), and 2 tablespoons mayonnaise.


text:
His publisher Novello & Co. said in a statement Friday that Bennett died on Dec. 24 following a brief illness.
Bennett was nominated for Oscars for the scores for "Far from the Madding Crowd" in 1967, "Nicholas and Alexandra" in 1971 and "Murder on the Orient Express" in 1974.
A student of Pierre Boulez in 1957-58, Bennett's work evolved from the avant-garde to a more tonal style. As a pianist, he performed with singer Claire Martin and he recorded music by George Gershwin, Jerome Kern and Harold Arlen.
Bennett's extensive output included more than 200 works for the concert hall and 50 scores for film and television, five operas and miscellaneous works including settings of Christmas carols.
"Richard was the most complete musician of his generation -- lavishly gifted as a composer, performer and entertainer in a multiplicity of styles and genres," said Chris Butler, head of publishing for the Music Sales Group in London.
"He was a loyal friend to music, musicians, and music publishing and we will remember him with great respect and affection."
British composer Daryl Runswick said he had benefited from Bennett's help and encouragement.
"He was a cultured gay man and every aspect of his creativity was defined by elegance," Runswick wrote on The Guardian's website.
"He wanted, and achieved, a refined style in both his music and his life: that is why he went to New York, and was so happy there."
Bennett was born March 29, 1936, in Broadstairs near the English Channel coast, but his family moved to the safer area of Devon after war broke out. His mother, who had studied with the composer Gustav Holst and had sung in the first performance of "The Planets," was an early musical influence on her son.
"People ask what was the first piece of music I wrote. There was no first piece," Bennett said in an interview last year with The Guardian newspaper.
"I just scribbled away and eventually a C-major chord was there. I didn't ever decide I was going to be a composer. It was like being tall. It's what I was. It's what I did."
He moved to New York in 1979, following the end of a long relationship and feeling stifled in Britain. Stephen Sondheim and Leonard Bernstein supported his application for a green card work permit.
"I was doing a lot of things out of guilt," he said of his departure from Britain.
"I hated teaching composition. I was playing music I didn't particularly want to play, being on committees I didn't want to be on. I wanted to write music, and cook, and play cards, and have a nice time," The Guardian quoted him as saying.
In New York he indulged his passion for jazz, accompanying singer Claire Martin in shows at the Algonquin Hotel and drawing praise from The New York Times as "a sensitive, truly intimate collaborator."
He helped Paul McCartney with his orchestral work "Standing Stone," commenting on sections faxed by the former Beatle.
"I sent him one, thinking it was pretty good," McCartney said. "A few minutes later, I got a fax back with the word `feeble' scribbled across it.
"I phoned him straight back and said, `Richard, that's what my teacher wrote on my essays. You're a sensitive artist, and if you don't like something, could you please write, `That's a little below par?"'
Bennett coached Elizabeth Taylor to sing a nursery rhyme for the film "Secret Ceremony," for which he wrote the musical score. Prince Charles commissioned Bennett in 2005 to write "Reflection on a Scottish Folk Song" in honor of the prince's grandmother, Queen Mother Elizabeth.
Bennett was knighted in 1998. Funeral details were not announced.


text:
*(BPT) – Bundling insurance products with one company– and scoring cheaper premiums as a reward– isn't a new concept. But, according to a recent study by J.D. Power and Associates, not only is bundling still popular among consumers, it also results in higher customer satisfaction.
The study found that nearly 60 percent of customers bundle auto and homeowners policies with the same insurer. When customers need additional products – such as motorcycle, boat and life insurance – 77 percent of them choose to bundle. The study notes that insurance bundlers also tend to be more satisfied with their insurers overall, not just with the premium discounts they're getting.
Charles Valinotti, Head of Underwriting & Product with insurer QBE, says bundling insurance policies offers other benefits besides lower premiums.
"Customer convenience is one advantage," says Valinotti. "It's easier to manage insurance policies when you don't have to work with multiple insurers. And if you have a claim, you just need to call one company."
Bundling might also give you an edge when you file a claim. Valinotti says insurance companies are interested in keeping your business and will be open to renewing policies when there's a loss – unless it's something extreme.
How can you get the biggest bang out of your insurance bundle? Valinotti suggests:
• Take a look at all your insurance policies. If they're not with the same insurance company, you could be losing as much as 25 percent in bundling discounts on each car, as well as on your homeowners policy. Think about including your life insurance, as well, which could result in another 2 to 5 percent in savings.
• Consider adding an umbrella policy. If you own your home, an umbrella policy gives you extra liability protection on your home and car, and might earn you even more discounts to your homeowners and auto insurance.
• Research options for renters. If you don't own your home, bundling may still be an option. Look into bundling a renters policy with your car insurance, which might result in as much as a 20 percent discount on your auto coverage. Because renters insurance is inexpensive, it may almost pay for itself by savings through bundling.
• Investigate bundling with business policies. If you have a business, find out whether bundling your business policies will qualify you for discounts on your personal insurance.
Valinotti cautions that some auto or home insurance bundling discounts might not be available to people with poor driving records. He also advises not to base decisions on price alone. "Customer service is just as important to consider," he says.
Valinotti adds, "Make sure you speak with your agent about all available bundling options and choose those you're most comfortable with."


text:
Le Jardin
This fine framed artwork has a faux canvas treatment, recreating the original canvas look. It is finished in a beautifully contoured 2.75" two-tone burgundy frame with black accented throughout the centre. This canvassed artwork is complimented with a beige textured mat, creating an upscale appearance and added value.
The size dimensions for each picture are the OUTSIDE DIMENSIONS. (The frame is included).
regular: $359.96
regular: $599.96
regular: $139.96


text:
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Frozen Strawberry Souffle
From the kitchen of One Perfect Bite...The recipe for this light and airy creation comes from Wolfgang Puck, who learned how to make frozen souffles while working at Maxim's in Paris. This bears no resemblance to a baked souffle, and the recipe is easy enough that new cooks can successfully prepare the dish. The souffle is made with beaten egg whites and whipped cream. They are folded into a fruit base and frozen, without special equipment, to make a dessert that has a light, smooth consistency that is more like a frozen mousse than ice cream. We have very young children in our family, so, to avoid any chance of salmonella, we use pasteurized eggs in all dishes where eggs are not cooked. While they are beaten with a hot sugar syrup, in a process that is very similar to that used in making an Italian meringue, I don't think the eggs, as processed in this recipe, ever get hot enough to kill salmonella, should it be present. So, I've joined the "better safe than sorry" school of egg handling. I hope you will too. While the souffle is very easy to make and uses only five ingredients, it is an elegant and impressive dessert that is suitable for guests as well as family. This is a terrific recipe that also has instructions for making a lovely fruit syrup to spoon over the souffle. Any of the "cane" fruits can be used to make this dessert. It should be made the day before you need it , and the souffle should be transferred to the refrigerator about an hour before you plan to serve it. I know that those of you who try this won't be disappointed. Here's how it's made.
Frozen Strawberry Souffle...from the kitchen of One Perfect Bite, courtesy of Wolfgang Puck
1-1/2 quarts ripe strawberries, hulled + 4 strawberries for garnish
2 pasteurized egg whites
1/2 cup sugar
3 tablespoons water
1 cup heavy cream, whipped
Optional: Grand Marnier or kirsch, for the sauce
1) Set aside berries used for garnish. Place remainder of berries in bowl of a food processor. Process until pureed. Transfer to a storage bowl, cover, and refrigerate until well chilled.
2) When berries are chilled, place egg whites in a mixing bowl and beat with a hand-held electric mixer until they form soft peaks that droop when tested. Sprinkle in 2 tablespoons of sugar and continue beating until egg whites form stiff, shiny peaks. Set aside.
3) Place remaining 6 tablespoons of sugar and 3 tablespoons of water in a small saucepan. Cook over medium heat, stirring until sugar dissolves, and then continue cooking just until mixture starts to bubble and begins to thicken.
4) While continuing to beat egg whites, slowly pour hot syrup into egg whites. Continue beating until whites have cooled.
5) Using a rubber spatula, gently fold 1-1/2 to 2 cups of the strawberry puree into egg whites; reserve rest of puree in refrigerator for a sauce. Then, fold whipped cream into egg white mixture until thoroughly incorporated. Taste mixture and, if necessary, sprinkle in a little more sugar to taste.
6) Pour mixture into a 5- or 6-cup souffle dish. Cover with plastic wrap and freeze overnight.
7) Before serving, transfer frozen souffle to refrigerator to soften slightly. Meanwhile, pour remaining strawberry puree through a fine-meshed sieve into another bowl. Add a little sugar and a splash of Grand Marnier or kirsch to taste.
8) Scoop souffle into individual serving dishes. Spoon sauce around each serving and garnish with a whole berry. Serve immediately. Yield: 4 to 6 servings.
You might also enjoy these recipes:
Cold Lime Souffle - One Perfect Bite
Frozen Lemon Souffle - The English Kitchen
Iced Lime Souffles with Poppyseeds - La Tartine Gourmande
Deep Frozen Orange Souffles - Whisk
Frozen Coffee Liqueur Souffle - Five Star Foodie Culinary Adventures
Frozen Anisette Souffle - Foodista
Souffle Glace aux Framboise - Cookie Madness
62 comments :
- GLENDA CHILDERS said...
This would be perfect for the Fourth of July.
Thanks for your lovely comments, Mary, on my blog. I always enjoy your visits. - July 1, 2010 at 1:06 AM
- Jeannie said...
Wow! This looks perfect for a hot afternoon snack. Very tempting but strawberries are so expensive here!
- July 1, 2010 at 1:39 AM
- Baking is my Zen...sweet nibbles for the soul said...
Looks delish. The sauce looks heavenly.
Carmen - July 1, 2010 at 1:50 AM
- Monet said...
I also appreciate your comments. You can always make me smile. This looks like such a wonderful summer dessert. I would love to dip a few graham crackers into this bowl. - July 1, 2010 at 2:02 AM
- Diane said...
This is exactly what we need today with the hight temperatures that are predicted. Have a nice day, Diane
- July 1, 2010 at 2:18 AM
- The Cilantropist said...
I have been seeing recipes everywhere for these frozen souffles and I really want to try one! With strawberries it looks amazing, but I bet you could make one with any fruit right? Thanks for sharing!
- July 1, 2010 at 2:37 AM
- Bo said...
Looks amazing!!! Strawberry anything is my favorite!
- July 1, 2010 at 2:43 AM
- 3 hungry tummies said...
This will have to wait til summer for us. Stunning photos as usual Mary!
- July 1, 2010 at 2:56 AM
- Cherine said...
Looks so fresh and good!!
- July 1, 2010 at 3:02 AM
- PranisKitchen said...
mary u r making me hungery whata delcious souffle.. feel to taste some really nice pic too
- July 1, 2010 at 3:09 AM
- Sushma Mallya said...
i love strawberry and this souffle looks superb, beautiful colour and click mary,..and have a great day,take care
- July 1, 2010 at 3:16 AM
- Mary | Deep South Dish said...
Just beautiful!
- July 1, 2010 at 3:26 AM
- Priya Suresh said...
Incredible strawberry souffle, very tempting..
- July 1, 2010 at 3:42 AM
- Elisa said...
This screams summer! looks delicious
- July 1, 2010 at 4:01 AM
- Allie and Pattie said...
Lovely recipe Mary- I'm thinking perfect this weekend in Florida. Have a wonderful Fourth!
xoxo Pattie - July 1, 2010 at 4:17 AM
- Inspired by eRecipeCards said...
Ice cream without the gadgets.
great idea. Loved the title... i was racking my brain trying to figure out how to get the ice cream to climb the sides of a bowl - July 1, 2010 at 4:42 AM
- CinnamonChoc said...
i love strawberry!!and haven't try souffle yet.but it does look delicious!i love dessert very much.i hope i can try this 1 day :) it is a dessert right? =p
- July 1, 2010 at 5:20 AM
- The Words Crafter said...
I woke up really early and thought I'd get a head start on my blog reading...and now I want this for breakfast!
- July 1, 2010 at 5:34 AM
- Colours and Textures said...
Just the thing for a hot day like today, lovely.
- July 1, 2010 at 6:13 AM
- My Little Space said...
Mary, I wonder are your grandsons around? I bet they would top this up within a second! ^_^ Drooling! Hope you're having a wonderful time!
Cheers, Kristy - July 1, 2010 at 6:25 AM
- Rachana said...
I love strawberries and this souffle looks like a delectable summer dessert!
- July 1, 2010 at 6:36 AM
- CaSaundraLeigh said...
Wow, this sounds perfect for summer! I have never heard of a frozen souffle..very interesting! Hope your week is going well :-)
- July 1, 2010 at 7:04 AM
Sounds lovely...I ma going to make this too (along with all your other recipes I'm going to try!)
Have a great week Mary. - July 1, 2010 at 7:20 AM
- Joanne said...
I've never had or seen anything like this before, but if you say it tastes like strawberry mousse...I'm so in.
- July 1, 2010 at 7:28 AM
- Martha said...
Looks like a good summer dessert -- I've not done frozen souffles before although I've seen several recipes for them. But I may have to break down and try this recipe!
- July 1, 2010 at 7:38 AM
- penny aka jeroxie said...
Perfect for summer~ Clever dish.
- July 1, 2010 at 7:44 AM
- kayte said...
Perfect...I have everything on hand and a place to put it when it's done. Thanks for the recipe. Your photos of this are just lovely.
- July 1, 2010 at 8:41 AM
- Miss Meat and Potatoes said...
Wow Mary! That top picture makes me so happy - it's gorgeous! I have never heard of a frozen souffle until now. Can't wait to make this, admire it, then eat it:)
- July 1, 2010 at 9:23 AM
- Unknown said...
I didn't even know there was such thing as frozen souffles!! Now that I know, it's gonna have to be a must try. This would be perfect for today, it's suppose to be like 112 here today!!! Thanks for sharing this frosty creation!
- July 1, 2010 at 9:37 AM
- PeggyR said...
Oh that sounds good. I love anything with strawberries in it!
- July 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM
- CookiePie said...
What a lovely dessert, and so perfect for these hot summer days!
- July 1, 2010 at 9:43 AM
- Katerina said...
I totally agree with you regarding salmonela. Recently I found out that even raw mushrooms can carry it. So, I am very careful with those too. This creation of yours looks so refreshing and colorful.
- July 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM
- Bette said...
Beautiful! Can't wait to try it out this weekend!
I agree and give you kudos for the food safety message. If you can find the in-shell pasteurized eggs, they are wonderful! I use them in everything. - July 1, 2010 at 10:13 AM
- Vegetarian Yogini said...
gorgeous- and certainly stirring my appetite. Would be great to make it on 4th of July!.
- July 1, 2010 at 10:20 AM
- Angie's Recipes said...
What a light and summery treat!
- July 1, 2010 at 10:27 AM
- Susi's Kochen und Backen said...
Absolutely beautiful looking and I bet even better tasting. What a wonderful dessert and that sauce is over the top
- July 1, 2010 at 10:32 AM
- Valerie Harrison (bellini) said...
This is such a perfect summer dessert Mary. Strawberry season is coming to an end but the smaller berries are the most intensely flavoured and perfect for this dessert.
- July 1, 2010 at 10:52 AM
- Faith said...
What a brilliant idea! I imagine the texture of this so light and refreshing. What a great summertime dessert!
- July 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM
- Zurin said...
gorgeous n so easy. perfect refreshment on a hot hot day.
- July 1, 2010 at 11:41 AM
- Rettabug said...
Oh Mary....won't this be pretty in some tall stemmed goblets!
Thank you for the cautions re raw egg whites. Good advice, always.
Thank you for your kind words on my 4th of July tablescape. Would that I could cook (like YOU) as well as I set the table.
Have a Happy 4th of July!
The Gazebo House - July 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM
- Lauren said...
oh this looks fabulous!!! I really need to clean out my freezer and dust off the old ice cream maker this wekeend.
- July 1, 2010 at 12:04 PM
- Lyd Stew said...
Oh- this looks delightful! I'm so glad you found me so that I could find you! What a fabulous blog! I can't wait to get cooking! An incredible collection! Keep up the good work! I'll be back! :)
- July 1, 2010 at 12:08 PM
- DailyChef said...
Wow. such stunning pictures. I hope it turns out that good-looking when I try it.
- July 1, 2010 at 12:19 PM
- Salsa Verde said...
Hi Mary,
This recipe sounds so delicious and scrumptious!!
Lia. - July 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM
- Peggy Clyde said...
My, oh my, does this look delicious. Thanks.
- July 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM
- FOODESSA said...
Mary...optionals are my middle name...I'll certainly have to integrate the lovely Grand Marinier or why not Sambuca while I'm at it ;o)
Great refreshing and smooth dessert.
Thank you and flavourful wishes,
Claudia - July 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM
- Receitas para a Felicidade said...
- July 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM
- The Blonde Duck said...
I like it because it's pink!
- July 1, 2010 at 1:59 PM
- pigpigscorner said...
Frozen souffle? Sounds like a really interesting idea!
- July 1, 2010 at 2:15 PM
- redmenace said...
This looks absolutely divine and perfect for summer evenings! Thanks so much, also, for showing us how to make it kid (and pregnant woman!) friendly!
- July 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM
- From the Kitchen said...
This looks and sounds like a strawberry souffle that Edna Lewis taught me how to make twenty years ago on a foggy morning at Middleton Plantation in Charleston. Such lovely memories you have evoked--not to mention delicious!
Bonnie - July 1, 2010 at 2:42 PM
- Adventures in Domestic Cooking said...
This looks so refreshing!
- July 1, 2010 at 3:20 PM
- Ana Powell said...
So beautiful and delicious ♥
- July 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM
- Jen_from_NJ said...
Oh Mary - your photos are so gorgeous! What a great use for fresh strawberries.
- July 1, 2010 at 4:29 PM
- Biren said...
Looks like a wonderful dessert for this time of the year. I avoid all recipes with uncooked eggs and had not heard about pasteurized egg whites until now. Thanks for sharing.
- July 1, 2010 at 5:11 PM
- Cristie said...
What a wonderful looking dessert. I can't wait to give it a try. Thanks for the heads up on pasteurized eggs. I need to find a good source for them and be more responsible.
- July 1, 2010 at 5:12 PM
- Unknown said...
This recipe is a perfect summertime treat! Yummy!
- July 1, 2010 at 5:20 PM
- Kristen (wwfoodie) said...
This is an amazing technique! I can see it working with all sorts of lovely fruits. Perfect for the sultry summer evening!
- July 1, 2010 at 6:03 PM
- Krista said...
This looks fabulous...all light, airy, sweet, AND frosty. YUM!
- July 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM
- Deb in Hawaii said...
Beautiful--this frozen souffle looks so tasty and perfect to enjoy on a hot summer's evening. ;-)
- July 2, 2010 at 3:58 AM
- Ciao Chow Linda said...
Could there be a better dessert for the Fourth? Well, maybe your luscious strawberry cake.
- July 2, 2010 at 10:43 AM
- Gloria Baker said...
Absolutely lovely Soffle I love it, look georgeous! Blessings and have a nice week end, gloria
- July 2, 2010 at 12:39 PM


text:
«Convenient search. Instant price comparison.»
«Qualified support, fast search. Helpful tips.»
«Got a dream car! Memorable drive!»
«Plenty of info. Easy instant booking. »
«Wide car range. High service standards. »
Dream of comfort travelling with your family? Let us reserve our spacious minivan car hire Marseille - Airport [MRS], France for you!
Can't find a spacious vehicle for an affordable price anywhere? Our cheapest and finest minivans are for your high level of comfort! We offer you to save your money and time!
What will you get with CarHire24h.com?
We are trying hard to give you as many opportunities as possible. Compare prices for a minivan car hire Marseille - Airport [MRS], France in any car hire company you like in a second - Enterprise, AVIS, Budget, SIXT, Hertz, Thrifty, Alamo, Dollar, Fox, Payless, Ace, National, Europcar, E-Z and 800 more companies are gathered on our site.
You'll get the best minivan vehicle from the top car hire company with the help of our smart service!
Joining our car hire service, you will get not only an opportunity to compare vehicles and car hire companies!
Besides, we care about you to save your time, and gathered only the best car hire dealers on our site! You can make a booking of any vehicle you like, whether it will be minivan car hire Marseille - Airport [MRS], France, luxury or compact car!
Choose any car from our full vehicle fleet, which includes:
One of our shining vehicles is waiting for and you can choose it from leading suppliers for the best price! Just tell us what you need and we'll help you to find the vehicle of your dreams!
Fill in our search form and book minivan car hire Marseille - Airport [MRS], France in a moment!


text:
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Sonoran Hot Dog
From the kitchen of One Perfect Bite...This is the type of recipe that will cause hardcore foodies to bristle and run for the exits. True, hot dogs are not the stuff of which their dreams are made, so I can't blame them. There are, however, occasions when nothing is quite as satisfying as good old-fashioned grub, so, I'll clear a path and hold the doors for them as they leave the room. I've been mulling what to make for Super Bowl Sunday and I've finally got a fix on what I want to serve. Last year, I did variations of those dishes I lovingly call Asian junk food. There were plates of egg rolls, crab rangoon, barbecued pork and dumplings, as well as bowls of fried noodles served with a warm apricot dipping sauce. This year, mainly because Chinese New Year is also barrelling down on us, I decided I'd head down Mexico way and do a Southwestern feast. Robb Walsh developed a recipe for Sonoran hot dogs that I've wanted to try for the longest time and I thought they'd be perfect for Super Bowl Sunday. I did a test run tonight and am comfortable enough with the results to share the recipe with you. This is a dish that is, for the most part, assembled rather than cooked. You'll have to heat the oven and a frying pan, but the time consuming elements of this dish can be purchased ready made and simply layered into warm and waiting buns. I have access to Mexican bakeries where bolillos, the Mexican version of a torpedo roll, can be purchased. They are a perfect bun for this outrageous hot dog. They are thick enough to hold ingredients without disintegrating, but small enough to prevent the filling from being upstaged by the bread. I realize that most of you don't have access to specialty bakeries, so the best route for you to take is to buy sturdy, but soft, buns that are approximately the same size as your hot dogs. As long as the hot dogs don't sit too long before serving you'll be fine. Good hot dogs are important and those that "answer to a higher authority" would be an excellent choice to use here. You will also find these much easier to make if you use a really thin-sliced bacon. Hassles with layering can be avoided if you have everything set to go before you begin cooking the hot dogs. The original recipe calls for pan grilling the wieners on a comal, the griddle on which tortillas are cooked. I cooked mine under the oven broiler to simplify things and contain the mess. It works perfectly, as long as you rotate the hot dogs so all their surfaces cook. I really think you'll like these. I hope you'll give them a try. Here's the recipe.
Sonoran Hot Dogs...from the kitchen of One Perfect Bite inspired by Robb Walsh
3 tablespoons mayonnaise
1 teaspoon Tabasco or other hot sauce
Juice of 1 large lemon
8 all-beef wieners (fat ones work better than long ones)
8 slices extra-thin bacon
8 torpedo rolls or bolillos
1/2 cup warm refried beans
1 cup guacamole
1/2 cup grated jack or cheddar cheese
1/2 cup chopped onion
1/2 cup chopped tomato
1/2 cup Salsa Verde
1) Mix mayonnaise, Tabasco, and lemon juice and put into a squeeze bottle.
2) Wrap hot dogs with bacon slices, covering completely. Grill or broil them, rolling hot dogs until bacon is crunchy on all sides, about 7 minutes.
3) Cut a pocket into buns to form a "boat" and toast them in oven or on a grill.
4) When hot dogs are cooked, divide beans and guacamole among eight rolls, spooning them inside pocket and spreading on either side of rolls. Spread cheese down the middle. Using tongs put one piping-hot bacon-wrapped hot dog into pocket of each roll. Top each with onions and tomatoes. Spread Salsa Verde across top. Apply mayonnaise blend in squiggles over tops of hot dogs. Yield: 8 servings.
You might also enjoy these recipes:
Chimichanga Dogs - Girlichef
Dogzilla Hot Dogs - Mrs. Regueiro's Plate
Andersen Hot Dogs: Gourmet Style - Kalle Bergman's Honest Cooking
Seriously Scandinavian: Hot Dogs from the Cold North - Kalle Bergman's Honest Cooking
Chicago Red Hots - Food Nerd Ciao
Ultimate Bacon Cheese Dogs - Gourmet Mom on the Go
Spicy Mango-Pineapple Hot Dogs - Coconut and Lime
Coney Dogs - Real Mom Kitchen
Fancy Hot Dogs - Simply Recipes
Classic Chicago Hot Dog - Easy and Tasty Food
Hot dog lovers will want to see this feature in Bon Appetit: Global Hot Dog Guide
57 comments :
- Rhonda said...
Any foodie of worth appreciates a good hot dog, especially one with such delectable ingredients. I feel sorry for any foodie who can't appreciate a good hot dog when they see one!
- January 25, 2011 at 12:08 AM
- Monet said...
I agree with Rhonda! Ryan and I have been talking about how much we've been craving a hot dog. Maybe I'll surprise him with this tomorrow! Thank you for sharing your sonoran dog with me...I hope you have a great Tuesday...I'm already ready for the weekend :-)
- January 25, 2011 at 12:13 AM
- Faith said...
Sometimes you just have to have a hotdog and "those that answer to a higher authority" are always the ones I go for, lOvE my HBN's!
- January 25, 2011 at 12:18 AM
- Jeannie said...
I love the look of your hotdog Mary, the plate is very attractive too!
- January 25, 2011 at 12:50 AM
- The Chef In My Head said...
I've lived 46 years and still don't know what hot dogs are made of. Don't tell me, it must be really awful.
Your hot dogs look amaaaazing!! You are going to have some really happy Superbowl guests.
~Leslie - January 25, 2011 at 2:19 AM
- Lucie said...
Ah, what I wouldn't do for a true hot dog eaten back in the US right now! I love this version, it sounds like a lot of fun! And that is one beautiful plate!
- January 25, 2011 at 2:29 AM
- MaryMoh said...
I seldom eat hot dogs but this looks like one that I would eat. Love the presentation. Hope you have a wonderful day.
- January 25, 2011 at 2:48 AM
- Priya Suresh said...
WOuld love to eat rite now, soo attractive and tempting hot dog..
- January 25, 2011 at 2:59 AM
- Priyanka said...
loved the look of ur creation. Seeing this has given me a huge craving for hot dogs...
- January 25, 2011 at 3:01 AM
- Deana Sidney said...
This is just the time of year for serious comfort food and that doesn't mean it has to be fancy... great looking dog with do many good things on it... it is just bursting out of the bun! Perfect picture of a great dog!
- January 25, 2011 at 7:23 AM
- What's next said...
I'm don't make hotdogs often but you had me at bacon... these might need to be on our superbowl menu...
- January 25, 2011 at 7:25 AM
- From the Kitchen said...
Gasp--hot dogs?!!! This is just between you and me, Mary. O.K.? One of the first places I head when I go "home" each October is the Roanoke Wiener Stand on the city market--not the three star restaurant a few blocks away! Here in town, summer brings a colorful food cart to the village square and Chicago-style dogs are enjoyed sitting on the cement wall around the old courthouse. Why not for the Super Bowl, alas, sans Da Bears?!!
Bonnie - January 25, 2011 at 7:30 AM
- Kim said...
This dog look so good. It's been a while since I hade a hot-dog... I feel like I what to prepare a batch of yours... All these flavors... yummy!
- January 25, 2011 at 7:48 AM
- Lea Ann said...
You're apologizing for making a hot dog? I've got two torta rolls in the freezer, I believe they just found a home with this recipe. This sounds like it's bursting with unbelievable flavors. Thanks for the recipe.
- January 25, 2011 at 8:07 AM
- Unknown said...
More for me if they run for the exits, that's what I always say!! :) I LOVE Sonoran hot dogs....I had never had one until I moved to Arizona..and than not until I ventured down to Tucson. They are made slightly different though, as they will come with jalapenos and/or serrano peppers!!
- January 25, 2011 at 8:10 AM
- Carrie said...
I should have known you could even make a hot dog look super fancy and appetizing... ;)
- January 25, 2011 at 8:32 AM
- Big Dude said...
I grew up in a town with no less than a dozen small, stand alone hot dog shops and therefore thought they must be the one true dog. They had sauce (not chili), mustard, onion period. Only in the last few years have I realized that other areas (like Chicago) feel the same way about theirs. Since I eat them about every day when I go back home, you won't have to hold the door for me. These sound delicious and will be tried soon - I've expanded my horizons.
- January 25, 2011 at 8:43 AM
- Banana Wonder said...
I bet the smell was amazing when you were cooking these. Danger dogs - or bacon wrapped hot dogs served with Mexican condiments are synonymous to LA street food (where I moves from). Gotta love that panaderia bread too!
- January 25, 2011 at 8:47 AM
- carolyn bradford said...
These hotdogs look wonderful! This will have to be shared with my mother who is hotdog consosuer! (sp?) Anyway, pretty soon I will put up her recipe for Rueben Dogs that will make your mouth water! HBN are the best!
- January 25, 2011 at 8:53 AM
- T.W. Barritt at Culinary Types said...
I stand with you in solidarity as a fan of the hot dog! Of course, it's not just the dog, but the fixings that make the experience, and you've given us a feast here! And, for the hard core foodies, there are plenty of artisanal, natural hot dogs available these days, too.
- January 25, 2011 at 8:55 AM
- Unknown said...
Hotdogs and football, I think that's a natural combination!
I also think this recipe would make perfect tailgating fare for next fall, when we can see our favorite teams back in the hunt;-) - January 25, 2011 at 9:12 AM
- Nourhan @ Miss Anthropist's Kitchen said...
YUM! This looks absolutely delicious! I want to make these :)
- January 25, 2011 at 9:40 AM
I have never been a fan of hot dogs but you might get me to try one if this was in front of me!
- January 25, 2011 at 9:43 AM
- June said...
You'll have a lot of happy happy people at your Super Bowl party as you serve these. They're a real hit and very popular in our desert "town".
- January 25, 2011 at 9:45 AM
- Brandie@thecountrycook said...
Mary - you are speaking my language. I think this kind of food appeals to most folks. I don't cook for hard core foodies. I cook for myself and friends and family. I love this recipe and I know many folks around me who would love this too! Wonderful picture as well!
- January 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM
- Gloria Baker said...
Wow look amazing Mary, love hot dogs!! gloria
- January 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM
- Unknown said...
We eat hotdogs at least twice monthly because I just love them. I love the ingredients you combined on this one.
- January 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM
- Barbara said...
I may be a foodie Mary, but there is nothing like an old fashioned hot dog at a baseball game. So I can get down and dirty with the rest of the world!
But you have raised the hot dog to a new level! A brilliant concoction chock full of delicious things. Hot dog kudos to you! - January 25, 2011 at 11:57 AM
- That Girl said...
I can't imagine any hard core foodie snubbing their nose at this, it looks far more gourmet than one of the local specialties here: hotdogs wrapped in bacon.
- January 25, 2011 at 12:07 PM
- Joanne said...
I actually strongly dislike hot dogs but I bet this would be amazing with a really good chicken sausage!
- January 25, 2011 at 12:18 PM
- Clint said...
Let me put it this way...any hardcore foodie that needs help headin' for the exits because you are serving the greatest hot dog in the history of hotdogology should count on me for help.
The fewer people in the room, the more for moi.
Excellent, excellent post! - January 25, 2011 at 12:23 PM
- ♥Sugar♥Plum♥Fairy♥ said...
Am sure id loveee to go the mexican bakeries with u too and this is givin me a craving and making me sooo hungry , am off to look for a snack:-)and no dry fruits wont suffice after this:-)
- January 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM
- teresa said...
now THAT'S a hotdog! like you said, nothing is more satisfying then a good old dog. especially when it's dressed up like this!
- January 25, 2011 at 12:42 PM
- Umm Mymoonah said...
Looks really delicious, although I'm not a big fan of hot dog, your recipe tempts me to have some.
- January 25, 2011 at 12:55 PM
- Tasha said...
While I don't eat them frequently, there are times when a hot dog is just good stuff (to me, there is a magical combination of a baseball game, hot dog and cold beer!) With toppings like this, how could it be anything but awesome??
- January 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM
- Catherine said...
Looks and sounds delicious, Mary!
- January 25, 2011 at 1:25 PM
- Kristen said...
Aloha, Mary!
Thank you for stopping by my blog and for the kind words. You're blog is beautiful, and that hot dog is definately on my list of things to try!
Kristen - January 25, 2011 at 2:03 PM
- Eileen said...
This sounds like a great hot dog! I am going to try the recipe over the next couple weeks - it would be perfect for Superbowl Sunday. I am fortunate to live in an area with easy access to fabulous Mexican food, etc., so I'll have to look for the rolls. Thanks for the inspiration!
- January 25, 2011 at 2:20 PM
- Emily Z said...
I LOVE hot dogs, so this looks utterly amazing to me! I like the cheap kinds you get at the ballpark or the gourmet kinds you can get elsewhere. I will take hot dogs any time, any way! :)
- January 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM
- Terri Steffes said...
I am going to have to do this for my Super Bowl Party! Thanks for sharing it in advance!
- January 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM
- PeggyR said...
Oh gosh this looks good! I love hot dogs!
- January 25, 2011 at 5:06 PM
- xinex said...
I like hot food, Mary, so I will enjoy this for sure....Christine
- January 25, 2011 at 6:17 PM
- Medeja- CranberryJam said...
Im not big fan of hot dogs :) but this one looks and sounds really good and Im sure I would love to try it :) thanks for the recipe :)
- January 25, 2011 at 6:19 PM
- Rivki Locker said...
This is definitely what I would call 'good old-fashioned grub.' I love it! Thanks so much for stopping by my blog and leaving such kind words. I'm pretty new to this and it's great to hear your words of encouragement. Thank you, and I am delighted to have discovered your site too. What beautiful photos and fun-looking recipes. - Rivki
- January 25, 2011 at 6:48 PM
- Kankana said...
My fav hot dog ! and you made it so well .. yummy !!
- January 25, 2011 at 6:57 PM
- Ginny Hartzler said...
Wow, these have everything in them, they are a whole meal!! I was just picking over the hot dogs the other day, some looked so nasty, it even looked like there was blood in some of the packages!! I like the new Ball Park Angus lite or beef lite. Also Nathan's, and have heard that Hebrew National are the best. What do you like?? What kind will you be buying?
- January 25, 2011 at 7:26 PM
- Faith said...
These look fantastic, Mary, and what a great idea for the Superbowl! Sometimes a good hot dog is the only thing that will hit the spot, and this one looks amazing!
- January 25, 2011 at 7:59 PM
- scrambledhenfruit said...
I do love a good hot dog, and haven't had one in ages. This is the kind I like though- lots of delicious toppings. :)
- January 25, 2011 at 9:22 PM
Oh wow! This looks great! I haven't had a hot dog in forever...I suddenly am craving one like crazy!! :)
- January 25, 2011 at 9:28 PM
- Spoon and Chopsticks said...
Sounds great with Tabasco and Salsa Verde.
- January 25, 2011 at 10:16 PM
- Miriam said...
Guacamole is great on anything! Have fun!! Miriam@Meatless Meals For Meat Eaters
- January 26, 2011 at 12:15 AM
- Angie's Recipes said...
This is one delicious looking hot dog! Love that you used guacamole here.
- January 26, 2011 at 1:19 AM
- Mary Bergfeld said...
Rhonda, I'm unable to connect to your blog, so I'll thank you for your supportive comment here. Have a great day. Blessings...Mary
- January 26, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Big fan of the Indian from the Bon Appetit Around the World in 80 Hot Dogs issue:
http://www.bonappetit.com/magazine/2009/07/international_hot_dogs - January 26, 2011 at 12:52 PM
- Rosy said...
I'm a huge fan of gourmet style hot dogs. It looks delicious. So glad you found me so I could find your blog. Love it.
- January 26, 2011 at 4:19 PM
- We Are Not Martha said...
My fiance would LOVE this. He's always trying to get me to make hot dogs and I'm always resisting. But this? This I could do!
Sues - January 26, 2011 at 7:04 PM
- Prema said...
Really tempted on ur recipes...Love this hot dog recipe too...
- January 26, 2011 at 9:28 PM


text:
...drive around town with Bill Murray looking for a weather forecaster who has no shadow. Which I think makes the weather forecaster a vampire.
Ah, American holidays*.
Today is also the day when we find out if winter will end soon or not.
[clickety click click click]
Yeah. Good luck with that, every-state-but-Florida.
So, unless shadowless weather forecasters are run over by rodent and celebrity driven automobiles, I'd say most of you are due to see a lot more of this:
"Squashed octopodes?"
Er, no. I mean this:
"Blue crabs?"
No, no, no!
[crickets chirping]
Oh, never mind.
Happy Grounn Dhog Day, y'all.
Thanks to Brenda M., M.Z., Melissa B., Saundra, Karen C., Jamie, & Kevin H., who would like to remind you to never drive angry. Especially with a quadruped.
*Actually, I hear Canadians celebrate Groundhog Day, too. Except their vampire weather forecasters use beavers to raise the stakes. [insert beaver joke here] [insert 'BWAHAHAHA!' here] [insert apology for beaver joke here]


text:
If an approval poll existed for the imposing Washington Headquarters Service federal building rapidly rising on the fringe of Interstate 395, the Department of Defense, which owns the building, would make up its only positive percentage points if any positives exist at all.
Rep. Jim Moran (D-8) said Tuesday that he will not pursue federal funding for a ramp option that connects the highway to WHS at Mark Center on the city's west side. Moran's decision sticks a thorn in the side of the Pentagon, which now inherits the onus but no money to help solve the congestion issues that will come once the 6,400 employees begin commuting to and from the site in 2011.
"The reality is, it's up to me and I'm not going to fund it, so it's over," Moran said after briefing the City Council on that and other federal issues. "It's a done deal. It's the Pentagon's problem. If the city or the state wants to fund it, be my guest, but that's not realistic."
Moran opposed the Mark Center as the site for WHS from its inception, citing the lack of transportation infrastructure a site with no Metro station next to an already highly congested highway.
As the building progressed (and certainly before ground was broken), more and more residents began speaking out against the building's impact on the Winkler nature preserve in addition to negative effects on their neighborhoods. Options presented by VDOT suggested cutting through the park, which is widely used as an educational source for children and other residents.
"Going through the nature preserve is only going to marginally alleviate congestion anyway, and it's hardly worth the destruction," Moran said. "It's not even an adequate alternative."
Jodie Smolik, exectuive director of the Winkler Botanical Preserve, called Moran "a hero and a champion" for helping to save the site at least for now.
Before the federal government selected Mark Center as its site, City Manager Jim Hartmann wrote a memo to the City Council indicating that two plots in Alexandria the Victory Center and Mark Center would be adequate for an Army satellite administrative building should the government want them. Even before it became clear that Mark Center would require new entrance and exit ramps for commuters, city officials and residents had been vocally unsupportive of any plan by VDOT that would negatively impact the botanical preserve.
But their hands have been tied, and they remain idle.
"It wasn't the city that was out marketing the sites at all," Mayor Bill Euille said. "Victory Center was up front, Mark Center evolved. The city manager and staff weighed both sights, but there was nothing we could do once [the land was sold]."
The federal government owns the building, cancelling out revenue from property taxes, but officials hope to see gains in the form of restaurant and retail revenue.
While no solution to the congestion issue has been made, the congressman assured the mayor that he would help arrange a meeting between the city and high-ranking Pentagon officials to figure one out.
The site will also bring 6,400 more people to protect in Alexandria's city limits, but there is no solution yet as to how the city will pay for the extra public safety costs necessitated by the building.
"It is wholly unfair to be asking the citizens of Alexandria to meet the public safety needs," Moran said.
Moran likened the situation to the '90s when Jack Kent Cooke wanted to build his Redskins' stadium in Alexandria to make a profit, but rely solely on the city's resources for public safety only this time, ground has actually been broken.


text:
We Have One Of The Largest Radiators and Heater Stock On Hand.
Caution! Important Info Below
Cooling system may be under pressure and could burn you if opened when the engine is hot.
The Basics Behind Radiator Services at Townside Automotive.
The radiator on your car helps keep your engine cool. An overheated engine will lead to a breakdown, so radiator maintenance is very important to the overall functionality of your vehicle. The radiator sits at the front of the engine bay and is constructed with slim, hollow channels that run from the inlet tank to the outlet tank. Liquid coolant gets pumped through a sequence of tubes to the engine, where the liquid is warmed by the working engine. After the coolant passes through the engine, it makes its way to the radiator, which is constructed so that the flowing liquid is cooled by air passing through the radiator. The air is allowed in through the grill on the front of the car. Once the liquid is cooled down again, the coolant cycles back through the engine to absorb more heat in a continuous cycle to keep the engine working at optimal temperatures.
Why should you have your radiator Serviced, Repaired or Replaced at Townside Automotive?
It's extremely important to repair or replace your radiator if it isn't working properly. If you think your radiator is malfunctioning, there are signs that might help you determine the appropriate time to schedule a service. One sign that your radiator isn't working could be an elevated temperature gauge, which is an indication that your engine may be overheating. Another sign of a malfunctioning radiator is a green, yellow, or orange puddle of coolant under your car, which may point to a radiator leak. Radiators spring leaks due to corrosion. If you notice problems with your radiator, contact us and we'll determine if your radiator needs to be repaired or replaced.
We proudly service the Radiator needs of customers in Victoria, B.C., and surrounding areas.
Radiator Repairs | Re-coring | Pressure testing | Radiators/Fuel Tanks
Heater Core Repairs | Marine Heat Exchangers