“I’m committed to preventing the staff from taking the last bottle of merlot,” Professor Plum said as he walked into the mail room.
He read the mail…. (More)
Professor Plum then left with Ms. Scarlet to join the resident faculty in the
wine cellar library, where they’ll spend the weekend drinking thinking on our motto of Magis vinum, magis verum (“More wine, more truth”).
In the staff poker game, the
Professor of Astrology Janitor was committed to preventing Chef from completing a flush. He opened by calling the big blind with a pair of black Kings. Chef raised, as the Professor of Astrology Janitor expected. He put in a pot-sized re-raise, hoping to take the pot there, but instead Chef called.
The flop brought the King and Six of Hearts and the Jack of Clubs. Chef checked and the
Professor of Astrology Janitor faced a choice. His three Kings were the best possible hand at that moment. But if Chef had a hand two Hearts, the flop gave her lots of possible winners, as any of the nine remaining Hearts would make her flush. If she had the Ace-Queen or Ace-Ten of Hearts, the inside straight draw offered three more possible winners. The Professor of Astrology Janitor put in a pot-sized bet, again hoping to take the pot then and there. But again, Chef called.
The Jack of Hearts on the turn was perfect. If Chef held two Hearts, she now had a flush. But the
Professor of Astrology Janitor now had a full house with three Kings and two Jacks. He checked, and Chef now checked behind him.
The river brought the Three of Spades. It changed nothing, and the
Professor of Astrology Janitor was sure his full house was good. He considered checking yet again, but wondered if Chef would bet a flush with a pair on the board. He decided she might not, and he wanted his hand to pay off. So he put in a half-pot-sized bet …
… and Chef raised all-in. That left exactly three possibilities. Chef might an Ace-high Heart flush and not think the
Professor of Astrology Janitor had a pair of Kings for a full house. Or she might have the other two Jacks, for four of a Kind. Or she might be bluffing.
The first was the most likely. “I’ll call,” the
Professor of Astrology Janitor said, turning over his Kings.
“Ouch,” Chef said as she turned over her Jacks. “I got really lucky.”
Professor of Astrology Janitor began his plaintive mewling, and Chef went to the kitchen to make her Chicken and Rice Breakfast Casserole, leaving your lowly mail room clerk to review the week’s correspondence….
Dear Ms. Crissie,
I know I said the Senate should hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. But I’ve changed my mind. I have examined Judge Garland’s record and didn’t need hearings to conclude that the nominee’s judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court. I remain committed to preventing this president from putting another justice on the highest court in the land.
Jerry in KS
We admire your capacity for double-speak. On the one hand, you list a series of inaccurate but facially legitimate reasons for rejecting Judge Garland. But you give the game away with your last sentence, admitting that your real objection is not to Judge Garland himself, but to President Obama nominating any replacement for Justice Scalia. At least you didn’t repeat Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley’s absurd argument about “ensuring the American people have an opportunity to make their voices heard during this pivotal election, and that the Senate should consider the nominee submitted by the next president.”
Neither the Constitution nor historical precedent preclude a sitting president from nominating Supreme Court Justices during his last year in office. We conclude that the American people already made their voices heard on who should nominate judges to fill U.S. Supreme Court vacancies from January 2013 to January 2017 … when we re-elected President Obama in 2012.
Dear Ms. Crissie,
I think the problem is that Republicans only respect elections if they win. Also, how do I make Chef’s Chicken and Rice Breakfast Casserole?
Hungry for Justice in Blogistan
Dear Hungry for Justice,
We agree that you cut to the core of the problem. Many Republicans have never acknowledged President Obama’s legitimacy. When he won in 2008, many claimed the election was stolen by ACORN. When he won again in 2012, many claimed “voter fraud.” Simply, many of them do not believe Barack Obama should ever have occupied the Oval Office, and don’t want him to cement his legacy by changing the balance of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As for Chef’s Chicken and Rice Breakfast Casserole, first cook two servings of white rice. While the rice simmers, cut 1 large, grilled chicken breast into ½-inch cubes and stir it in a large skillet with a 10½-ounce can of cream of chicken soup and ½ cup of water, 1 Tablespoon of white wine, 1 clove of minced garlic, 2 thinly-sliced green onions, and salt and black pepper to taste. Warm the chicken-and-soup over low heat until the rice is ready. Then stir the rice into the chicken-and-soup mix and bake uncovered at 350º for 15-20 minutes, until the soup bubbles. Sprinkle the top with 1 cup of shredded cheddar cheese and return to the oven for 5-10 minutes, until the cheese is melted. Bon appétit!
Photo Credit: Associated Press