Lentil Pizza

We grew, and still do, lentils and peas on the farm. For years we had a stack of recipe pamphlets from the Idaho and Washington Pea and Lentil on the farm to give away to friends and relatives. Some of these recipes were quite unique and I, being a big fan of trying different things, was intrigued by them.

Long, long ago, shortly after I was married, I would occasionally make lentil pizza from one of these recipes. People look at me oddly when I ask if they have ever tried lentil pizza but that is before they tasted it. It takes quite a bit of time but it’s a unique food and occasionally worth the time.

In various moves and life changes I lost the pamphlets and perhaps five or ten years ago I stopped by what is now called USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council to pick up some more. Of course during the passage of a few decades they changed the pamphlets. The new pamphlets did not have the pizza recipe and I was concerned that I had lost the recipe forever.

But during the unpacking from a more recent move I found one of the pamphlets. And to make sure that I will always be able to find it, after all the Internet is forever, I’m posting the recipe here.

Old World Pizza
(Split peas or lentils plus a rice crust give it newness)

For two 12-inch pizzas, 16 servings, you will need:

Crust for two pizzas
5 cups cooled cooked white rice
4 eggs, slightly beaten
1 and 1/2 cups shredded Cheddar cheese

Mix together with a fork. Put half of mixture in each of 2 well-oiled 12-inch pizza pans. Spread evenly and press against bottom and sides. Bake at 450 F (hot oven) for 20 minutes. One sheet pan, 10” x 15” x 1” may be used. Note: 1 cup white rice, uncooked, makes 3 cups cooked rice.

Topping for two pizzas
1 and 1/3 cups cooked mashed hot or warm lentils or split peas
1 pound bulk pork sausage
3-15 ounce cans (approx. 6 cups) tomato sauce
3/4 teaspoons garlic powder
2 teaspoons dried crushed oregano leaves
2 teaspoons dried crushed thyme leaves
1/2 teaspoon dried crushed basil leaves
salt, taste before adding
1 and 1/2 cups shredded Mozzarella cheese

Mash or whip cooked drained lentils or split peas, leaving some whole. Cook bulk sausage until well-done, but not hard and lumpy. Drain off fat and add to mashed lentils or split peas. Mix well.

Combine tomato sauce, plain or with mushrooms, and seasonings except salt. Taste, tomato sauces vary. For powered herbs, use half as much; fresh herbs twice the amount. Spread 1/2 over each rice crust. Sprinkle 1/2 of lentil-sausage mixture evenly over the sauce of each pan, then the Mozzarella cheese and a dusting of grated Parmesan or Romano cheese if desired.

Just before serving time, bake at 450 F for 10 minutes. Each pan cuts into 8 generous servings. The second pan my be freezer-wrapped and frozen, to be backed at a later date. Give an extra 5 minutes for baking from the frozen state.

This unusual low-cost pizza is not a “finger food.” Serve (with a fork), a tossed green salad, and fresh fruit. Why not use this menu for a novel Sunday Brunch? A budget-bonus: the lentils or split peas, added to the sausage, serve as a meat stretcher and protein-extender in the filling, another way of getting more-for-your-money main dishes.

I haven’t made this for Barb’s family yet. Barb has been very polite when I mention this recipe and hasn’t even made funny noises when I say something about it. The facial expressions have been more than adequate to communicate her skepticism.

Quote of the day—Mr Wiseguy

Sometimes – as sad as it is – only violence stops violence. The next middle-class white kid that wants to go postal should do a service to his country and do it at the NRA headquarters.

Mr Wiseguy
December 16, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[There are two ways to interpret this. One is that Mr. Wiseguy wants such a person to be quickly stopped with a minimal loss of life. The other is Mr. Wiseguy wants the people at NRA headquarters murdered.

I’m inclined to believe the latter interpretation is correct. Otherwise he might have avoided the ambiguity by suggesting the event occur at a police station or a military gun range where the good guys are more likely to be in armor, relatively well trained, and with loaded guns.

Hence, I have to tentatively conclude Mr. Wiseguy is advocating for the murder of NRA employees. You shouldn’t be surprised by this. It’s an inherent part of their nature.—Joe]

North Idaho Socialist Party

Brother Doug also sent me this today:

I stumbled across this story in the June 29, 1928 edition of the Clearwater Tribune.



The Clearwater Tribune is published in Orofino Idaho which is in Clearwater County. The advocacy for the nationalization of natural resources is interesting to me. So how did that work out for Venezuela and their oil recently? Or maybe the farm land in the USSR at the time of this article?

Grandma Huffman

Brother Doug sent me this today:


He also sent this:

Sadie’s obituary was published in the lower left corner of the front page of the May 29, 1925 edition of the Clearwater Tribune. There are at least two errors. She was born in 1896, not 1897. Her age was 28 years, 9 months and 15 days, rather than 28 years, 3 months and 15 days. The text below is without any corrections.

Death of Sadie Huffman

At 8 o’clock a.m. May 24th, Mrs. Sadie Huffman passed from this life at the age of 28 years, 3 months and 15 days after an illness of a year or more. She was buried in the Teakean Cemetery, May 25th with services by the Rev. Dietrick.

Sadie Carey was born near Teakean August 9th, 1897, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Carey. She grew to womanhood in the Teakean section and spent her entire life there with the exception of a year and a half in California. She is survived by her husband, Cecil Huffman and a twenty-one month old son, Lowell, also her father and mother and several brothers and sisters and other relatives.

A chink created in GCA68

Via Dave Hardy and WSJ. This is a really big deal:

This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person “who has been committed to a mental institution,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), violates the Second Amendment. Twenty-eight years ago, Clifford Charles Tyler was involuntarily committed for less than one month after allegedly undergoing an emotionally devastating divorce. Consequently, he can never possess a firearm. Tyler filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court dismissed Tyler’s suit for failure to state a claim. Because Tyler’s complaint validly states a violation of the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand.

This creates a significant chink in GCA68:

In this case of first impression, we consider not the what, where, when, or why of the Second Amendment’s limitations—but the who.6 Specifically, does the Second Amendment forbid Congress from prohibiting firearm possession by all individuals previously committed to a mental institution?

It also reviews the level of scrutiny being applied by other courts, expends several pages on it, and:

We conclude our explanation of choosing strict scrutiny with a reminder of intermediate scrutiny’s shaky foundation in Second Amendment law.

Strict scrutiny it is!

With strict scrutiny the law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. The fact that someone was once confined to a mental institution does not mean they should necessarily be prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the rest of their life.

The same could easily be said of those who have committed non-violent felonies.

This ruling could help end the “sporting purpose” test and the Lautenberg Amendment.

Although this was in the sixth circuit and not the ninth which covers Washington State you can see how strict scrutiny would mean the end of the most onerous portions of I-594. How can a law preventing students in a classroom from passing a an unloaded firearm to another student be considered “narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest”? The only way that can be true is if the state interest is that there not be a right to keep and bear arms.

Quote of the day—kglnyc

Our society is at fault for allowing people like you and the NRA for creating a national epidemic of gun violence, and one day we will be able to take reasonable legislative actions to control you murderous, greedy, insensitive elements and live freer and more safely.

December 16, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[I’m going to ignore all the factual and logical errors and focus on the really important issue here…

And just what “legislative actions” would normally be taken to control those who are “murderous”?

As I have said before, one might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from people like him.—Joe]

Classic dog shoots man story

This is via an IM from David M. at my work.

Someone wasn’t following all the gun safety rules:

Sheriff Steve Kozisek said Richard L. Fipps, 46, of Sheridan had driven to Murphy Gulch Road with two employees to move a vehicle that had become stuck. Fipps was standing beside his truck as chains were being removed from the front of it when he was shot.

Kozisek said Fipps told a dog in the front seat of the truck to get into the back seat. Among other personal items laying on the back seat was a .300 Winchester Magnum with the safety apparently turned off. The dog managed to discharge the weapon, which fired through the cab of the truck.

The gun wasn’t in use. It should have been unloaded and in a case. Now he may lose his arm. He and others could have been killed by this single shot.

Grandpa King

I never met my mother’s father or my dad’s mother. They both died of tuberculosis when my parents were children. Today I received the obituary for my Grandpa King from brother Doug. He received it from a former neighbor of ours who we briefly went to grade school with and is now heavily into genealogy.

The following is the transcript from the Washington State College Alumni Newsletter Volume XXII, Number 8, November 1932 (it is now called Washington State University):

In Memoriam


Raymond McKinley King, aged 33, a 1921 graduate from the State College, died recently at his home in Los Angeles, California, after a long illness.  He was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Elmer King of Davenport and a brother of Carl and Ervin King, prominent Pullman farmers.

He was born January 26, 1899, at Davenport and received his early education in the grade and high school of that town, later matriculating at the State College.  He was prominent in athletics, winning letters in both football and track, and served as president of his class during his senior year.  He was a member of Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, Alpha Zeta fraternity and the Gray W club.

While a member of the officers’ training corps at the State College he contracted influenza, from which tuberculosis developed.  Several times he was pronounced cured of the disease, but each time it recurred and finally claimed his life.

On August 28, 1924 he was married to Charlotte Verna Davies, a college student and member of Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority.  Mrs. King, with the two children, Grace Ellen, seven, and Lewis Ray, five, survive him.

Following graduation Mr. King farmed in the Joel neighborhood, near Moscow, but went to Los Angeles to enter the veterans; hospital, where he remained two years, then taking up his home in that city, where the family has resided since.

Mr. King was apparently in good health when he arose in the morning, according to word from Los Angeles.  He ate a hearty breakfast, but complained of feeling very tired and laid down to rest, soon passing quietly away.

Mr. King was very popular during his student days at the State College and was an outstanding athlete of powerful physique.  He made friends easily and was admired by all who know him for his friendly disposition and splendid character.

He is survived by his widow and two children, by his parents at Davenport, two brothers near Pullman and a sister, Mrs. Karl Kurtz, of Los Angeles.

There almost certainly a genetic component to personality and I know both of Raymond King’s children, all of his grandchildren, all the great grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren I know have (or had) a very pleasant personality. In the last three years both children, one grandchild, and one great-grandchild passed away. My mom and cousin Larry passed away within a few days of each other almost exactly two years ago.

I probably got at least some of the genes for my height from my Grandpa King. Grandpa Huffman was only about 5’ 10” although his brother Walt Huffman was 6’ tall. My Grandma King was tall for a woman of that era at about 5’ 8”. But my Grandma Huffman and both my parents were of average height or a bit on the short side.

I knew Great Uncle Carl and Great Aunt Ann (Grandpa King’s brother and sister-in-law), fairly well. Uncle Carl played in the first Rose Bowl (they won 14-0). It probably was the 50th anniversary when the surviving players of the first game were honored with a trip to Pasadena and stood in the end zone for a bit during half-time. I remember Mom watching the game on TV which was unique. We never watched sports in our family. We saw a group of men standing in the end zone for a few seconds and then the network switched to a commercial. We were all disappointed we didn’t get to really see him on TV.

We would visit Uncle Carl and Aunt Ann once or twice during the year as they lived less than two hours away on a farm in the Palouse. They visited us on our farm too. Dad and Uncle Carl always talked about crops, weather, and equipment.

One time when we were visiting relatives in California Uncle Carl and Aunt Ann were about to take a cruise to Hawaii from (probably) Los Angles. I probably was five or six years old at the time. We got to go on the ship for a hour or so and look around. I misunderstood and thought we were going to go on the cruise too. I was disappointed when we had to get off before it left the dock. My most vivid memory is of everyone on the dock and the ship waving at each other and the colorful paper streamers that were thrown across the gap from each side. There was  large machine that made a pass between the dock and the ship severing all the streamers before the ship pulled away. I remember asking why they did that. Dad thought there were so many of them that even though each was easily broken combined they could do damage to something from the pulling on the dock and ship. I doubt that now. More likely is that they didn’t want the paper in the water so it would be easier to clean up.

What if?

What if there were a county in Washington State that publically announced they would not enforce the I-594 provisions (H/T to Say Uncle and Miguel) against people who were not prohibited from gun ownership?
Could people travel to that county, do a private sale, and return to, say, King County and be immune from prosecution by the tyrants in King County because the “crime” occurred in a county out of their jurisdiction?

If that were the case then wouldn’t it mean I-594 is essentially unenforceable everywhere unless there were witnesses or compelling evidence that such travel and sale did not occur?

I asked this question of a lawyer friend who said, in part:

I’m not sure that the King county courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the county borders. Of course, the King county prosecutor could always charge their residents with criminal conspiracy or racketeering (if they somehow discovered that an offense had occurred).

A couple of things I’ve been working on re: 594: I’m trying to get a model ordinance going at the county level that designates areas where shooting occurs (someone’s backyard for instance) as an “approved range” if no other zoning ordinance would be violated.  I’m hoping to get this going in Whitman soon- maybe it will spread. If you know people who live in “good” counties that might be interested in taking this to their commissioners, send them my way.

If you are one of those people that live in a “good county” send me an email and I’ll forward it on to my lawyer friend.

The anti-gun people think they are clever and that we are just “stupid, uneducated rednecks.” I wonder how long they will hold onto that belief as we start “driving trucks” through their stupid law and laughing at them.

Quote of the day—Mike Costanza

Morons with guns are the scourge of this country.

Mike Costanza
December 15, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[This is what they think of you.

And just what do you suppose they think should be done to end the scourge?—Joe]

Why just the gun manufacturer?

I’ve been thinking about the lawsuit against Bushmaster because of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. And the more I think about it the more clear it becomes that our political opponents are not rational.

If the gun manufacturer is responsible then isn’t the magazine manufacturer just as, if not more, responsible? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the custom springs in the gun? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the propellant in the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the bullets? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the shell casing? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the cups, anvils, and explosive compounds in the primers? Why just the gun manufacturer?

And of course we could, and have, asked similar questions about the car the shooter drove to the school, and that leads to the gasoline, tires, oil, and roads he used to get there. And once we go there why not the shoes and clothes of the shooter? Or maybe he wore glasses and would have had trouble hitting his targets if it hadn’t been for the manufacturer of the corrective lenses and the optometrist who prescribed them.

We could carry this on to bizarrely extreme levels but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. So how does the anti-gun mind work such that they think the gun manufacture is responsible but none of the other manufactures of the components involved in the crime are? The point is that there is no clear threshold where it is easy to say the manufacturer of one component is responsible and the next is not.

The only thing I can think of is that they have some mind distorting hatred of GUNS!!! such that they cannot think rationally. They recognize the absurdity of blaming the car and corrective lens manufacturers but it just doesn’t register that since the ownership of a gun is constitutionally protected right that makes the liability of gun manufacturer even more absurd.

The inability to recognize the obvious in defiance of clear and presence evidence is evidence of a mental disorder. We see it with Peterson Syndrome and we see it here.

Quote of the day—westcoast2012

Back ground checks before being allowed to own a gun is just common sense, as is outlawing AK-47’s, but the pro gun movement has always seemed to me to be void of common sense.

December 14, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one want to take your guns.—Joe]

What’s going on here?

This is an elaboration of a comment I posted on Paul Barrett’s article about the inevitable failure of the lawsuit against Bushmaster in regards to the Sandy Hook tragedy. Barrett went to law school and has more than casual acquaintance with firearm law. I share his certainty it will fail.

I would have expected most reputable lawyers would have redirected the parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook to counseling rather than to pursue a hopeless lawsuit against the manufacture of a gun. I can understand the pain and even a need to “do something” but a lawyer who did any research at all, let alone gave it a few minutes of thought, should have concluded such a lawsuit is doomed to failure and deepening anguish for the parents.

I initially hypothesized the lawyer involved was someone desperate for money and at least momentary fame. But it is a law firm with a history that goes back 75+ years (via an article on CNN Money).

It’s possible they are short on money and with nine parents backing the lawsuit they may be able to bill (bilk?) them for perhaps a much as a million dollars. But will losing such a high profile case be to their benefit in the fame department? It’s been said many times that there is no such thing as bad publicity but that is usually in a much different context. When winning is what matters to your customers you don’t want to be well-known as a loser.

Lawyer David Hardy says, “I really can’t see it as filed in good faith.”

So I’m perplexed by this. Are the lawyers in this firm so ignorant of gun law (Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act), proximate causation precedent, and blinded by emotions that they think they have a chance “because GUN!!!”?

Filed for future use

If we get to the point where we are prosecuting politicians and law enforcement for violation of our civil rights questions like this will need to be answered:

I haven’t researched it, but I wonder how this plays out in the setting of a criminal prosecution of a government actor for deprivation of civil rights. Is ignorance of the Constitution no defense, because it’s a criminal case, or is reasonable failure to appreciate there was a constitutional right being violated a defense because of qualified immunity?

A legend in my own time?

I recently had an email conversation with John G. at the Lewiston Idaho pistol club. I haven’t attended a match there in probably two years but he said they still tell stories about me.


So he claimed. Then he gave me the following examples (link added about the magazine shooting incident):

A shooter dropped a mag while reloading on the run and somehow booted it into the target area, prompting the story about Joe Huffman, who once shot one of his own mags clean through…  Better to be infamous than forgotten, I suppose.  Strangely, I’m reasonably certain that the person telling the story wasn’t shooting with us when it happened, suggesting you’ve become part of the oral history of our matches.

We also still use you as a unit of measure for heights (e.g., “Joe Huffman could shoot over it but nobody else can, so it’s high enough”).

Wow! I’m thinking maybe I should go back and shoot a match with them again sometime over the holidays.

I was wondering. Does this make me a legend in my own time? Or just in my own mind?

Quote of the day—BadExampleMan @BadExampleMan

Being called fetishist by someone preferring random slaughter of children to giving up a penis substitue: priceless.

BadExampleMan @BadExampleMan
Tweeted October 25, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

High heels

I’ve occasionally blogged about high heels before. Supposedly they improve women’s sex life because they “directly work the pleasure muscles linked to orgasm”. As I pointed out it would seem to me there are better ways to directly work those muscles without the risk of breaking an ankle, but whatever. I don’t have any real interest in them. But this article was very interesting to me (H/T Glenn Reynolds):

Scientists from the Universite de Bretagne-Sud conducted experiments that showed that men behave very differently toward high-heeled women. The results, published online in the journal “Archives of Sexual Behaviour,” may please the purveyors of Christian Louboutin or Jimmy Choo shoes — yet frustrate those who think stilettos encourage sexism.

The study found if a woman drops a glove on the street while wearing heels, she’s almost 50 percent more likely to have a man fetch it for her than if she’s wearing flats.

Another finding: A woman wearing heels is twice as likely to persuade men to stop and answer survey questions on the street. And a high-heeled woman in a bar waits half the time to get picked up by a man, compared to when her heel is nearer to the ground.

I could see myself being more likely to help them pick up something. But answering survey questions? Really? That just doesn’t resonate for me. I have never picked up a woman in a bar and only go to a bar when Barb wants to hang out with some of her friends. I therefore I have zero personal data on that point as well.

I am attracted to tall women. But what I find is that after “prying” my eyes from her face at something approaching my eye level I look at her feet. If she is wearing heels my interest is severely degraded. So, to me, high heels are negatively associated with attraction.

Barb has an interesting “relationship” with high heels too. In addition to being difficult for her to walk in them she says that when she wears them it’s as if people don’t see her. She is nearly 6’ 1” in her bare feet so with high heels she is pushing 6’ 4” and many people end up looking at something approximating her bellybutton (she has very long legs, much longer than mine). For her to make eye contact with people while wearing high heels involves hand gestures, verbal cues, and sometimes offering them a stepstool.