Ketchup on Steak? What Say Ye?

By Whskyjack, a Trail Mix Contributor

A few weeks ago Donald Trump was observed eating a prime dry aged steak, burnt (well done) with ketchup

It may explain the problem for Democrats in Trump country that they don’t seem to want to use this against Trump.

Apparently they don’t see anything wrong with mistreating a perfect piece of meat by over cooking it and smothering it in ketchup. At least I’ve not heard any outcry.

Public Policy Polling did do a survey and found that Americans across the political divide expressed their distain for this behavior. It may be the only thing they agree on.

As usual very liberal types were the more clueless as they gave the greatest support to ketchup on steak (but not completely clueless as a majority still disapproved)

From James Michener’s  novel “Centennial”

Now the ritual began. At twelve-fifteen on the dot we took our places at three oilcloth-covered tables, and tumblers of ditch—bar bourbon and Platte water—were circulated. Wendell raised his glass and cried, “Gentlemen, to the open range!” All drank, and Hermann Spengler proposed, “To the Hereford.”

Waiters now came in with large baskets of French fried potatoes, which they emptied onto the middle of each table, forming golden pyramids, over which they sprinkled handfuls of salt. The doors swung open and the waiters reappeared with huge trays. Before each of us they placed a sizzling platter containing nothing but a monstrous sirloin cut from some super-steer at the Brumbaugh feed lots.

Steak and potatoes, the food of real men. Hands reached into the golden stacks to grab potatoes, and knives cut into tender steak. For the first few minutes there was not much talk, then Wendell recalled the time the club had entertained a senator from Rhode Island. The members had been most attentive to him, for on a matter of vital concern he held the crucial vote, and things looked promising until the sirloins were served.

In a quiet voice he had asked, “Could I have some catsup?”

There was a ghastly silence. To these men, putting catsup on a sirloin was like dumping cigarette ashes in holy water. No one knew what to say, but everyone was adamant that no bottle of catsup would disgrace that table, even if the supplicant was a senator commanding a vital vote.

The impasse had been broken by Wendell’s father, a steely-eyed man: “Senator, as you know, your vote is crucial to us, and there is nothing in the world we would not do for you. I think we’ve given you ample proof of that. But I would rather see horse piss sprinkled over my steak than see this table profaned by a bottle of catsup. No, Senator, you may not have catsup.”

More Posts by Whskyjack

Is There Any Discipline In The Trump White House?

By Whskyjack, a Trail Mix Contributor

Really, can’t anybody just shut the F#@$ up, just for a few seconds?

I just read this WaPo piece:

Inside Trump’s fury: The president rages at leaks, setbacks and accusations

This is a detailed account of Trump’s weekend, right down to minutes before the piece was written. It even had conversations with his golfing partners. It is an amazing piece of reporting, or it would be any other time and about any other administration, but with these goof balls it is just another day sharing stories with the press. The Trump people’s hatred of the press is all window dressing. In fact they love to gossip with reporters. If you are a Washington reporter and you don’t have your pet Trumpista by now you need to get in a different business.

LOL, Just sayin’………………………

More Posts by Whskyjack

Next Time

By Whskyjack, a Trail Mix Contributor

Who does or doesn’t attend the inauguration event is unimportant. However, the fact that we have a peaceful transition of power is very important. In a world where too many transitions of power end up with the execution of the losers. it is something to celebrate. Where and how you celebrate it is your choice.

Donald Trump is the legitimately elected President of this nation. He won it fair and square by the rules in place. Unlike the previous Republican president he didn’t use the court system to circumvent the rules. In that regard he is my President. Am I happy about it? No. But my happiness is irrelevant. Elections being what they are, there are winners and losers.

At least in this country the losers get to live to fight another day.

And fight we should. fortunately there are many ways to fight for the causes we believe in without violence and with respect toward those we fight. There will be plenty of time to do so later.

Right now I hope those who participate in the inauguration and those who just look on, taking in the rare spectacle of it all, have a safe and fun time. I wish I could have been there to watch HRC take the oath of office. But it was not to be. However like baseball there is always next time.

More Posts by Whskyjack

“If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you’ve got no business being up here.”

By Whskyjack, a Trail Mix Contributor

It is a fact that every politician understands. It is also the test for every newbie. And they don’t come any more newbie than Donald Trump. His test?   The favors he received from the Russians. Is he bought? or is he independent? It is critical as to how he responds. So far like any newbie he is clueless.

The title quote is from California politician Big Daddy Unruh

More Posts by Whskyjack

Something that made me go “Hmmmmmm, I wonder”

By Whskyjack, a Trail Mix Contributor

I clipped a few paragraphs from an article  by Lawrence Lessig, it is a long piece but well worth the read and just maybe if …………

Lester Lawrence “Larry” Lessig III is an American academic, attorney, and political activist. He is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the former director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Wikipedia

The Equal Protection argument against “winner take all” in the Electoral College

Most people, even Dems, can’t seem to allow themselves to even think about a constitutional challenge to the Electoral College — because they’re convinced our current Electoral College system is embedded in the Constitution. So when someone says, “what about one person, one vote,” they respond, “it’s the Constitution that creates this inequality—just as with the Senate—and the Court is not going to overrule the Constitution.”

Yet that response misses a critical point.

Yes, the Constitution creates an inequality because of the way it allocates electoral college votes. A state like Wyoming, for example, gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus, while California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes.

But the real inequality of the electoral college is created by the “winner take all” (WTA) rule for allocating electoral votes. WTA says that the person who wins the popular votes gets all the electoral college votes for that state. Every state (except Maine and Nebraska) allocates its electors based on WTA. But that system for allocating electoral votes is not mandated by the Constitution. It is created by the states. And so that raises what should be an obvious and much more fiercely contested question—why isn’t WTA being challenged by the Democrats in this election?


The 2000 election was the first time in US history that the candidate losing the popular vote won a majority of the Electoral College outright. Now that has happened again in 2016. The major contributing factors to this outcome are the winner-take-all system of allocating Electors coupled with the growing concentration of the US population in a handful of States. These factors create a substantial risk that a candidate that loses the popular vote would win the Electoral College outright even if the small state advantage did not exist. This election is a clear example of that risk. To be clear, Trump did not win the Electoral College because of a constitutional design, he won because of the winner-take-all system of allocating Electors and that critical legal factor is strictly a function of State law…………..

In summary, a winner-take-all system of allocating Electors by the states denies the minority of voters within each state any representation whatsoever within the Electoral College and ultimately in the case of the 2000 and 2016 elections, denies the plurality of voters nationwide their choice for President under circumstances in which the constitutionally established small state advantage made part of the Electoral College wouldnot. This is neither a reasonable nor a rational result in a representative democracy. This result was dictated by the winner-take-all method of allocating Electors used by the states. It is this state law method of allocating Electors that is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and its bedrock principle of one man one vote.

To read it all