Good flick. Go see it. As was pointed out by a friend, it was nice to see a movie that wasn't a remake, wasn't part of a franchise, wasn't obscenely big budget (OK, its possible the cast cost 'em a pretty penny, but if so they were completely worth it) and that was actually original and good.
A real rarity these days.
Now we'll probably see a whole slew of Wedding Crashers clone movies for the next year or two because that's what Hollywood does...fails to innovate.
24 July 2005
18 July 2005
Harry Potter And The Halfblood Prince
OK, so I finished reading this last night. As with the previous 5 books, good stuff. Dumbledore gets whacked. But, of course, it isn't as simple as that.
Here's some stuff I have been thinking a little about. I'll re-read the book and see what else I come up with after reading it with foreknowledge.
* 'So I guess Snape really is a bad guy, what with killing Dumbledore and all?' No. Snape has long had opportunities to kill Dumbledore, but has not. Certainly, killing him sooner, especially after the discovery that Voldemort was still alive, would have been top priority if he had really been the bad guy. Rowling never lets anything 'easy' go in the books, so I think Snape-kills-Dumbledore=Snape-is-bad is just her way of keeping us reading. Remember also that Snape did not kill anyone else in the final battle, but rather skipped passed them. He could have also easily killed Harry, but did not, but that can be explained away by saying he was being true to Voldy's orders to leave Harry to him. I could be wrong about Snape, but we'll see.
* Was Dumbledore already dying? Throughout the last few books D had been showing signs of weakening, old-age, what have you. Obviously in this book he'd had a rather nasty problem with one of the Horcruxes, resulting in his withered hand. D is also around 150 years old, which is about the limit Rowling has publicly said that wizards lived without the aid of stuff like philosopher's stones and of course Horcruxes. Add in the potion he had to drink to get the Slytherin necklace Horcrux, and I think he was a goner no matter what.
* I think he KNEW he was going to die. Two possibilities, and both could be true simultaneously. One, he knew he was at the end of his lifespan. Two, he knew - especially after destroying the second Horcrux - that Voldemort's protections on his Horcuxes weren't just preventative, but lethal. I think he knew more about the necklace Horcruxes particular protections (and the fact that it took two people to overcome) than he let on.
* Dumbledore knew about Snape's unbreakable vow, and knew what that meant (and of course knew about the assassination plot). If Malfoy could not complete the task, as D believed he could not, then that would mean that Snape would have to complete it or die. Now, assuming the above that he knew he was already done for anyway, D would have been willing to 'sacrifice' himself dramatically to keep Snape from dying and thus allowing him to continue to work from the inside, which is invaluable.
* 'R.A.B' may be Sirius' brother Regulus. Regulus is the only character with the initials 'R.B.' we have met so far (still fact checking this), and also has an uncle named Alphard, whom he may get his middle initial from. Now, he is supposed to be dead. We knew that he was killed by another Death Eater while he was trying to leave the group. The questions are, WHY was he trying to leave the group, WHO was the Death Eater who killed him, and was his body ever recovered. The 'why' may be related to the Horcruxes, if in fact Regulus is RAB. The 'who' may be Snape. And if the body was never recovered, it would point to another reason why D trusted Snape (cause it would mean he didn't actually kill Regulus) and also imply that Regulus was another hidden source of information for D, because the Death Eaters would think him dead and gone. I will have to read back and see what the circumstances were regarding his death in order to rule one way or the other.
[edit] Thought of a negative for Regulus still being alive: the inheritance. Regulus would have been the closest living relative and this entitled to Grimmauld Place, I think.
* 'R.A.B.' may be: someone else. Insightful, I know. There are a few 'B' last names whom we do not know full names for. For instance, both Borgin and Burkes from the shop in Knockturn Alley. Both of these folks (assuming both still alive) would have chance to know about Horcruxes, since they deal in the Dark Arts.
[edit] Apparently, Burke's first name is Caractucus, so scratch him off.
[edit] OK, so I went back and re-read three chapters, one from OotP and two from HBP. I believe now without a doubt that R.A.B. is in fact Regulus. When I read the part in HBP28 when Harry discovers the locket next to D's body, I didn't read it correctly. Here's the passage:
When I first read that I thought by 'Pensieve' it refered to the basin in the cave, which was described as being like the Pensieve, but now I realize it referred to the Pensieve in D's office that they used to view memories, not the cave basin. Pretty stupid mistake, but J.K. may have been trying to lead the reader that way.
Now, here's where OotP chapter 6 comes in. In this chapter they are 'cleansing' Grimmauld Place, and one of the trinkets they find in the process is a locket! The text:
Note the mention of size. The locket recovered by Harry and D is small, unlike Slytherin's locket, but the one they found in Grimmauld Place was large, possibly the size of the Slyterin locket. The description in OotP isn't enough to confirm this, of course, but it certainly is a possibility.
Then we come to the note from R.A.B.:
Here again I was fooled on first reading, thinking that someone had stolen the locket that Harry and D recovered and replaced it with another after Dumbledore dies. But I think that is wrong. I think that the Slytherin locket that was in the cave was stolen 15-16 years prior to Harry and D arriving...by Regulus. Again, my thinking was that the person switching the locket was still alive, but that doesn't have to be the case if the theft took place long ago and the thief was killed.
And now here's another quote from OotP chapter 6 that I think is key:
I think this is J.K. telling us right here that Regulus discovered how Voldy became immortal, and then she reiterates it more plainly in the note in HBP. Now, I think it is probably safe to say that Regulus knew about what Snape had reported to Voldy from what he overheard of the Prophecy given to D from Trelawny. Voldy would have been ticked,and obviously set things in motion with his minions to put an end to the Prophecy which ultimately lead to the slaying of Harry's parents.
I think, also, that the Slytherin locket Horcrux may already be destroyed, since that is what Regulus said he intended to do with it. I think Regulus knew enough about Horcruxes to know that, under 'regular' circumstances, the soul is split in TWO. I think he believed that having destroyed the Horcrux in the locket, that when Voldy went to meet his 'match' the first time, that he would be mortal and would die then. What he didn't know was that there was already at least one other Horcrux in existence (the Diary), and so of course Voldy didn't die properly.
The other possibility is that the locket he stole and stashed in Grimmauld place hadn't been properly destroyed before Regulus met his end. It is also possible that he DID know about the multiple Horcruxes and had started collecting them. We know Kreacher stashed stuff from the cleansing, it is possible that the Horcruxes may still be around, making it considerably easier on Harry to find them. Honestly, I have no idea how he'd find them otherwise.
* Is Harry a Horcrux? Originally, I thought this may be the case, assuming that it occured when Harry got his scar, but then I thought about the night Harry's parents were killed. The death curse was reflected off of Harry completely and back onto Voldy...who didn't die because he already had several Horcruxes created. Harry couldn't have become a Horcrux at that point because Horcruxes are created AFTER you have killed someone, and of course Harry was not killed. But, then we come to the scene at the end of GoF. Voldy had killed Cedric and then performed his ritual to rebuild his body. It is possible that at this point, Voldy created another Horcrux. After the ritual, Voldemort was able to touch Harry freely as you would expect he would be able to to with any of his Horcruxes. Of course, it could just be a separate side-effect of the restoration ritual and Harry may not be a Horcrux at all.
* Is Wormtail, or more precisely, Wormtail's silver hand a Horcrux? The problem with Harry being a Horcrux is that, well, Voldemort wants Harry dead. If you put part of your soul into Harry and then kill him, you kill part of yourself. Kinda dumb. Then we go back to my original assumption, that Harry became a Horcrux the night his parents were killed. I've said why I don't think that is the case. Wormtail then is another choice, not as an actual Horcrux, but rather as the bearer of one. It is possible that Voldy created the Horcrux in the form of Wormtail's new hand as both a twisted way of rewarding Wormtail for his service and sacrifice and also as a way of keeping the Horcrux safe. Safe? Remember, Wormtail has demonstrated an incredible knack for staying alive when he damn well shouldn't.
* What if Harry WAS a Horcrux? So, maybe I am wrong about Harry not being a Horcrux as a result of the night his parents were killed. It is possible he was, that Voldemort found out about it or figured it out, and that it is precisely this reason why he needed Harry for the restoration...to return a bit of his soul to him so he could be restored. This is tempting, but I still think not. The simple reason being that Voldemort knows the location of his other Horcruxes and could have simply retrieved one at will and used it instead, without all the hassle. No, I think the reason Harry was needed is because the ritual required a bit of Voldy's biggest enemy to succeed.
* What does Horcrux mean? Well, 'crux' is latin for cross. Obviously, the soul had been cut across. 'Hor' however may be tricker. It could mean 'time' (as in Hora, Spanish for hour) or it could be a derivative of 'horr', the lating root meaning 'sudder at' and also the base of words like horrible and horror. I think the later is more likely, and Rowling has taken liberties with the spelling of Latin and Greek roots before. Plus 'horrcrux' would look odd and be a bit too much of a giveaway. But then again, 'time cross' also makes some sense, when you think about what the Horcrux does...grant immortality, which makes time essentially meaningless. Of course, Rowling could mean both.
* Dumbledore was Secret Keeper for the Order. What does his death mean? Is Grimmauld Place now forever protected from discovery, or has that protection now been completely lost?
* What is the significance of Draco crying with Moaning Myrtle? I had speculated way back that Draco would eventually come over to the good side, probably as a result of some sort of betrayal or traumatic event. This seems particularly likely now, given the threat to his family by Voldemort. We also have the death scene where Draco was clearly at odds with himself, and was unable to carry through on the assassination. Now, Rowling being Rowling, it is possible that that is all too easy, and that he really is still a bad guy, and that the whole thing with Myrtle was part of the attempt to repair the cabinet. It is possible that the steps to repair it required some sort of interaction with a ghost...maybe even convincing her to perform a step that a mortal could not.
Here's some stuff I have been thinking a little about. I'll re-read the book and see what else I come up with after reading it with foreknowledge.
* 'So I guess Snape really is a bad guy, what with killing Dumbledore and all?' No. Snape has long had opportunities to kill Dumbledore, but has not. Certainly, killing him sooner, especially after the discovery that Voldemort was still alive, would have been top priority if he had really been the bad guy. Rowling never lets anything 'easy' go in the books, so I think Snape-kills-Dumbledore=Snape-is-bad is just her way of keeping us reading. Remember also that Snape did not kill anyone else in the final battle, but rather skipped passed them. He could have also easily killed Harry, but did not, but that can be explained away by saying he was being true to Voldy's orders to leave Harry to him. I could be wrong about Snape, but we'll see.
* Was Dumbledore already dying? Throughout the last few books D had been showing signs of weakening, old-age, what have you. Obviously in this book he'd had a rather nasty problem with one of the Horcruxes, resulting in his withered hand. D is also around 150 years old, which is about the limit Rowling has publicly said that wizards lived without the aid of stuff like philosopher's stones and of course Horcruxes. Add in the potion he had to drink to get the Slytherin necklace Horcrux, and I think he was a goner no matter what.
* I think he KNEW he was going to die. Two possibilities, and both could be true simultaneously. One, he knew he was at the end of his lifespan. Two, he knew - especially after destroying the second Horcrux - that Voldemort's protections on his Horcuxes weren't just preventative, but lethal. I think he knew more about the necklace Horcruxes particular protections (and the fact that it took two people to overcome) than he let on.
* Dumbledore knew about Snape's unbreakable vow, and knew what that meant (and of course knew about the assassination plot). If Malfoy could not complete the task, as D believed he could not, then that would mean that Snape would have to complete it or die. Now, assuming the above that he knew he was already done for anyway, D would have been willing to 'sacrifice' himself dramatically to keep Snape from dying and thus allowing him to continue to work from the inside, which is invaluable.
* 'R.A.B' may be Sirius' brother Regulus. Regulus is the only character with the initials 'R.B.' we have met so far (still fact checking this), and also has an uncle named Alphard, whom he may get his middle initial from. Now, he is supposed to be dead. We knew that he was killed by another Death Eater while he was trying to leave the group. The questions are, WHY was he trying to leave the group, WHO was the Death Eater who killed him, and was his body ever recovered. The 'why' may be related to the Horcruxes, if in fact Regulus is RAB. The 'who' may be Snape. And if the body was never recovered, it would point to another reason why D trusted Snape (cause it would mean he didn't actually kill Regulus) and also imply that Regulus was another hidden source of information for D, because the Death Eaters would think him dead and gone. I will have to read back and see what the circumstances were regarding his death in order to rule one way or the other.
[edit] Thought of a negative for Regulus still being alive: the inheritance. Regulus would have been the closest living relative and this entitled to Grimmauld Place, I think.
* 'R.A.B.' may be: someone else. Insightful, I know. There are a few 'B' last names whom we do not know full names for. For instance, both Borgin and Burkes from the shop in Knockturn Alley. Both of these folks (assuming both still alive) would have chance to know about Horcruxes, since they deal in the Dark Arts.
[edit] Apparently, Burke's first name is Caractucus, so scratch him off.
[edit] OK, so I went back and re-read three chapters, one from OotP and two from HBP. I believe now without a doubt that R.A.B. is in fact Regulus. When I read the part in HBP28 when Harry discovers the locket next to D's body, I didn't read it correctly. Here's the passage:
The locket they had managed to steal so many hours before had fallen out of Dumbledore's pocket. It had opened, perhaps due to the force with which it hit the ground. And although he could not feel more shock or horror or sadness than he felt already, Harry knew as he picked it up. that there was something wrong...
He turned the locket over in his hands. This was neither as large as the locket he remembered seeing in the Pensieve, nor were there any markings upon it, no sign of the ornate S that was supposed to be Slytherin's mark.
When I first read that I thought by 'Pensieve' it refered to the basin in the cave, which was described as being like the Pensieve, but now I realize it referred to the Pensieve in D's office that they used to view memories, not the cave basin. Pretty stupid mistake, but J.K. may have been trying to lead the reader that way.
Now, here's where OotP chapter 6 comes in. In this chapter they are 'cleansing' Grimmauld Place, and one of the trinkets they find in the process is a locket! The text:
There was a musical box that emitted a faintly sinister, tinkling tune when wound, and they all found themselves becoming curiously weak and sleepy until Ginny had the sense to slam the lid shut; also a heavy locket that none of them could open, a number of ancient seals and, in a dusty box, an Order of Merlin, First Class, that had been awarded to Sirius's grandfather for "Services to the Ministry."
Note the mention of size. The locket recovered by Harry and D is small, unlike Slytherin's locket, but the one they found in Grimmauld Place was large, possibly the size of the Slyterin locket. The description in OotP isn't enough to confirm this, of course, but it certainly is a possibility.
Then we come to the note from R.A.B.:
To the Dark Lord. I know I will be dead long before you read this but I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret. I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can. I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more.
Here again I was fooled on first reading, thinking that someone had stolen the locket that Harry and D recovered and replaced it with another after Dumbledore dies. But I think that is wrong. I think that the Slytherin locket that was in the cave was stolen 15-16 years prior to Harry and D arriving...by Regulus. Again, my thinking was that the person switching the locket was still alive, but that doesn't have to be the case if the theft took place long ago and the thief was killed.
And now here's another quote from OotP chapter 6 that I think is key:
They [Sirius's parents] weren't alone either, there were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his true colors, who thought he had the right idea about things....They got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power, though. But I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at first.
I think this is J.K. telling us right here that Regulus discovered how Voldy became immortal, and then she reiterates it more plainly in the note in HBP. Now, I think it is probably safe to say that Regulus knew about what Snape had reported to Voldy from what he overheard of the Prophecy given to D from Trelawny. Voldy would have been ticked,and obviously set things in motion with his minions to put an end to the Prophecy which ultimately lead to the slaying of Harry's parents.
I think, also, that the Slytherin locket Horcrux may already be destroyed, since that is what Regulus said he intended to do with it. I think Regulus knew enough about Horcruxes to know that, under 'regular' circumstances, the soul is split in TWO. I think he believed that having destroyed the Horcrux in the locket, that when Voldy went to meet his 'match' the first time, that he would be mortal and would die then. What he didn't know was that there was already at least one other Horcrux in existence (the Diary), and so of course Voldy didn't die properly.
The other possibility is that the locket he stole and stashed in Grimmauld place hadn't been properly destroyed before Regulus met his end. It is also possible that he DID know about the multiple Horcruxes and had started collecting them. We know Kreacher stashed stuff from the cleansing, it is possible that the Horcruxes may still be around, making it considerably easier on Harry to find them. Honestly, I have no idea how he'd find them otherwise.
* Is Harry a Horcrux? Originally, I thought this may be the case, assuming that it occured when Harry got his scar, but then I thought about the night Harry's parents were killed. The death curse was reflected off of Harry completely and back onto Voldy...who didn't die because he already had several Horcruxes created. Harry couldn't have become a Horcrux at that point because Horcruxes are created AFTER you have killed someone, and of course Harry was not killed. But, then we come to the scene at the end of GoF. Voldy had killed Cedric and then performed his ritual to rebuild his body. It is possible that at this point, Voldy created another Horcrux. After the ritual, Voldemort was able to touch Harry freely as you would expect he would be able to to with any of his Horcruxes. Of course, it could just be a separate side-effect of the restoration ritual and Harry may not be a Horcrux at all.
* Is Wormtail, or more precisely, Wormtail's silver hand a Horcrux? The problem with Harry being a Horcrux is that, well, Voldemort wants Harry dead. If you put part of your soul into Harry and then kill him, you kill part of yourself. Kinda dumb. Then we go back to my original assumption, that Harry became a Horcrux the night his parents were killed. I've said why I don't think that is the case. Wormtail then is another choice, not as an actual Horcrux, but rather as the bearer of one. It is possible that Voldy created the Horcrux in the form of Wormtail's new hand as both a twisted way of rewarding Wormtail for his service and sacrifice and also as a way of keeping the Horcrux safe. Safe? Remember, Wormtail has demonstrated an incredible knack for staying alive when he damn well shouldn't.
* What if Harry WAS a Horcrux? So, maybe I am wrong about Harry not being a Horcrux as a result of the night his parents were killed. It is possible he was, that Voldemort found out about it or figured it out, and that it is precisely this reason why he needed Harry for the restoration...to return a bit of his soul to him so he could be restored. This is tempting, but I still think not. The simple reason being that Voldemort knows the location of his other Horcruxes and could have simply retrieved one at will and used it instead, without all the hassle. No, I think the reason Harry was needed is because the ritual required a bit of Voldy's biggest enemy to succeed.
* What does Horcrux mean? Well, 'crux' is latin for cross. Obviously, the soul had been cut across. 'Hor' however may be tricker. It could mean 'time' (as in Hora, Spanish for hour) or it could be a derivative of 'horr', the lating root meaning 'sudder at' and also the base of words like horrible and horror. I think the later is more likely, and Rowling has taken liberties with the spelling of Latin and Greek roots before. Plus 'horrcrux' would look odd and be a bit too much of a giveaway. But then again, 'time cross' also makes some sense, when you think about what the Horcrux does...grant immortality, which makes time essentially meaningless. Of course, Rowling could mean both.
* Dumbledore was Secret Keeper for the Order. What does his death mean? Is Grimmauld Place now forever protected from discovery, or has that protection now been completely lost?
* What is the significance of Draco crying with Moaning Myrtle? I had speculated way back that Draco would eventually come over to the good side, probably as a result of some sort of betrayal or traumatic event. This seems particularly likely now, given the threat to his family by Voldemort. We also have the death scene where Draco was clearly at odds with himself, and was unable to carry through on the assassination. Now, Rowling being Rowling, it is possible that that is all too easy, and that he really is still a bad guy, and that the whole thing with Myrtle was part of the attempt to repair the cabinet. It is possible that the steps to repair it required some sort of interaction with a ghost...maybe even convincing her to perform a step that a mortal could not.
14 July 2005
08 July 2005
"It's Not The Game, It's The Parents"
This is now, has always been, and will always be the case. When I was a kid, before the days of home PC's and Console Game ubiquity, my friends and I played Army, Cowboys & Indians, Cops & Robbers, etc.
We shot, stabbed, and/or beat each other to death on a daily basis. To my knowledge, none of my childhoods friends, nor I, have grown up to become serial killers. Just normal folk. What we had was parents who were, you know, involved with us and who made sure to let us know what they thought was right and wrong.
Our society seems to have fallen in love with blaming the symptoms rather than blaming the disease. When someone gets shot, we start suing the gun manufacturers, even though they didn't pull the trigger. Somehow it is the gun's fault, and not the homicidal idiot who decided to use that particular weapon (instead of a knife, baseball bat, his hands, etc). But, there was a time when we didn't even have guns, and we were still very adept at killing each other without them.
So, back when I was a kid, there was still violent crime amongst the under 25 crowd. In fact, I believe the violent crime rate now is actually lower than when I was a kid (the Reagan years were bad). Yet the biggest video games of that period were stuff like PacMan. San Andreas PacMan is not.
When we see kids becoming violent, we have only one place to start looking for where things went wrong, and that is with the parents. Parents have become too accustomed to letting other people raise their kids (schools in particular), and too eager to have legislatures pass 'tough' laws that do absolutely nothing, rather that suck it up and take responsibility for the children they brought into the world.
We shot, stabbed, and/or beat each other to death on a daily basis. To my knowledge, none of my childhoods friends, nor I, have grown up to become serial killers. Just normal folk. What we had was parents who were, you know, involved with us and who made sure to let us know what they thought was right and wrong.
Our society seems to have fallen in love with blaming the symptoms rather than blaming the disease. When someone gets shot, we start suing the gun manufacturers, even though they didn't pull the trigger. Somehow it is the gun's fault, and not the homicidal idiot who decided to use that particular weapon (instead of a knife, baseball bat, his hands, etc). But, there was a time when we didn't even have guns, and we were still very adept at killing each other without them.
So, back when I was a kid, there was still violent crime amongst the under 25 crowd. In fact, I believe the violent crime rate now is actually lower than when I was a kid (the Reagan years were bad). Yet the biggest video games of that period were stuff like PacMan. San Andreas PacMan is not.
When we see kids becoming violent, we have only one place to start looking for where things went wrong, and that is with the parents. Parents have become too accustomed to letting other people raise their kids (schools in particular), and too eager to have legislatures pass 'tough' laws that do absolutely nothing, rather that suck it up and take responsibility for the children they brought into the world.
Once Again, An Opportunity To Kill Two Birds With One Stone
Her was have another illegal immigrant who wants to serve our country in the most dangerous job there is. A job a lot of Yellow Elephants don't seem to want to do themselves, unsurprisingly.
We've got an immigration problem, and we have a manpower problem in the military. There are those immigrants who have been living undocumented for years in the US, who love this country, and who are willing to die for it. Why is the obvious solution here so fucking hard for people to grasp?
We've got an immigration problem, and we have a manpower problem in the military. There are those immigrants who have been living undocumented for years in the US, who love this country, and who are willing to die for it. Why is the obvious solution here so fucking hard for people to grasp?
01 July 2005
Recipe Time: Salmon Something-or-other
Sometimes I improvise meals. You might call it lack of foresight and preparation...maybe even laziness....but I call it genius. *cough*
So anyway, I had a salmon fillet defrosted, but really didn't plan on any particular way to cook it.
I decided I'd bake it in a sort of casserole-y way.
Ingredients:
Salmon fillet (any fish would work I spose)
3/4 of a bag of frozen veggies (I used broccoli)
2 cans of campbell's cream of shrimp soup
milk
garlic powder
ground black pepper
old bay seasoning
1 cup of goldfish crackers
1 cup sharp cheddar cheese, shredded
1 cup swiss cheese, shredded
Directions:
* pre-heat oven to 350
* In a fairly deep baking dish, put in the salmon fillet, skin side down (you may want to rub a little bit of oil on the skin so it doesn't stick to the pan...which would be a hell of a lot smarter than not doing it...which is what I did)
* Season to taste the top of the fillet with garlic, pepper and old bay
* Pour in the frozen veggies and distribute evenly
* In a separate bowl, empty the two cans of soup. Then add to that half a can's worth of milk into the bowl and mix in well with the soup.
* Pour about 3/4 of the soup over the salmon and veggies. Add more seasoning if you want.
* Add the swiss and cheddar over the top of everything evenly.
* Crush the goldfish (but don't turn it into powder, just broken fishies) and then sprinkle over the top of everything evenly.
* Pour the remaining soup over the top evenly.
* Bake that sumbitch for about 50 minutes.
* Eat.
So anyway, I had a salmon fillet defrosted, but really didn't plan on any particular way to cook it.
I decided I'd bake it in a sort of casserole-y way.
Ingredients:
Salmon fillet (any fish would work I spose)
3/4 of a bag of frozen veggies (I used broccoli)
2 cans of campbell's cream of shrimp soup
milk
garlic powder
ground black pepper
old bay seasoning
1 cup of goldfish crackers
1 cup sharp cheddar cheese, shredded
1 cup swiss cheese, shredded
Directions:
* pre-heat oven to 350
* In a fairly deep baking dish, put in the salmon fillet, skin side down (you may want to rub a little bit of oil on the skin so it doesn't stick to the pan...which would be a hell of a lot smarter than not doing it...which is what I did)
* Season to taste the top of the fillet with garlic, pepper and old bay
* Pour in the frozen veggies and distribute evenly
* In a separate bowl, empty the two cans of soup. Then add to that half a can's worth of milk into the bowl and mix in well with the soup.
* Pour about 3/4 of the soup over the salmon and veggies. Add more seasoning if you want.
* Add the swiss and cheddar over the top of everything evenly.
* Crush the goldfish (but don't turn it into powder, just broken fishies) and then sprinkle over the top of everything evenly.
* Pour the remaining soup over the top evenly.
* Bake that sumbitch for about 50 minutes.
* Eat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)