Walk with me...

Welcome and thank you for stopping by!

Join me as I share my thoughts, my world and my days with you. From recipes (I love cooking), to success nuggets and the word of God; I will be sharing with you keys to success, long life and yes...good cooking!

Let's walk...

Friday, 16 November 2012

Sweet Bread Rolls without yeast

So, looking for a quick recipe to make sweet bread rolls perfect for soups or just to eat as breakfast or a snack? Well look no further. My mum had this amazing recipe that made fluffy little bread rolls and I have tried for ages to find it. Made some but it didn't quite come out the same. Until, I came across this recipe which I adapted and it came out very delicious. So here's my adaptation:

You need:

125g Plain flour
1.5 tsp of baking powder
pinch of salt
1/2 tsp of sugar
25g/ 5 tsps of butter or margarine
1/3 cup of milk

What to do:  

1. Preheat the oven to 220°C
2. Sieve together the flour, baking powder, sugar and salt and mix.
3. Rub in the butter/ margarine until mixture resembles fine breadcrumbs.
4. Make a well in the centre and pour in the milk, then mix together with a round bladed knife or table knife.
5. Mix into a dough with fingers, lightly flower the bowl or a board and turn dough in it.
6. Divide into 5 or 6 portions and shape into rolls.
7. Place on a greased and floured baking tray, brush with milk and bake near the top of the oven for about 20 minutes.
8. Eat warm and enjoy!

-  If you are making a roll to serve with soups you can omit the sugar or if you don't want it sweet. You can also slightly reduce the sugar if you don't want it too sweet.
- It can be a bit heavy, I actually used a bit more baking powder than the recipe called for and it came out fluffy inside not heavy. I will try it with even more baking powder, so I suggest if you want it to be a bit lighter use more baking powder, but do be careful.
- Best enjoyed warm from the oven but still a bit okay cold.
- Great accompaniment to soups or served with meals.

Hope you enjoy this! :)

Wednesday, 7 November 2012

The FINAL HOURS: OBAMA vs ROMNEY, who said what.

I am firmly in Obama's camp. The US economy today is not good, agreed. But it hasn’t been quite what it used to be well before Barack Obama was sworn into office as the 1st Black President of the United States. Unemployment is too high for comfort, well I think if you ask anyone they will tell you they prefer that 1000 jobs are saved rather than creation of 200 jobs. Lots of politicians these days simply tell people what they want to hear and sadly, people are not so smart as to actually analyze what is being said. Let’s look at their views on a few of the key issues:

EDUCATION: Romney says, use money earmarked for poor and underprivileged students and instead subsidize the cost for Rich people’s kids to go to private school thereby saving costs for...the RICH. Obama says, no, if you can afford to go to private school pay for it yourself, we will instead build up our Public Educational Institutions so that they are of comparable standard to Private ones. How? Ensure free/ affordable education for all so that people who eventually come back to teach the next generation are actually well educated. Sensible, I think. Also, educate people well, they will eventually set up their own business thereby CREATING JOBS.

FOREIGN POLICY: Obama says let’s end this war in Afghanistan, the work is done, let’s get our boys out and bring them home. Romney says let’s keep fighting, we’re cowboys. Mitt Romney, quick question, are any of your children in the Army, Navy, Airforce? I thought so. Moving on, Obama says we will partner with Syria to get Assad out (much like they did with Ghadaffi)...with minimal loss of American lives for a fight that is not ours. Romney says, come on let’s go get Assad, like the cowboys we are, shoot first, ask questions later (this seems to have been Romney’s style for much of this campaign). Let’s start a war like we did in Afghanistan with Saddam Hussein and loose unnecessary American lives. Obama says I will tactfully deal with China in a way that stops them encroaching on our ground and see how we can take some ground back. Mitt Romney says lets shut out one of (if not THE) world’s largest and still growing industrial and technological economies. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Romney says instead of spending money to create jobs, let’s build ships.....FOR REAL? Mitt Romney to EARTH, calling Romney to Earth...HELLO haven’t you heard, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Only by doing so will you learn their weaknesses and be able to manipulate or checkmate them so to speak. It’s called being diplomatic. The fact that I don’t like Adolf Hitler doesn’t mean I should go shoot all Germans down. No, I may not like Adolf Hitler’s attempt to exterminate Jews but who says all Germans liked it. SO cut off ties with these countries and thus cause more hardship for the poor and underprivileged and again, the RICH are fine. Seriously now, Mitt Romney GET out of that Bubble you’ve been living in. If anyone is wearing Rose tinted glasses, it’s you.   

EMPLOYMENT: The Republican party criticises Obama’s administration that much has not been done. They seem to expect miracles of this mere man. Let us not forget that the high unemployment that Obama's term has been marked by is due to a deep recession that began under President George W. Bush. Yes, Obama is stuck fixing another person’s mess. So basically the Republicans under Bush created this unemployment mess, Obama’s been trying to fix it and they – the Republicans – are not satisfied with his progress? Pot Kettle anyone? Also don’t forget that Obama has proposed a solution to reduce unemployment, one that for reasons best known to them, the Senate comprised mainly of ‘Republicans’ has refused to pass. Sabotage anyone?

WELFARE: In addition, Mitt Romney and the Republicans don’t care much for people who either due to circumstances, fate and through no fault of their own are forced to rely on welfare. He said, and I quote:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
So Mitt, what about the good people of New York, New Jersey etc who have been devastated by Sandy, many of whom will now have no choice but to rely on welfare. Or what about the many servicemen and women who have given their lives and limbs to fight a war that is not theirs personally to fight but who out of patriotism have sacrificed and who now have to rely on welfare. Or those who have worked hard all their lives and still need help supplementing income in their old age. Hmmm? Yes, there are people who are lazy and rely on income but I sincerely doubt that they are up to 20% of the American population let alone 47%. That speech, to me, smacked of a rich person who has never had to suffer hardship and frankly a pompous self-conceited person. Mitt as a Mormon, if you truly are that, you should remember that Jesus in the Bible said the people he would receive are those who ‘fed the hungry, clothed the needy and gave shelter to those in need’...in other words welfare. Some of what you say makes me question your faith.

IMMIGRATION: Very briefly, let me touch on immigration. Obama sees the potential in people, long story short, based on his background. Mr. Rich wants only the best to come to USA, who doesn’t want the best for their country? Can he not see what this sort of attitude cost UK and still is when they started reducing occupations because they wanted only the best and now they are looking for people to fill in those gaps because people started leaving. Making getting student visas tough, Universities complain because like it or not most ‘1st World’ countries make their money from people who come from ‘3rd world countries’ seeking better. The modern form of slavery....well willing slavery in a sense any way (and before anyone kicks up a fuss, I confess I am in a sense, guilty of this). Seriously, have they not seen time and time again stories of people who were told they wouldn’t amount to anything becoming incredibly successful? Mitt your policy on immigration smacks of someone living in a bubble and totally unaware of what is going on around him.

As far as I am concerned, Mitt Romney and the Republicans are a government of the rich, for the rich and by the Rich. May God help the Unites Dtates of America if Mitt Ronmey wins this election ‘cos y’all are gonna need a heapin’ helpin’.

Monday, 5 November 2012


I will confess, I didn't watch the First presidential debate but I happened to watch the second and third debates and thus my interest in American politics was piqued. I thought I’d give a brief commentary about my view of the candidates and their performances. I will be focusing on debating style and to an extent the substance of their responses.

In a debate, one of the most important aspects is portraying to your audience why your point of view is more right and applicable to the situation and therefore better than your co-debater’s point of view. One of the most effective ways of doing this is to pick up on a point your co-debater has made, pick it to pieces and show why it is wrong in the circumstances and then show why your own is right. This was what President Obama did and what Mitt Romney wrongly viewed as President Obama attacking him. No, dear Mitt, Barack was simply using one of the most basic tenets of debate. One used by Mitt in the earlier debates albeit more aggressively, it is surprising how short your memory sometimes is Mitt.

While their responses especially in the third debate were more balanced and eloquent, I would opine that Obama’s use of this method gave him a slight edge over his opponent, an edge that may just prove costly to the Romney camp. I will use a simple example. Person A likes Orange and Person B likes Mango, now in order for either person to get me to go for either Orange or Mango they have to tell me what one has that the other doesn’t. What advantage one has over the other. That is the same principle used in debate and one that President Obama used to perfection in the last debate.

With regards to responses, Mitt Romney did a poor job of presenting himself. I noticed several occasions when Obama would point out a failing or something Mitt had previously opposed and 5 or 10 minutes later Mitt would ‘take the opportunity’ to stress his support of or clarify the issue. The debate to me took on a feel of a boxer who keeps getting hit, goes back patches his wounds, gets hit again, goes back etc. It was just like a child whose parent points out areas of improvement and the child goes back to improve as each area is mentioned. Mitt Romney seems to me like a man who lacks conviction and direction. He is unstable and will change his mind and go with whatever he feels is the trend du jour. This is not what you want to see in a leader.

In terms of how they answered, both candidates were on a level playing field. However, in terms of technique and the substance of their responses, Obama had a clear edge. If Mitt did not keep going back to try and cover his tracks he may have had a fighting chance. But too many contradictory statements and gaffes have marked Mitt Romney to me as a man that can not be trusted. If I were American I would cast my vote for Barack Hussein Obama. ‘The devil you know’ they say, ‘is better than the angel you don’t.’