I’m back to my culinarily-creative self, which involves not wasting anything. Including a head of lettuce I pulled out of my crippled fridge last night intending to make salad, only to discover it was crunchy with ice.
I stared at it until I recalled once making soup out of lettuce. Now, generally something this weird would not occur even to me, but I had pulled the recipe out of… I couldn’t remember… either my fancy soups cookbook or my fancy French cookbook. I checked, and yes, there it was in the French cookbook: Petit pois aux laitues. I vaguely recalled that it was actually quite tasty, and soup sounds better than salad in November anyway.
So you cook one chopped onion at the bottom of a saucepan, in butter (or really fatty gravy… my adaptation, since it was sitting in the fridge too) until it’s soft, then add one can of peas, one diced/cooked potato (try the microwave if you haven’t got leftovers), MSG-free chicken broth, just enough so the ingredients are covered and aren’t crushed at the bottom of the pan, and the head of lettuce, also chopped up (The recipe also called for an apple, but I didn’t have one, so I added a dash of Superfood juice). Let this come to a boil, reduce heat, and then — this is important — reduce it to a finely grated state, using either a food processor or one of those soup whips the French love. So at this point you should have a lovely consistent green soup; a lighter, more textured take on split pea. Season this with salt, pepper, lemon zest, a dash of cayenne, thyme, etc., to taste. Add some chopped-up ham if you have it. Simmer, and then for the finishing touch, separate three eggs, and add some of the soup to the yolks. Add this mix to the soup, stir, and let simmer for ten minutes or so; don’t overcook the eggs.
(Note: the recipe also called for cream, which would be added with the eggs, but I didn’t have any of that either)
Eat with: croutons, grated Parmesan/Gouda. Save the egg whites for tomorrow.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
New Meanings
Presumably, the entire e-mail list of Dictionary.com was graced with a new definition of "sommelier" this morning, complete with an anachronistic quote from Ernest Hemmingway. The website is a bit clearer.
However, from a linguistic perspective, if enough people start thinking a word means X, even if they're wrong and even if it's because some intern decided to mess with everyone, then eventually, the dictionaries do change. Because words take on meaning as a culture uses them. It's, as Colbert would say, democracy of information.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Fo late
This goes out to Bess, who I just discovered is pregnant, and who has been taking prenatal vitamins for months now. Bess: I'm glad my little niece/ nephew/ nutrition-snatcher is getting enough folic acid.
Folic acid is so important to neural development and DNA synthesis that the FDA ordered it added to grain products like bread and cornflakes in the attempt to cut down on Spina Bifida and Anencephaly. However, only about 1/3 of US women capable of becoming pregnant (and producing children with early developmental neural tube problems) actually get enough of this B vitamin; by the time they figure out they're pregnant, it's usually too late.
Folate, also known as folic acid, is primarily delivered to the body (often via dark leafy greens and legumes) tied up with amino acids, from what I understand. So you have this little soap-opera tableau occurring in your body: your intestines break the amino acids off ruthlessly, and the folate is adsorbed and delivered to cells, but it's still trapped and paranoid and unusable. It takes another B vitamin, B12, to sashay in and save the day. So you don't just need folic acid here, you need B12. Then both coenzymes can blithely help produce DNA, mature red blood cells, and a host of other healthy cellular productions, potentially cutting down the risk of cancer.
I bet I know why I crave black beans. I think I need more mature red blood cells. Then maybe I won't blush as much...
Monday, September 28, 2009
Theory of divorce
God hates divorce. I think the question should be asked, though, as to why. If God is not just some arbitrary sprite creating a disorganized maze for us to scramble through to reach the peanut-butter middle of eternal life, then there should be a compelling reason or two. Malachi hints that it has something to do with violence and breaking faith.
This makes sense, because divorces are typically nasty. Rarely do you get such open displays of hostility between two people who have loved (or claim to still love) each other — slander, blackmail, pushing the other near bankruptcy, using your own children as pawns, backbiting, malice, envy and so on. If you have the aforementioned children, the toll on them is usually negative. If you have a common social group, the result on them is typically negative as well; they, like the children, may feel forced to pick sides and cast blame, and thus grow distant from one or both parties. But at least they are not intrinsically tied to the parties; worst case in this mobile society, one or both parties could just move somewhere else to alleviate the awkwardness. Children are in it for the long haul.
But assume you manage an amicable divorce and there are no children. Does God still hate divorce? For Christians this should be a serious question. The Bible doesn’t give very broad permission to end marriage: the New Testament seems pretty clear that the only reason to legitimately end a Judeo-Christian marriage is adultery. Also, if you’re married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever leaves you, then you have not [necessarily] sinned.
This leaves out a lot of things: fraud, abuse, negligence, committing a serious felony and so on. In a quick search I did online, one pastor noted that if your spouse is doing something this evil, he/she isn’t really a Christian, so the married-to-an-unbeliever clause applies.
First of all, this isn’t true. People can be totally terrible, see their need for redemption, backslide 10 or 12 times a day, and still call themselves Christians. Given the command to forgive “70 times 7,” backsliding isn’t a legitimate reason to say people aren’t serious about their faith. They may not be, but then again, who are you to say? You’re supposed to forgive them. Second, even if your spouse is clearly the most evil [asexual] person to have walked the planet this side of the Rockies, if you’re not the one deserted, you’re supposed to stay. Biblically speaking. Yes, even if the spouse is beating you routinely, eating animals alive and raising your children to sacrifice to the river gods. Because by your example you may yet change this behavior!
Frankly, this doesn’t make a lot of sense. If you’re supposed to be raising children and reflecting to them, yourselves and the outside world a picture of Christ and the church with your marriage, what good does the blasphemy of terrible marriage/parenthood do to anyone, least of all the people in it? Maybe here something like the very general command “Have nothing to do with them” would apply. Avoid such people before they contribute to your progeny or further destruction.
At this point a few people are probably going to be vaguely thinking one of a few things: A) if you married someone that bad, you deserve the fruits of your stupidity, genius. B) I don’t care what examples you come up with; the Bible is still inerrant. The most direct route must be applied, too, so no jumping around with this “avoid such people” nonsense. That may sound harsh, but God’s ways are not our ways. No matter what, I’m going to side with the Bible. C) It’s all about sex. The Bible is just trying to protect the one-man/one-woman model. I’m sure abused women/men can separate from their husbands/wives, they just should never have sex with anyone again. D) Ok, fine. Get divorced if you feel like your life is in the balance or something. But you’d better prove to me that you had a good reason. Like maybe a printed-out police report.
Possibly just seeing such vague thoughts outlined renders them too uncomfortable to espouse, but if not, see the following responses:
A) bad marriages are not the result of stupidity/gullibility per se. And even if they are, stupidity/gullibility isn’t a sin. Thus, nobody should be doomed to be forever stuck its consequences on the grounds of moral outrage. This is grace, not hell. Or, at least, it should be.
B) Does this mean no matter what, you’re going to side with the Bible on everything, or just this point? The Bible is also OK with slavery — or at least doesn’t condemn it — and to deal with rape, the rapist is supposed to marry the [unpromised] girl he rapes. If you’re willing to be consistent to the point that you’ll suggest this biblical approach when you / your daughter / your sister is raped and/or enslaved, then I’d applaud your consistency, but not necessarily your sanity. I suspect that these laws on rape and marriage were in place to shelter women who otherwise had no protection… women had no standing to get a divorce in Biblical times; their husbands, on the other hand, could quite easily divorce them.
Also, if men saw that women they had sex with were then their responsibility, they may have engaged in less “no strings attached” sex at a period in history when a woman had no way of raising a child alone… but in times when women can support themselves, this is not such an imperative. In fact, most women now would probably prefer not to be supported by a guy who’s taken advantage of them, either in marriage or out of it.
And do you really disagree with this cultural model as strongly as you think you do? If you’re a strict Biblicist in the sense that you think culture should have no bearing whatsoever on the intent of the command, then please reconcile the fact that, in the event that a precious female is taken from you and sold to the highest bidder in Amsterdam or Nevada, you should be encourage her now, in the interest of instilling biblical virtues in her, to obey her pimp, particularly if he’s giving her food and shelter, rather than encouraging her to slit his throat/run. Both are highly unbiblical responses to subjugation, even by the heathen.
C) One man/one woman? The only place (that I am aware of) where this is held up as something to shoot for in all of scripture is if the man is a pastor/teacher. Polygamy was the norm in nearly all the instances of marriage mentioned in the Bible. The big thing here was raising up heirs, not making sure everyone in the world had one and only one sexual partner. A widow was passed to her husband’s next-of-kin; she could publicly humiliate him if he refused her. Solomon, the wisest guy on earth, had more concubines than the average NFL player. Granted, this was seen as leading to his downfall, but only rather incidentally.
D) Two words: slander/gossip. If someone isn’t willing to trash-talk their ex-spouse, that should be a good thing. As God is the judge, not you, don’t try to force out the dirty details, even to absolve someone in your mind. Maybe the divorce wasn’t for a good reason. On the other hand, maybe it was. And maybe it just isn’t your business.
In closing, let it be noted that this was something that even the disciples had trouble comprehending… and Jesus didn’t seem to push it.
Matthew 19:8-11
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given…”
Also, the point behind all Biblical commands is showing love, even, it appears, the command to submit to authority (be it to a master, lord or Caesar). This is not at all to say that all things done in the name of love are right (any more than all things done in the name of God are right), but it certainly should call for an attitude check.
Romans 13: 1-10
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established….3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. …
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
This makes sense, because divorces are typically nasty. Rarely do you get such open displays of hostility between two people who have loved (or claim to still love) each other — slander, blackmail, pushing the other near bankruptcy, using your own children as pawns, backbiting, malice, envy and so on. If you have the aforementioned children, the toll on them is usually negative. If you have a common social group, the result on them is typically negative as well; they, like the children, may feel forced to pick sides and cast blame, and thus grow distant from one or both parties. But at least they are not intrinsically tied to the parties; worst case in this mobile society, one or both parties could just move somewhere else to alleviate the awkwardness. Children are in it for the long haul.
But assume you manage an amicable divorce and there are no children. Does God still hate divorce? For Christians this should be a serious question. The Bible doesn’t give very broad permission to end marriage: the New Testament seems pretty clear that the only reason to legitimately end a Judeo-Christian marriage is adultery. Also, if you’re married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever leaves you, then you have not [necessarily] sinned.
This leaves out a lot of things: fraud, abuse, negligence, committing a serious felony and so on. In a quick search I did online, one pastor noted that if your spouse is doing something this evil, he/she isn’t really a Christian, so the married-to-an-unbeliever clause applies.
First of all, this isn’t true. People can be totally terrible, see their need for redemption, backslide 10 or 12 times a day, and still call themselves Christians. Given the command to forgive “70 times 7,” backsliding isn’t a legitimate reason to say people aren’t serious about their faith. They may not be, but then again, who are you to say? You’re supposed to forgive them. Second, even if your spouse is clearly the most evil [asexual] person to have walked the planet this side of the Rockies, if you’re not the one deserted, you’re supposed to stay. Biblically speaking. Yes, even if the spouse is beating you routinely, eating animals alive and raising your children to sacrifice to the river gods. Because by your example you may yet change this behavior!
Frankly, this doesn’t make a lot of sense. If you’re supposed to be raising children and reflecting to them, yourselves and the outside world a picture of Christ and the church with your marriage, what good does the blasphemy of terrible marriage/parenthood do to anyone, least of all the people in it? Maybe here something like the very general command “Have nothing to do with them” would apply. Avoid such people before they contribute to your progeny or further destruction.
At this point a few people are probably going to be vaguely thinking one of a few things: A) if you married someone that bad, you deserve the fruits of your stupidity, genius. B) I don’t care what examples you come up with; the Bible is still inerrant. The most direct route must be applied, too, so no jumping around with this “avoid such people” nonsense. That may sound harsh, but God’s ways are not our ways. No matter what, I’m going to side with the Bible. C) It’s all about sex. The Bible is just trying to protect the one-man/one-woman model. I’m sure abused women/men can separate from their husbands/wives, they just should never have sex with anyone again. D) Ok, fine. Get divorced if you feel like your life is in the balance or something. But you’d better prove to me that you had a good reason. Like maybe a printed-out police report.
Possibly just seeing such vague thoughts outlined renders them too uncomfortable to espouse, but if not, see the following responses:
A) bad marriages are not the result of stupidity/gullibility per se. And even if they are, stupidity/gullibility isn’t a sin. Thus, nobody should be doomed to be forever stuck its consequences on the grounds of moral outrage. This is grace, not hell. Or, at least, it should be.
B) Does this mean no matter what, you’re going to side with the Bible on everything, or just this point? The Bible is also OK with slavery — or at least doesn’t condemn it — and to deal with rape, the rapist is supposed to marry the [unpromised] girl he rapes. If you’re willing to be consistent to the point that you’ll suggest this biblical approach when you / your daughter / your sister is raped and/or enslaved, then I’d applaud your consistency, but not necessarily your sanity. I suspect that these laws on rape and marriage were in place to shelter women who otherwise had no protection… women had no standing to get a divorce in Biblical times; their husbands, on the other hand, could quite easily divorce them.
Also, if men saw that women they had sex with were then their responsibility, they may have engaged in less “no strings attached” sex at a period in history when a woman had no way of raising a child alone… but in times when women can support themselves, this is not such an imperative. In fact, most women now would probably prefer not to be supported by a guy who’s taken advantage of them, either in marriage or out of it.
And do you really disagree with this cultural model as strongly as you think you do? If you’re a strict Biblicist in the sense that you think culture should have no bearing whatsoever on the intent of the command, then please reconcile the fact that, in the event that a precious female is taken from you and sold to the highest bidder in Amsterdam or Nevada, you should be encourage her now, in the interest of instilling biblical virtues in her, to obey her pimp, particularly if he’s giving her food and shelter, rather than encouraging her to slit his throat/run. Both are highly unbiblical responses to subjugation, even by the heathen.
C) One man/one woman? The only place (that I am aware of) where this is held up as something to shoot for in all of scripture is if the man is a pastor/teacher. Polygamy was the norm in nearly all the instances of marriage mentioned in the Bible. The big thing here was raising up heirs, not making sure everyone in the world had one and only one sexual partner. A widow was passed to her husband’s next-of-kin; she could publicly humiliate him if he refused her. Solomon, the wisest guy on earth, had more concubines than the average NFL player. Granted, this was seen as leading to his downfall, but only rather incidentally.
D) Two words: slander/gossip. If someone isn’t willing to trash-talk their ex-spouse, that should be a good thing. As God is the judge, not you, don’t try to force out the dirty details, even to absolve someone in your mind. Maybe the divorce wasn’t for a good reason. On the other hand, maybe it was. And maybe it just isn’t your business.
In closing, let it be noted that this was something that even the disciples had trouble comprehending… and Jesus didn’t seem to push it.
Matthew 19:8-11
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given…”
Also, the point behind all Biblical commands is showing love, even, it appears, the command to submit to authority (be it to a master, lord or Caesar). This is not at all to say that all things done in the name of love are right (any more than all things done in the name of God are right), but it certainly should call for an attitude check.
Romans 13: 1-10
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established….3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. …
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Affirmative responses: not always so clear cut
English, though not exactly on the same context level as Chinese, can still present problematic nuances to second-language learners, even advanced ones. Consider the following possible affirmative responses (said in a fairly neutral voice) to the rather nerve-wracking request "Would you like to go out with me on Friday? To see that show? I hear it's good":
response using "Ok"
1. Ok!
2. Oh, Ok.
3. Oh, that's Ok.
response using "right" and "yeah"
1. Yeah, right on.
2. Right. Yeah.
3. Yeah, right.
response using "sure"
1. Sure!
2. Ok... sure.
3: I'm sure.
Obviously, 1 means yes, 2 means a far less enthusiastic yes, and 3 means no. Any other questions?
response using "Ok"
1. Ok!
2. Oh, Ok.
3. Oh, that's Ok.
response using "right" and "yeah"
1. Yeah, right on.
2. Right. Yeah.
3. Yeah, right.
response using "sure"
1. Sure!
2. Ok... sure.
3: I'm sure.
Obviously, 1 means yes, 2 means a far less enthusiastic yes, and 3 means no. Any other questions?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Lasik: two days post-op
My eyes are slightly less dry than when I wore contacts. That was the problem with contacts; that, and the astigmatism made everything less than perfect. Glasses I was used to, having worn them since age 10, but it was a bit annoying to try to wear them in any active situation. And they get scratched and smudged, though your brain gets used to that. And sunglasses are hard to wear if you're already wearing glasses.
So I got my eyes sliced and diced. After doing research on price/experience/potential complication, I allowed myself to be shuttled through the process: exams, exams, exams, pop two pills, wait in a room for them to take effect, be led rather groggily to a room where ten minutes before there was someone else, have eyelids taped open, drip drip... numbing drops? Feel something metallic slide into eye area, feel something more uncomfortable slide onto eye. That's a bit freaky. The Lorazepam just doesn't cover unanticipated eyeball squeezing and the fact that my vision goes momentarily dark. "Look into the blinking light," they say. The laser, you mean, right? Yeah, ok, now something cool and wet is going around my eye, and there's activity there, and now it's all fuzzy and unfocused and I know my cornea is hanging off my eye and I'm looking dutifully into the blinking light, which makes a strange noise and is very far away, underwater. Then more water on my face, and I can clearly see a tiny spatula dabbing my cornea back in place, smoothing it.
Everything comes off: they rip the tapes off my eyelids and I think it's not very nice of them. The on to the left eye. The whole thing takes about ten minutes.
Apparently my corneas have rolled back on themselves, however, so they have to re-float them and stick contacts over them to keep them in place.
I am tired and having my eyes squeezed is not at the top of my simple pleasures list. I shut them and keep them shut more or less for the next 18 hours, with only a quick peek now and then out of milky, blurred eyes. The next morning I test my vision for real. It's hard to read things. My eyes don't work together. Lights are defined in star-point halos. My eyes are as dry as the desert.
This freaks me out for the next 6 hours or so, even though I anticipated it, until my vision improves and things become more synchronized, as I pour artificial tears into them.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Glossy posse
There’s a stack of fashion magazines at my sister’s house, Glamour and Vogue. And, man, the headlines are all the same, blurring together from issue to issue: 3 flat belly secrets, 100 sexy looks you can afford, 50 things your man wishes you knew, 25 ways to wear this season’s clothes.
The best jeans for your body. The best bathing suit for your body — though, strangely, the wetsuit, which alone has that all-over smoothing effect, is missing from these pages.
Ironically, "shape" (fat?) and "age" (wrinkles and saggy flesh?) are "celebrated" on these same covers in the persons of Beyonce and Christy Turlington. The message being, I suppose, that even if you weigh more than 110 pounds and/or have passed the age of 25, you’ve still got a shot at killing yourself over some ridiculous ideal.
Meanwhile, what’s written inside is something along the lines of: "hey, you beautiful, bold woman! Listen to this! No matter how little you look like the people in this magazine, I’m sure there’s some guy out there who’s going to think you’re The One, if you can just convince yourself, by dint of effort, self-empowerment, and the right wardrobe, that you’re worth something. Because the hottest thing ever is confidence!"
And I sit there thinking: are you serious? Are women really this insecure and deluded?
Confidence I can definitely appreciate. But it has to be the right kind of confidence. It has to be the kind of confidence that says: when I’m in my grubby clothes working outside, and when I’m scrubbing the floor, and when I’m trying, but failing, at beating you at the 100-meter dash, and when I’m trying, but failing, at mountain biking up this hill, and when I’m trying, but failing, at making you see my point, you’d still be crazy not to see through the grime and recognize the soul behind it. I do not need $2,000 worth of designer gear to give me courage. I do not need laser surgery to give me courage. This is not even a thought in my mind, because I, among all the women of the world, can alone offer you myself, and the self you would become with me, too. And if you choose another self, I will not die. Perhaps that is even wise of you, and I will see it in time, also.
It is less the confidence of an easy conquest (for this, too, shall pass) and more the confidence that all can be right with the world.
Even if my hair is flat. And even if the man I want right this second doesn’t want me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
