It is always with trepidation that I open the first jar, that jar with purple goo where the hot mixture of berries, water and sugar coalesces after being dribbled down the side. It is the first testing of the season's preserves.
There have been the jars full of rock-hard, raspberry candy and the ones full of liquid that could not possible settle on a biscuit with ease. Yet, I am too proud to do other than stir and attempt to judge from color, thickness and the kinds of bubbles that well up when it is ready than do the sensible thing and buy a thermometer. And so I stir and sweat over a stove when the temperature outside is already in the nineties. And I test the thickness by letting drops fall into a cup of water and judging the results.
All of this is for these jars that surpass expectations; that have just that right mixture of texture, not runny, not hard, full of flavor. And all my doing.
What is it about food that is derived direct from your source by your own hands? There were the peas that decorated my yard in spring and fall for a full years, yielding memories of home and tender seeds until the Eastern rabbits learned their taste and drove me from this field. But they were always fresher, hence better, than anything from the artificial store shelves.
Then, there is the walnut tree in our back yard that I had not noticed for years until an unplanned change of career left me home during day light with time to notice the hulls on the ground. I spent days sifting through fallen leaves. Most of the tree leans over our neighbor's yard and I would lean over the fence and grab them with one of those "garbage pickers" or use a rake to bring them closer. My neighbors did not use walnuts and for some reason, never seemed to be around when I wanted to ask permission to come over to remove them from their yard. I graduated to using a tree trimmer with an extensible pole to broaden my reach.
After a suitable drying period, they were cracked. I found that lying them flat on concrete steps and tapping firm, but not hard enough to send pieces flying, produced decent sized chunks. These are black walnuts, not the Asian varieties from supermarkets that produce large seeds that separate easily from the shell. These yield bits and pieces and require frequent use of a knife pick.
"Those were mighty expensive walnuts," someone wrote after I posted on Facebook the amount of time it took to harvest a couple of plastic bags full. And yet, I have been more inclined to use walnuts in hot cereal with these pieces than I ever have been with purchased nuts, despite having to pick shell fragments out of my mouth.
There is a satisfying lesson that food has a life apart from us; that it is not there simply for our pleasure; that it does not exist for us. It exists for itself, for its own perpetuation through the product its species; to be knocked accidentally to the ground or carried through the digestive system of some animal; and to fall somewhere on good ground.
We make use of it, but for someone somewhere, in getting the ingredients to our table, there is work by someone, that effort must be made, that there is a cost to everything, and that we are simply part of the chain.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Becoming a Facebook Chameleon
The thought has been growing: what if I were to adopt a new life, pick parts that suit me and present a new face to the world. In the era of social media, there's never been a better opportunity to experiment with personality.
Simply start with Facebook and create a page that has a legitimate email address. But from then, I could create a new profile. Suddenly, I have an interest in fine wines and tractor pulls (probably not a convincing combination). I rarely miss romantic comedies and stock car racing, none of which are true currently. I would enter the information falsely, but consistently about what movies I like books I have read and favorite television shows. None of which would match my current profile.
Then, I would begin inviting friends, making sure that only people I have never met will populate my list. Of course, there would be many rejections. But some would hit the "Accept request" button without thinking. Others might be simply intrigued by being solicited by someone who shares so many interests with them.
It would take some effort to convincingly engage in dialog, creating new family members, school history and job experience. But for the most part, most friends would not dig deep if approached in an engaging, seemingly sincere manner. There might be some evasiveness needed if anyone of them want to meet me. Oh, I have this terrible agoraphobia and not only cannot I not leave me house, I got into screaming panics if visitors try to enter.
There has always been this thought that, if I am not me, who would I be? What would I be like had I taken this course, not talked to that person, and missed a particular telephone call? Here is the chance to take that other direction, or perhaps as many directions as I have legitimate email addresses.
I suppose this is not much different than the experience of an actor who is deeply involved in a role or a law enforcement agent who has spent too long assuming a different personality to go underground during an investigation. Or perhaps it's like the impersonator whose story was the basis for the movie "Catch Me If You Can?"
How quickly would I become the other person? Would I indeed become another person or something that's a mix of what I am now with a new reality? Would this be better or worse? Would I be me? Would I know?
Simply start with Facebook and create a page that has a legitimate email address. But from then, I could create a new profile. Suddenly, I have an interest in fine wines and tractor pulls (probably not a convincing combination). I rarely miss romantic comedies and stock car racing, none of which are true currently. I would enter the information falsely, but consistently about what movies I like books I have read and favorite television shows. None of which would match my current profile.
Then, I would begin inviting friends, making sure that only people I have never met will populate my list. Of course, there would be many rejections. But some would hit the "Accept request" button without thinking. Others might be simply intrigued by being solicited by someone who shares so many interests with them.
It would take some effort to convincingly engage in dialog, creating new family members, school history and job experience. But for the most part, most friends would not dig deep if approached in an engaging, seemingly sincere manner. There might be some evasiveness needed if anyone of them want to meet me. Oh, I have this terrible agoraphobia and not only cannot I not leave me house, I got into screaming panics if visitors try to enter.
There has always been this thought that, if I am not me, who would I be? What would I be like had I taken this course, not talked to that person, and missed a particular telephone call? Here is the chance to take that other direction, or perhaps as many directions as I have legitimate email addresses.
I suppose this is not much different than the experience of an actor who is deeply involved in a role or a law enforcement agent who has spent too long assuming a different personality to go underground during an investigation. Or perhaps it's like the impersonator whose story was the basis for the movie "Catch Me If You Can?"
How quickly would I become the other person? Would I indeed become another person or something that's a mix of what I am now with a new reality? Would this be better or worse? Would I be me? Would I know?
Friday, June 11, 2010
Men as Steak-Loving, Beer-Guzzling Simpletons
Father’s Day reminds us that men have simple needs. They need to know how to grill steak, keep a yard green and how to use a remote while utilizing a big-screen television to watch their favorite sport. At least, that’s what advertising tells and if that’s what most men in America are, no wonder television comedies turn us into boobs.
The image of men in the United States on TV sitcoms is a stereotype. But since advertising reflects at least some accepted beliefs and also impacts how its subject is perceived, there’s some truth to the image and it is aggressively perpetuated.
But there it is. Many men in 50 states have been convinced that a man’s meal is a three-pound steak accompanied by ample helpings of starches at a steak house and you haven’t had a meal unless you’re so stuffed you are ready to vomit. Dad has to be rooting for a bunch of sumo-sized linesman on his favorite football team to pound equal large defenders on the other team as hard as is legally allowable.
In this country, choruses usually stagger from the weight of female members while their male counterparts are in short supply. In Wales, all-male choruses are abundant. Men take time to share the poetry they have written with fellow workers. It’s difficult to get an image of a bunch of autoworkers taking time out to read their verse or even admit they have written it, or to spend time after work to practice a musical piece instead of heading for the bar, beer and TV.
Maybe the acceptance of gays wlll help the macho men alter their image. I believe the television show, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” both reflected increased toleration and helped many Americans get an image of gays as people with a variety of temperaments and styles, and not as sex-craved queens.
Just maybe we can begin to accept there is something manly about muscular moves and about artistic moves on the football field and elsewhere. And we can let the grass grow and have a quiche on Father’s Day.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Food with Thoughts?
The conversation was not generally the kind that takes place on the steps of a Unitarian church. But here were three of us, all members and over 50 (whether that is relevant I don’t know) discussing the virtues of freshly-killed meat and how good it tastes.
Many inside would agree that fresh food is good and that organically grown vegetables are to be preferred. What they would have thought given the number of vegetarians and vegans, about our assertion of the superior flavor of some animal that has recently left its happy foraging grounds is not hard to imagine.
And yet, there we were, hunters, small town kids, people who know how to use a gun. For my part, having grown up on a farm, we didn’t have our own cattle butchered and packaged for home consumption. But people purchased a half a side or a side of beef and for flavor it is simply matchless when stacked up against the stuff laid out under lights designed to heighten the red color of flesh that has been pumped full of water.
There is that ethical dilemma as we realize increasingly that other animals can use tools that chimpanzees engage in war and in ritual murder. People in Africa eat monkey meat a fact that gets discuss in how the aids virus crossed from the jungle primate population in to humans. The higher primates all show some intelligence. So how far down on the chain of life is it OK to eat sentient beings? We haven't really come close to needing to make the decision. Those who eschew meat avoid it all; they don't have a threshold about what to eat.
Other species don’t ask these questions. Crocodiles do not engage in internal debates about devouring someone who enters their world. The fact that a young woman from the same address as our church, Morristown, N.J., on vacation in India recently ended up as a meal for one of these reptiles reminds us that they have no qualms. Being eaten is not on our list of expectations of things that can go wrong on a trip. But however rare such a fate is these days, it's still one that humans can experience.
We are living proof that intelligent creates can be eaten. However, we haven’t had to face the dilemma of ourselves eating a species that has great cognitive ability, even if not up to human standards. When we aim at a deer, it doesn’t yell, “Hey I don’t go around hunting you, do I?"
But suppose on some planet while hunting a meal we come across a slow witted, but tasty creature. And as we aim, it looks at us and says “please don’t."
Many inside would agree that fresh food is good and that organically grown vegetables are to be preferred. What they would have thought given the number of vegetarians and vegans, about our assertion of the superior flavor of some animal that has recently left its happy foraging grounds is not hard to imagine.
And yet, there we were, hunters, small town kids, people who know how to use a gun. For my part, having grown up on a farm, we didn’t have our own cattle butchered and packaged for home consumption. But people purchased a half a side or a side of beef and for flavor it is simply matchless when stacked up against the stuff laid out under lights designed to heighten the red color of flesh that has been pumped full of water.
There is that ethical dilemma as we realize increasingly that other animals can use tools that chimpanzees engage in war and in ritual murder. People in Africa eat monkey meat a fact that gets discuss in how the aids virus crossed from the jungle primate population in to humans. The higher primates all show some intelligence. So how far down on the chain of life is it OK to eat sentient beings? We haven't really come close to needing to make the decision. Those who eschew meat avoid it all; they don't have a threshold about what to eat.
Other species don’t ask these questions. Crocodiles do not engage in internal debates about devouring someone who enters their world. The fact that a young woman from the same address as our church, Morristown, N.J., on vacation in India recently ended up as a meal for one of these reptiles reminds us that they have no qualms. Being eaten is not on our list of expectations of things that can go wrong on a trip. But however rare such a fate is these days, it's still one that humans can experience.
We are living proof that intelligent creates can be eaten. However, we haven’t had to face the dilemma of ourselves eating a species that has great cognitive ability, even if not up to human standards. When we aim at a deer, it doesn’t yell, “Hey I don’t go around hunting you, do I?"
But suppose on some planet while hunting a meal we come across a slow witted, but tasty creature. And as we aim, it looks at us and says “please don’t."
Saturday, May 29, 2010
The Star Spangled Anacreon
Memorial Day weekend often brings me to the thought of the great debt we owe to the society that originated the tune that is now used to accompany the words Francis Scott Key wrote that have become known as "The Star Spangled Banner."
Many think the tune was originally a drinking song, and the fact that it also once accompanied words to "Adams and Liberty" suggests that the Sons of Liberty in revolutionary Boston had probably figured anybody who could hack the song had the stuff of which dedicated patriots are made of. And a Wikipedia article suggests it was in fact a form of sobriety test among the members of the Anacreon Club. But as anyone knows about "The Star Spangled Banner," friends, don't let friends drink and sing this.
In the 1700s, more than once the crowd told Paul Revere, "sing it again until you get it right" which led him to declare, "I'd rather spend on night on a horse in the Middlesex village and farms." That was better than Sam Adams, who used to sing it until he was horse, sort of like John Lennon at the end of "Twist and Shout" and all the patriots would hoot and holler at him, suspected as his reason for going into the beer business.
But the melody goes back to The Anacreontic Song , also known from the first line, "Anacreon in Heaven." If an entry on Wikipedia has it right, this song, written in the 1760s, included the chorus "And long may the sons of Anacreon intwine the myths of Venus with Bacchus vice." You could often hear the words, "Play ball" echoing across the Boston common after the ringing last notes, followed by the rustling of bags of peanuts and loud belches from the beer-drinking crowd.
It's debated if the members of the Anacreon Society in England were interested in the poetry of the Greek author after whom they took their names or that entwining of Venus and Bacchus, which sounds a lot more interesting that reciting a bunch of stuffy poems. In fact, the patriots spent more time harassing the waitress, trying to interest them in some off-hours entwining, which was totally against house rules.
But the real subject at has is why Francis Scott Key - the name rolls off like a mother yelling at an errant child, Francis SCOTT Key - picked the melody. The Wikipedia article says it fit. I figure that he realized he was writing for free and decided to have a good laugh.
"Let's see how many of them can hit that high note," is likely to be the inscription found in his lost diary.
Many think the tune was originally a drinking song, and the fact that it also once accompanied words to "Adams and Liberty" suggests that the Sons of Liberty in revolutionary Boston had probably figured anybody who could hack the song had the stuff of which dedicated patriots are made of. And a Wikipedia article suggests it was in fact a form of sobriety test among the members of the Anacreon Club. But as anyone knows about "The Star Spangled Banner," friends, don't let friends drink and sing this.
In the 1700s, more than once the crowd told Paul Revere, "sing it again until you get it right" which led him to declare, "I'd rather spend on night on a horse in the Middlesex village and farms." That was better than Sam Adams, who used to sing it until he was horse, sort of like John Lennon at the end of "Twist and Shout" and all the patriots would hoot and holler at him, suspected as his reason for going into the beer business.
But the melody goes back to The Anacreontic Song , also known from the first line, "Anacreon in Heaven." If an entry on Wikipedia has it right, this song, written in the 1760s, included the chorus "And long may the sons of Anacreon intwine the myths of Venus with Bacchus vice." You could often hear the words, "Play ball" echoing across the Boston common after the ringing last notes, followed by the rustling of bags of peanuts and loud belches from the beer-drinking crowd.
It's debated if the members of the Anacreon Society in England were interested in the poetry of the Greek author after whom they took their names or that entwining of Venus and Bacchus, which sounds a lot more interesting that reciting a bunch of stuffy poems. In fact, the patriots spent more time harassing the waitress, trying to interest them in some off-hours entwining, which was totally against house rules.
But the real subject at has is why Francis Scott Key - the name rolls off like a mother yelling at an errant child, Francis SCOTT Key - picked the melody. The Wikipedia article says it fit. I figure that he realized he was writing for free and decided to have a good laugh.
"Let's see how many of them can hit that high note," is likely to be the inscription found in his lost diary.
Friday, April 23, 2010
They All Speak English There
In a press conference, Bill McDermott, who recently became co-CEO of software giant SAP, joked he would learn a few words of German. That came as other SAP executives, who were German spoke fluent English during the same presentation that was being Webcast. McDermott is an American and I would suspect someone as sharp as he might be joking about his lack of German fluency. I hope so.
If he's not, he's just another example of the American attitude towards learning language. It's the "They all speak English" mentality which translates more realistically as "Why do we need to bother with their language?"
That comment about speaking English is often given when I tell people I'm working on learning some words in the language of the country I plan to visit. My goal is always to learn enough to ask directions, order food, ask for help and greet people politely. Since I'm fortunate enough to have an ear for accents, it pays dividends and I think it's because residents of most countries don't expect Americans to make the effort.
Granted you have to pick your battles. There are only so many languages most people can learn fluently. Few Americans are going to be like the Scandinavians. One Swede told my wife that most speak for or five languages. That's easier to do if you hear different languages all the time and with the oceans around us, it's tough for Americans to be exposed to more than Spanish regularly, although it would be a good idea if more Americans took Spanish seriously.
But they don't all speak English; not off the mains streets in Paris. And when I stopped on an autobahn south of Munich to ask directions, no one in the mini-marts spoke English and it was handy to be able to ask in German.
This is partly about cultural arrogance, the classic ugly American. We're no. 1 in the world so why bother? The problem is, this may not last, especially as China becomes more powerful. This is also about a terrible American language education system, which generally doesn't start at a young enough age when children can learn language more easily. This again may get back to an unwillingness to devote the resources if Americans believe the rest of the world will do things our way.
However, language can be a weapon. There are periodic stories about the lack of fluent Arab speakers in our intelligence gathering efforts and how that hampers the ability of the United States to fight terrorism. That at least should spur interest in improving the flow of Arab speakers. In business, language is equally a powerful tool. Making feel appreciated by talking to them in their own words is very persuasive.
Given the America first attitude in many circles and the money crunch from the recession, this situation seems unlikely to improve soon, which is unfortunate.
Meanwhile, we hope to rebook our trip to Amsterdam, the one that was canceled because the unfortunate effect of volcanic ash on jet engines. I have this investment in learning as much Dutch as possible, even though I know they all speak English. And I know that in Holland, that's closer to being a true statement than almost anywhere else in Europe.
If he's not, he's just another example of the American attitude towards learning language. It's the "They all speak English" mentality which translates more realistically as "Why do we need to bother with their language?"
That comment about speaking English is often given when I tell people I'm working on learning some words in the language of the country I plan to visit. My goal is always to learn enough to ask directions, order food, ask for help and greet people politely. Since I'm fortunate enough to have an ear for accents, it pays dividends and I think it's because residents of most countries don't expect Americans to make the effort.
Granted you have to pick your battles. There are only so many languages most people can learn fluently. Few Americans are going to be like the Scandinavians. One Swede told my wife that most speak for or five languages. That's easier to do if you hear different languages all the time and with the oceans around us, it's tough for Americans to be exposed to more than Spanish regularly, although it would be a good idea if more Americans took Spanish seriously.
But they don't all speak English; not off the mains streets in Paris. And when I stopped on an autobahn south of Munich to ask directions, no one in the mini-marts spoke English and it was handy to be able to ask in German.
This is partly about cultural arrogance, the classic ugly American. We're no. 1 in the world so why bother? The problem is, this may not last, especially as China becomes more powerful. This is also about a terrible American language education system, which generally doesn't start at a young enough age when children can learn language more easily. This again may get back to an unwillingness to devote the resources if Americans believe the rest of the world will do things our way.
However, language can be a weapon. There are periodic stories about the lack of fluent Arab speakers in our intelligence gathering efforts and how that hampers the ability of the United States to fight terrorism. That at least should spur interest in improving the flow of Arab speakers. In business, language is equally a powerful tool. Making feel appreciated by talking to them in their own words is very persuasive.
Given the America first attitude in many circles and the money crunch from the recession, this situation seems unlikely to improve soon, which is unfortunate.
Meanwhile, we hope to rebook our trip to Amsterdam, the one that was canceled because the unfortunate effect of volcanic ash on jet engines. I have this investment in learning as much Dutch as possible, even though I know they all speak English. And I know that in Holland, that's closer to being a true statement than almost anywhere else in Europe.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Guns for the Inner City
The debate over gun control tends to center around what produces more crime or less crime. Does reducing the number of guns decrease crime, or does having more guns on the street deter crime?
Now personally, I'm not sure we've seen that places with gun control or places with guns have any advantage in this race. I do think that the crimes that occur tend to be more violent. But if guns decrease crime, it seems silly to have them in a suburban Starbucks in the state of Washington, as happened when gun advocates wore their guns to locations in which they could legally carry them.
If having citizens carry guns prevents crime, then the best places to have more guns are those places where crime is higher. And that tends to be the inner city. Those who believe guns are an effective deterrent should have no problem with this argument and it suggests they could support some very effective steps in promoting gun use.
The National Rifle Association could provide marketing assistance for gun shops in the cities. There could be training programs for teaching disadvantaged youth how to more effectively handle firearms. There could be support for school programs, encouraging speakers to visit inner city schools and the organization of after school gun clubs.
What's the point in having all those guns in suburbia? Put them where they are needed.
Now personally, I'm not sure we've seen that places with gun control or places with guns have any advantage in this race. I do think that the crimes that occur tend to be more violent. But if guns decrease crime, it seems silly to have them in a suburban Starbucks in the state of Washington, as happened when gun advocates wore their guns to locations in which they could legally carry them.
If having citizens carry guns prevents crime, then the best places to have more guns are those places where crime is higher. And that tends to be the inner city. Those who believe guns are an effective deterrent should have no problem with this argument and it suggests they could support some very effective steps in promoting gun use.
The National Rifle Association could provide marketing assistance for gun shops in the cities. There could be training programs for teaching disadvantaged youth how to more effectively handle firearms. There could be support for school programs, encouraging speakers to visit inner city schools and the organization of after school gun clubs.
What's the point in having all those guns in suburbia? Put them where they are needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
