I made this for dinner again last night. It's been delicious both times. I made it with turkey, which apparently weighs more? 1.5 lbs turkey is too much turkey. I also use frozen vegetables, since peas/corn/carrots come prepped that way. Big time saver. LOTS of glorious leftovers since I quadrupled the recipe. It's also delicious with the vegetarian protein crumbles. Worchestershire sauce is invincible.
And since my bananas finally ripened, I made Alton's smoothie this morning! Also delicious. I gotta recommend that whole episode.
Showing posts with label lifestyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lifestyle. Show all posts
15 January 2010
10 April 2008
On "On trust and understanding"
I drafted a post one month ago call "On trust and understanding". It began...
The heart of the problem actually occurred to me as I put aside "On trust and understanding" and wrote that Ben Stein rant instead. As the opening paragraph showed, I think the scientific method is pretty savvy. But I realized I trust it. I believe in it. I'd brushed that off before as "well, it's different," but now I can't look past it. Even the scientific method is turtles all the way down and that kills me - I thought I was standing on bedrock.
I had put Understanding on a pedestal only to realize I couldn't reach that high. I have principles, yes, but no reasons for them. Realizing that brings a lot of doubt and I'm still trying to choke it all down.
As far as I can tell, moral skepticism can't be directly denied; its biggest problem is its impracticality. Add in Hume's problem of induction and I've got quite the quarter-life quagmire. (That is a 24 Scrabble-point alliteration.)
I'm more lost in life than I've ever been; the ground is not real - there is no ground.
The dichotomy between trust and understanding is new to me. I don't know when exactly I recognized it or by what prompt, but it swept through my thoughts as a unifying duality. You needn't trust something if you can instead understand it.It ran real thin after that, so I stowed it. What I wrote put me in a dark place, hence The Silent Month (The Big Silence, Annie?). Now I'm cannibalizing that post in an attempt to liberate myself from myself (57"?). My favorite part comes after a break-neck discussion of moral skepticism, the futility of all prediction, and life goals.
I recognized that I nearly always prefer to understand than to trust. I'm not religious. I'm hesitant to take advice. And I'm a skeptic and an empiricist – I consider the scientific method to be the best known recipe for true wisdom.
So pick something and shoot for the stars, huh? What if I shoot for the stars and accidentally take out a jetliner full of infants? Or what if I become so committed to shooting for the stars that I wipe out an entire culture because I need their resources for my giant star laser?That was for giggles, this is for my emotional blog photo.
I don't know what I am for. I don't know what humanity is for. I don't know where life or the universe came from. No one does. No one ever will. So I only permit myself to wonder about that stuff. How do people choose who or what to trust, anyway? They pick the one that makes them comfortable. Or maybe the one that positively challenges them. Whatever the reason, it comes from inside and inside alone and usually incurs a fair amount of close-mindedness thereafter.I still feel that way.
It terrifies me what we sometimes do based on such a silly choice.
The heart of the problem actually occurred to me as I put aside "On trust and understanding" and wrote that Ben Stein rant instead. As the opening paragraph showed, I think the scientific method is pretty savvy. But I realized I trust it. I believe in it. I'd brushed that off before as "well, it's different," but now I can't look past it. Even the scientific method is turtles all the way down and that kills me - I thought I was standing on bedrock.
I had put Understanding on a pedestal only to realize I couldn't reach that high. I have principles, yes, but no reasons for them. Realizing that brings a lot of doubt and I'm still trying to choke it all down.
As far as I can tell, moral skepticism can't be directly denied; its biggest problem is its impracticality. Add in Hume's problem of induction and I've got quite the quarter-life quagmire. (That is a 24 Scrabble-point alliteration.)
I'm more lost in life than I've ever been; the ground is not real - there is no ground.
27 January 2008
Lessig Starts on Corruption
I've been doing some critical introspection regarding my distaste for politics. Corruption is all I see; but at the same time, I'm certain that's an over-simplification – there must be good people in there. Rory sent me a lecture regarding corruption by Larry Lessig, who has become the guru on copyright in the last decade. Within this lecture, I have found some respite from my cynicism regarding politics.
I must recommend watching the entire lecture. It's an hour long, but I think it is a rare opportunity to listen the first lecture on a new topic as a scholar of Lessig's caliber is approaching it.
While Lessig addresses the issue of corruption without restricting the discourse to any particular domain, he does spend some time with the case of government. In particular, he cites a double-barrel claim put forward by Dennis Thompson. They claim that legislators themselves are less corrupt – that is, more principled – than ever before in Congress, but Congress itself suffers from "institutional corruption" anyway.
I am rightly recognizing an institutional corruption but am wrongly projecting it onto the politicians. The influence of money on campaigns remains obvious, but I should dole out a bigger beneficial slice of doubt to individual politicians. I made reference to this in my previous post by saying that even the good-willed politicians are doomed, but maybe more of them wield noble intentions than I had thought. They just end up faltering because of the institution's inherent problems.
Now this still doesn't suggest any individual action, but at least someone perspicacious is recognizing and attacking the things that plague me. It has helped me find some immediate hope through refinement of my opinions, and it also offers the long-term hope of a plan. Somebody trustworthy is working on it.
P.P. - Lessig is changing his scholarly focus in part because he believes academics ought to reestablish their "capital" every ten years. I like this idea a lot.
I must recommend watching the entire lecture. It's an hour long, but I think it is a rare opportunity to listen the first lecture on a new topic as a scholar of Lessig's caliber is approaching it.
While Lessig addresses the issue of corruption without restricting the discourse to any particular domain, he does spend some time with the case of government. In particular, he cites a double-barrel claim put forward by Dennis Thompson. They claim that legislators themselves are less corrupt – that is, more principled – than ever before in Congress, but Congress itself suffers from "institutional corruption" anyway.
I am rightly recognizing an institutional corruption but am wrongly projecting it onto the politicians. The influence of money on campaigns remains obvious, but I should dole out a bigger beneficial slice of doubt to individual politicians. I made reference to this in my previous post by saying that even the good-willed politicians are doomed, but maybe more of them wield noble intentions than I had thought. They just end up faltering because of the institution's inherent problems.
Now this still doesn't suggest any individual action, but at least someone perspicacious is recognizing and attacking the things that plague me. It has helped me find some immediate hope through refinement of my opinions, and it also offers the long-term hope of a plan. Somebody trustworthy is working on it.
Godspeed, Professor Lessig!
P.P. - Lessig is changing his scholarly focus in part because he believes academics ought to reestablish their "capital" every ten years. I like this idea a lot.
23 January 2008
The Story of Stuff, Consumed, Living Simply
Appreciation and stewardship, neither makes sense without the other. Yet here we are.
Yes, Annie Leonard is hokey. But she's an activist, not an actress – err – she's an expert, more accurately. Her presentation got me thinking about my consumerist habits again. Leonard claims that I'm caught up in a system. What system is that? The result of almost a century of short-sighted capitalist success. According to Benjamin Barber's Consumed, this whole situation is a natural consequence of America entering the twilight of capitalism where industries manufacture needs instead of goods. It's not that their product satisfies my needs; no, they have crap to sell and they need me to buy it. Lots of people seem to agree. (I know Andy is one of them - I've never met anyone who despises advertising as much as he does.) Barber steers clear of Leonard's emotional hooks by making it explicit that he does not think this is some diabolical plan.
Barber explains that our perils are a natural consequence of unchecked capitalism: it is simply in the companies' best interest to perpetuate an "infantilist ethos" in America. Since our true needs are mostly satiated, there are only wants to target now. Thus, children make better consumers than adults, so whatever just happens to make adults into children will be the profitable plan. Barber writes a book about this because it's having a detrimental effect on our democracy. Children do not make better citizens than adults.
Barber demonstrates how capitalism interferes with democracy in a simple and fundamental way. Prices in today's market do not reflect the true cost of the product (like Leonard's radio). Thus, when individuals entrust social decisions to the markets, consequences result that no individual would have championed as a public good. I'll leave you to conjure your favorite such consequence, but I'll surmise that global warming, the Iraq war, outsourcing jobs, Enron-esque corruption, $500 million campaign budgets, and Walmart benefits packages might be popular options.
I am aboard the "oh shit, something's wrong" wagon. Part of me can say that it's just a quarter-life crisis - I'm searching for importance and immediacy in my life. Another part of me can quite readily believe that we're starting to see the consequences of the unfettered success of capitalism. So what am I to do?
Politics is a dead-end (actually it's two dead-ends). Barber's infantalism is evident there too. Leonard would say it's a system in crisis. Politics is a world of persuasion and deceit to which I'm quite averse. Even the fresh-blooded good-willed Young Turks are doomed; the lobbyists and party strategists are deeply rooted. I want to discuss and to affect public policy, but I don't see my vote - or my support of a candidate - as an effective means to that end. I asked my senators a direct question and received a generic two-page mailer regurgitating information. The system is broken and rotting from the inside out, and I don't believe it can be used to fix itself. I'm probably pissing off Dani with this paragraph, so I'll move on to my point.
Until I find a positive outlet†, my response will be voluntary simplicity. My favorite thing so far is to refuse plastic bags when I buy anything. I don't need a plastic bag to carry home the pair of socks I just bought! I've had to be fast about it - going for the bag is a knee-jerk reaction for cashiers. I've bought canvas bags for groceries, but I forget them. Turns out it's kind of fun to carry it all out to the car precariously balanced in my arms. Plastic bags are just the most obvious unnecessity‡ that I'm trying to learn to avoid. I'm trying to wear clothes more than once before washing them. And the cold weather has culled this one, but obviously riding my bike to class and to the office is a good idea. Eating-in has been like flossing (which is like trying to quit smoking); it feels good, but only after it's over and done. These are simple things, but they are lowering my "footprint" and my costs.
My hook for this post says appreciation and stewardship come as a package. I appreciate the beauty of this world - I live it, breathe it. But I have not been a steward. My interest in The Story of Stuff, Consumed, and living simply reflect a coming of age. I was first averse to politics and then avoided the issues themselves. I was raised in a world of consumption and then participated in it like a child - saving isn't just not fun, it's difficult, confusing, and overwhelming. Well, I've grown up and am dissatisfied with some of the result. Annie Leonard inspires conscious consuming and Benjamin Barber inspires citizenship. I've started the improvements privately, righting my own wrongs, but, as Barber says, there is no such thing as a private citizen - it's an oxymoron. I must develop a public voice. Ready to engage in a public forum without political poles, I see none. Where has it gone? Was it ever there? I'm honestly interested in the issues now, and I'm disenfranchised by my own cynicism.
(I'm struggling to end this post on an up-beat.) I will avoid politics as long as possible, but I am aware that doing so may in fact lead to a personal impasse. Until then, I seek apolitical communities of practice executing and championing conscious consumption.
† It took a while, but I've finally resigned to start on the local level. But my search has really just begun. Since I've been enjoying reading about social concerns so much, a book club seems like a cool idea. It could be a start.
‡ I'm sad to see that word already exists.
Post post (ha ha) - I've watched the Story of Stuff video a few more times since I first started this post, and it's been less moving. The ideas stand, but the shallow attempts at persuasion have become abrasive. I still think it's a thing to see - awareness and such. It got my blood flowing. But, I have a few favorite parts to mock now. You should read these after you've watched it.
Yes, Annie Leonard is hokey. But she's an activist, not an actress – err – she's an expert, more accurately. Her presentation got me thinking about my consumerist habits again. Leonard claims that I'm caught up in a system. What system is that? The result of almost a century of short-sighted capitalist success. According to Benjamin Barber's Consumed, this whole situation is a natural consequence of America entering the twilight of capitalism where industries manufacture needs instead of goods. It's not that their product satisfies my needs; no, they have crap to sell and they need me to buy it. Lots of people seem to agree. (I know Andy is one of them - I've never met anyone who despises advertising as much as he does.) Barber steers clear of Leonard's emotional hooks by making it explicit that he does not think this is some diabolical plan.
Barber explains that our perils are a natural consequence of unchecked capitalism: it is simply in the companies' best interest to perpetuate an "infantilist ethos" in America. Since our true needs are mostly satiated, there are only wants to target now. Thus, children make better consumers than adults, so whatever just happens to make adults into children will be the profitable plan. Barber writes a book about this because it's having a detrimental effect on our democracy. Children do not make better citizens than adults.
Barber demonstrates how capitalism interferes with democracy in a simple and fundamental way. Prices in today's market do not reflect the true cost of the product (like Leonard's radio). Thus, when individuals entrust social decisions to the markets, consequences result that no individual would have championed as a public good. I'll leave you to conjure your favorite such consequence, but I'll surmise that global warming, the Iraq war, outsourcing jobs, Enron-esque corruption, $500 million campaign budgets, and Walmart benefits packages might be popular options.
I am aboard the "oh shit, something's wrong" wagon. Part of me can say that it's just a quarter-life crisis - I'm searching for importance and immediacy in my life. Another part of me can quite readily believe that we're starting to see the consequences of the unfettered success of capitalism. So what am I to do?
Politics is a dead-end (actually it's two dead-ends). Barber's infantalism is evident there too. Leonard would say it's a system in crisis. Politics is a world of persuasion and deceit to which I'm quite averse. Even the fresh-blooded good-willed Young Turks are doomed; the lobbyists and party strategists are deeply rooted. I want to discuss and to affect public policy, but I don't see my vote - or my support of a candidate - as an effective means to that end. I asked my senators a direct question and received a generic two-page mailer regurgitating information. The system is broken and rotting from the inside out, and I don't believe it can be used to fix itself. I'm probably pissing off Dani with this paragraph, so I'll move on to my point.
Until I find a positive outlet†, my response will be voluntary simplicity. My favorite thing so far is to refuse plastic bags when I buy anything. I don't need a plastic bag to carry home the pair of socks I just bought! I've had to be fast about it - going for the bag is a knee-jerk reaction for cashiers. I've bought canvas bags for groceries, but I forget them. Turns out it's kind of fun to carry it all out to the car precariously balanced in my arms. Plastic bags are just the most obvious unnecessity‡ that I'm trying to learn to avoid. I'm trying to wear clothes more than once before washing them. And the cold weather has culled this one, but obviously riding my bike to class and to the office is a good idea. Eating-in has been like flossing (which is like trying to quit smoking); it feels good, but only after it's over and done. These are simple things, but they are lowering my "footprint" and my costs.
My hook for this post says appreciation and stewardship come as a package. I appreciate the beauty of this world - I live it, breathe it. But I have not been a steward. My interest in The Story of Stuff, Consumed, and living simply reflect a coming of age. I was first averse to politics and then avoided the issues themselves. I was raised in a world of consumption and then participated in it like a child - saving isn't just not fun, it's difficult, confusing, and overwhelming. Well, I've grown up and am dissatisfied with some of the result. Annie Leonard inspires conscious consuming and Benjamin Barber inspires citizenship. I've started the improvements privately, righting my own wrongs, but, as Barber says, there is no such thing as a private citizen - it's an oxymoron. I must develop a public voice. Ready to engage in a public forum without political poles, I see none. Where has it gone? Was it ever there? I'm honestly interested in the issues now, and I'm disenfranchised by my own cynicism.
(I'm struggling to end this post on an up-beat.) I will avoid politics as long as possible, but I am aware that doing so may in fact lead to a personal impasse. Until then, I seek apolitical communities of practice executing and championing conscious consumption.
† It took a while, but I've finally resigned to start on the local level. But my search has really just begun. Since I've been enjoying reading about social concerns so much, a book club seems like a cool idea. It could be a start.
‡ I'm sad to see that word already exists.
Post post (ha ha) - I've watched the Story of Stuff video a few more times since I first started this post, and it's been less moving. The ideas stand, but the shallow attempts at persuasion have become abrasive. I still think it's a thing to see - awareness and such. It got my blood flowing. But, I have a few favorite parts to mock now. You should read these after you've watched it.
- Who buys a radio? At Radioshack? What?
- "Trashing the ... (401 - page not found) ... (User PIN incorrect, please try again) ... (No hablo Inglés) ... (Sorry, we don't have that in stock) ... (Oh boy, I'm in the middle of an environmentalist speech) ... planet."
- "...carried by wind currents!" Like how swallows (2:20 mark) carry coconuts.
16 December 2007
Because complex discomforts just doesn't roll off the tongue
Before ignorance is OK, there was simple pleasures. One contemplative night at Steak n Shake with Jennifer Gunby, I spelled out a new intent. This was waaay back in the early aughts. She probably doesn't remember anything but the malt, and I certainly don't remember my words. I'll try my best.
What is a simple pleasure? Quick. Direct. Immediate. Easy. Inexpensive. Natural. It's what drug addicts would do if there were no psycho-actives. Not basic needs, basic wants.
Examples include chocolate, hot chocolate, cold chocolate, disc golf (or whatever you like even though you should like disc golf), temperate chocolate, that feeling you get after a good long run (note that you get the feeling, I haven't had it in a while), picking up something an old lady dropped (rhymes perhaps?), watching the leaves fall from the trees, writing a haiku (seriously), free performances at KU, and tempting your little nephew with cheese!
Don't get so caught up in achieving the big goals that you forget to be happy now. Have to study? Find a nice view or a cohort that smells nice. Have to work? ... tough it out? (I don't have all the answers.) But if something quick and easy presents itself, go for it—the sky probably won't fall during your indulgence. Seek these out.
As always, implementation is a matter of finding balance. Linderman carves out the spectrum, and now we must find our point on it.
What is a simple pleasure? Quick. Direct. Immediate. Easy. Inexpensive. Natural. It's what drug addicts would do if there were no psycho-actives. Not basic needs, basic wants.
Examples include chocolate, hot chocolate, cold chocolate, disc golf (or whatever you like even though you should like disc golf), temperate chocolate, that feeling you get after a good long run (note that you get the feeling, I haven't had it in a while), picking up something an old lady dropped (rhymes perhaps?), watching the leaves fall from the trees, writing a haiku (seriously), free performances at KU, and tempting your little nephew with cheese!
Don't get so caught up in achieving the big goals that you forget to be happy now. Have to study? Find a nice view or a cohort that smells nice. Have to work? ... tough it out? (I don't have all the answers.) But if something quick and easy presents itself, go for it—the sky probably won't fall during your indulgence. Seek these out.
As always, implementation is a matter of finding balance. Linderman carves out the spectrum, and now we must find our point on it.
05 December 2007
1 blog + 1 blog = 3 blogs?
Note: pressing enter at the wrong time immediately publishes a blog! This is truly an atrocious interface. It is obvious that I'm struggling with it.
The most important lesson I learned from my LiveJournal account in high-school was that blogs are not the place to discuss relationships or relationship issues. A blog is not an actual journal. It should not be used as a therapeutic device for you, since you know other people are reading it! That compromises the privacy, which is essential to the positivity of therapy. The problem in high-school was the twinge of excitement associated with broadcasting feelings so personal. That sort of high comes at the expense of losing the confidence shared between you and the individuals in your audience.
For these reasons, I will never post on this blog about my relationships; it's simply antithetical. But relationships bring out the most important questions and characters--I want to share them! So what's a blogger to do? Let me share two wisdom nuggets (mmmm) before I make two suggestions.
First. In all relationships, I raise my concerns with the other person first and only then ask for others' thoughts. It demonstrates my respect for that person and my acknowledgment that it is only with them that I could ever act upon the issue. Accepting that fact is always the first step towards true resolution. (Such direct discussion is always my first suggestion when people ask for advice.) Consequence: relationship issues have no place on my blog.
Second. 1+1=3 is my favorite lesson from the controversial Human Sexuality course with Dennis Dailey. It says the relationship does not consume the two individuals (1+1=1). Instead they have created something new together (contrast with 1+1=2). (Marriage should not change a woman's last name.) Consequence: respect a relationship as you would an individual.
I see two options.
The most important lesson I learned from my LiveJournal account in high-school was that blogs are not the place to discuss relationships or relationship issues. A blog is not an actual journal. It should not be used as a therapeutic device for you, since you know other people are reading it! That compromises the privacy, which is essential to the positivity of therapy. The problem in high-school was the twinge of excitement associated with broadcasting feelings so personal. That sort of high comes at the expense of losing the confidence shared between you and the individuals in your audience.
For these reasons, I will never post on this blog about my relationships; it's simply antithetical. But relationships bring out the most important questions and characters--I want to share them! So what's a blogger to do? Let me share two wisdom nuggets (mmmm) before I make two suggestions.
First. In all relationships, I raise my concerns with the other person first and only then ask for others' thoughts. It demonstrates my respect for that person and my acknowledgment that it is only with them that I could ever act upon the issue. Accepting that fact is always the first step towards true resolution. (Such direct discussion is always my first suggestion when people ask for advice.) Consequence: relationship issues have no place on my blog.
Second. 1+1=3 is my favorite lesson from the controversial Human Sexuality course with Dennis Dailey. It says the relationship does not consume the two individuals (1+1=1). Instead they have created something new together (contrast with 1+1=2). (Marriage should not change a woman's last name.) Consequence: respect a relationship as you would an individual.
I see two options.
- I can post reflections inspired by my relationships. These are my thoughts about me, and hence fair game. (This line seems a thin one.)
- What if a relationship had its own blog? It'd be weird, yes, but it could be neat. The
couplepair (friendships too, of course!) cooperates to write the posts after important conversations and decisions take place. Or they share happy things they did together. It'd be constructive, thoughtful, and wholesome. I am sure I would smile at my friends' blog.
Remember Thomas Paine?
I have found the words that I struggle to live by. This quote is featured on the walls at the delectable Mountain Rose Cafe (pic) in Winter Park, Colorado.
(It is a bit disappointing that he did not write those exact words. The quote is derived from his Rights of Man (1791), "...; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good." I had no luck sourcing the brethren part.)
The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.I followed up at Wikipedia and discovered that I've neglected Thomas Paine all these years! He was both admirably ahead of his time and inspirational for his contemporaries.Thomas Paine
(It is a bit disappointing that he did not write those exact words. The quote is derived from his Rights of Man (1791), "...; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good." I had no luck sourcing the brethren part.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
